Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

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."

So the answers are:

1) No, there's no direct evidence of detailed photos of the ground under Filomena's window. All you have is some sort of inference (based, I might add, on flawed logic). There's also no reference - either in Massei, or in any contemporaneous media reports, or from the police or Mignini - that such photos exist.

2) You still don't appear to understand that the two trial processes (Guede and Knox/Sollecito) are completely at liberty - both legally and ethically - to construct different scenarios of the crime which contradict each other. And they have already done so with ToD. Tant pis.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I don't know how to make it any clearer: your argument is incorrect. Shame that none of the paralegals elsewhere didn't appear to have the time to explain it to you more carefully.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Well, they were found guilty of murder - and sentenced accordingly - based not on monetary gain or a crime of passion, but based on a murder which was the result of a sex game gone wrong. So I'd say that the court which found them guilty has an "idea" of the dynamic. An incorrect idea, but an idea nonetheless.

And perhaps you can point me towards any group murders which are done for reasons other than money, power or control (e.g. gangs) where the protagonists didn't know each other for long (or not at all) prior to the murder. Let alone one where of the protagonists A, B and C, A&B had known each other for six days, A&C had exchanged pleasantries once or twice, and B&C had never met before at all.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

Indeed: and at the same time, Fuji might want to ask himself why a supposed specialist photographer in the "crack" forensics team found herself collecting crucial physical evidence in the small bathroom. He might then ask himself why her collection technique was so extraordinarily sloppy and improper.

Maybe I'll get a plumber over to look at my electrical wiring: the jobs can't be that specialised, can they....?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Your understanding is wrong. Articles 629-647 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure allow for a further "review" (i.e. appeal) at any time following conviction - including after any sentence has been carried out. It lays down the grounds for this appeal, which include new evidence or different findings in different courts (take note, Fuji).

 

[LondonJohn]

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

You're damn right you will! Yeah!!

 

[Kaosium]

RoseMontague,

Thank you. Sabrina's mother doing a perp walk and being spat at is just horrible. This is a good example of why we should get rid of perp walks in all nations.

What?!?

I was unfamiliar with this charming 'custom' until this case due to my previous avoidance policy regarding this subject, and was dismayed to see it depressingly noted numerous times in this and previous threads that it happens many places in the US as well. The police around where I come from seem to think the best way to transport suspects is from one inaccessible location to another for security reasons. This strikes me as a no-brainer, perhaps others will come to the same conclusion someday.

Just thinking about it brings to mind what that crusty old colonel in Huck Finn had to say about the composition of mobs...and his proactive approach to such situations. Not very nice thoughts to have...

 

[Diocletus]

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.

Same here. As soon as I read the staging discussion in Massei, I knew that something terrible had happened.

By the way, I find it bizarre that Massei chose to address and decide the issue of "staging" BEFORE he examined the issue of TOD/alibi. Logically, you would not decide that the defendants "staged" the breakin before you determined whether they had a good alibi. If you reverse logic, as Massei did, then you HAVE TO conclude that the alibi is bad since you have already decided that the defendants staged the breakin. Further, you have to "engineer" TOD to fall outside of the potential range of any irrefutable alibi. Again, Massei clearly does this.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.)

Oh, I just read this little gem! Are you really intending to assert that the prosecution can claim the break in was staged, and that unless the defence can prove categorically that it wasn't staged, it should be assumed that the prosecution's version is the correct one?

You don't think that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that the break-in was staged (not merely that it might have been staged)? Really?

 

[Mary_H]

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 .

As far as I know, no one yet has provided a documented source for the statistics about trial outcomes in Italy. Peter Quennell has given a statistic, but there is no citation.

I have looked for the statistics several times, and so far have found only statistics about crime in Italy, not about the outcomes of trials.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

Remember Rolfe is a pathologist who read the portion of Massei on the duodenum contents I posted in the other thread verbatim along with my attempt at de-obfuscating it. From lurking a thread regarding a subject she has displayed vast knowledge of trying to figure out WTF happened there I didn't get the impression she was the sort who simply accepted the conclusions of courts when they didn't make any sense.

Perhaps I am mistaken, I certainly wouldn't want to misrepresent anyone's position, I just kinda thought it was funny so I made a joke.

