Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

I didn't mention the prosecution appeal.

As its a trial de novo - I think I have heard that mentioned once or twice - the Afghani might look at the entirety of the first trial evidence/judgment and decide that ruling out premeditation was yet another of Massei's errors. Or not.

That's what I was referring to - wasn't it obvious ?

This free association is not as easy as it looks you know

I believe you said:

And perhaps seeing as the mitigation in the 1st AK/RS trial was partly dependant on the covering the body and the knife having been carried for protection which we are assured is Massei nonsense [I don't believe it myself as it happens], perhaps in a perverse fit of pique* the appeal court will increase the sentences on the main charge from 24 to 30.

They might increase the sentences but not because of the knife being carried for protection nonsense. The prosecution is not appealing on that. It was this part of your post I was referring to.

The alleged carrying of the knife was not even mentioned in Massei as a mitigating factor. Instead it contributed to adding an extra year on to Amanda's sentence.

 

[Alt+F4]

This isn't a capital case. There is no death penalty in Italy.

Yes, Matthew is correct. There is no death penalty in EU countries so if Amanda did get a prisoner transfer to the U.S. she would not be subjected to it.

 

[Rolfe]

But this may explain why 'we' come across so badly relative to normally intelligent people

Bear in mind that when I was typing that paragraph I was talking about forum members in general, not confining my remarks to this thread.

Alt+F4 means well and that may be good advice but it's not strictly necessary.

There is a less time consuming method

If you can find a number of normally intelligent people on a a website who state that the conviction is unsafe/ridiculous/ a conspiracy that's all you need. Primary documentation is apparently for parrots and buffoons.

Remember that's how the holohoax and the faked moon landings etc were exposed.

If you don't like my opinion, then try to change it. I assure you, I have no horse in this race. However, if you spend your time on personalities and irrelevancies, don't be surprised if the uncommitted lurker doesn't leap to espouse your conclusions.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe it was shuttlt that also stated they have not yet read the Massei report. Personally, I like to read the documents that are available and read the Google translation of Massei before the PMF translation was done. Still, everything that is meaningful in the report has most likely been quoted here on several occasions and reading it will not reveal the super sekrit evidence for guilt or the photographs of the ground below the window.

I appreciate opinions from people regardless if they have read the report or not.

 

[Kaosium]

The only case relevant here is the Amanda Knox case.

Not in the context of that question, nor other cases where similar patterns are noted.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

No, Fuji is wrong. Neither he nor you (seemingly) understand the issue here. I will attempt (again) to explain:

1) The court in the Knox/Sollecito trial will make a completely independednt finding of facts, totally separate from the findings of fact in the Guede trials.

2) Some of these facts may tally with those from Guede's trials, and some may not.

3) The findings of fact from Guede's trials will in no way influence the findings of fact in the Knox/Sollecito trials: the Knox/Sollecito trials will reach findings of fact based purely on the direct evidence presented to it, the arguments of the lawyers for both sides, and the court's own arguments.

4) If the Knox/Sollecito trials reach findings of fact which tend to exonerate Guede (which they likely won't in any case*), this would enable Guede to apply for a further judicial review of his case.

5) Similarly, if Guede's trials had somehow exonerated Knox or Sollecito (they haven't), they could apply for a further judicial review if they were finally convicted.

6) The very fact that the Italian Code of Criminal Procedures allows for further appeals if different trials' findings of fact are contradictory is indication in itself that this not only can happen: it does happen sometimes.

7) My view is that the appeal court may well conclude that there is insufficient evidence that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the crime, but that there is sufficient evidence that Guede was involved (whether alone or as part of a group - this is not a matter upon which Knox's/Sollecito's court needs to make a ruling). If this happens, Knox and Sollecito will be acquitted and Guede will have no recourse to a further appeal. Case closed! (as some in Perugia are fond of saying....)

* If, for example, the Knox/Sollecito appeal court found that the murder was in fact carried out by Aviello's brother and his friend - and that none of Knox, Sollecito or Guede had been directly involved (which it won't find, but let's hypothesise for a moment...), then Guede would have the right to appeal his conviction.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Physics in Perugia

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.
SNIP
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,

Your answer generates no traction with me (except for the last paragraph), and it shows you did not understand one of two of komponisto’s main points. For starters, LondonJohn has argued here the connection between the alleged staging and the pair’s guilt is strong, but it is not unassailable, because Guede might have had a motive to stage the burglary. Neither he nor I think Guede's staging the burglary is likely. I think it unlikely because Guede did not spend much time cleaning up, and it suggests to me that he might have been worried about someone else’s coming home. Therefore, even if he had wished to