 

[Mary_H]

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".

I continue to differ with your original claim. Instead of stating that "lack of evidence is hardly exculpatory," it would be more accurate to state that "lack of evidence is not necessarily exculpatory."

 

[katy_did]

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.

I don't think your argument (or the reasoning behind it) is very clear at all. What is it specifically about the Supreme Court judgment that makes you think the multiple attacker theory is set in stone?

After the judgment was published some people were arguing that since the SC endorsed the previous courts' theory of multiple attackers, this would have a knock-on effect for Knox/Sollecito's appeal. As you say, this was a ridiculous argument: it means that if (for e.g.) the SC found the knife evidence 'convincing', the further testing carried out by Hellmann's court would mean nothing.

But you seem to be arguing something different: that the existence of multiple attackers is implicit in the crime with which Guede was charged, and that he would have been charged with something different if he was accused of being the sole attacker. If this is the case then simply the fact of Guede being found guilty would confirm multiple attackers - not anything that was said in the SC decision.

So which of these is it? What you're arguing would be clearer if you were more specific.

 

[Alt+F4]

Your understanding is wrong. Articles 629-647 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure allow for a further "review" (i.e. appeal) at any time following conviction - including after any sentence has been carried out. It lays down the grounds for this appeal, which include new evidence or different findings in different courts (take note, Fuji).

If inconsistent verdicts allow the possibility of another RG appeal or the possible setting aside of his conviction, then Fuji is right, the AK/RS appeal will reject the "lone wolf" theory - and not for any legal reasons.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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?

I was hoping that there would be someone who is more adept with search engines than myself might have found more information. However, as Pilot Pardon states there are no breakdowns for example between capital crimes like murder and shop lifting, as for your other points I doubt those categories exist.

Another question which I asked yesterday; does anyone know whether prisoner transfers between Italy and other countries are permitted in capital cases?

 

[Mary_H]

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.

The logical (and moral) conclusion for the court to draw would be that the prosecution was not able to prove that the victim was murdered by anyone other than Rudy Guede. Nor were they able to prove whether the break-in was actual or staged, or who was responsible for it.

 

[Matthew Best]

'Court Session' / class is over for now. In fact, it may be a long recess

Good God, I hope so.

 

[Mary_H]

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

What was it in the Massei report that you found persuasive, platonov?

 

[Rolfe]

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.

Oooh, get him! "Publicly take such a position" forsooth.

News flash. The name I write on my cheques is not "Rolfe". (Or the name I type on my pathology reports either, apart from one infamous evening working from home and browsing the forum in between reports....) This is an internet forum, not the letters page of a broadsheet newspaper complete with a requirement for actual names and addresses.

I expressed my current view on the matter, based on my reading of some of the posts in the three threads. If the side which is coming over significantly less compelling has better points to make, I find it difficult to understand why they don't just make them.

As for the argument that the court must have some super-sekrit evidence that wasn't referred to in the public report, and wasn't reported by anyone who attended the trial, that's simply fatuous.

I don't understand what it is about some people on this forum, who call themselves sceptics, but at the same time cannot be sceptical of court verdicts which are after all reached by fallible human beings with no clairvoyance or telepathic powers to help them. Justice is supposed to be public and transparent. If a significant number of normally intelligent people find good reason to believe there is reasonable doubt about a verdict, this cannot be allayed simply by parroting that the court found them GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY.

ETA: As I said, I'm currently frying much bigger fish, and have no inclination to add a 400-page translation of an Italian judgement to my reading list. I'm rubber-necking, deal with it.

Rolfe.

 

[Mairanse]

Me again...

I became interested in this case after not being able to find a piece of evidence that seemed insurmountable such as some of the blood evidence in the OJ trial.

I would still say I'm not convinced of their innocence because I haven't read everything there is to read but I seem to be leaning towards innocence given the lack of forensic evidence in the murder room.

I am however troubled by neither AK or RS mentioning they were up listening to music at 5AM? Amanda doesn't mention it in her letter to the police and it appears RS mentions it now that he knows the computer records show it. Given they were partying on Halloween and stoned/sex'd/movie watching/sleeping on the night of the murder, how do we make sense of it?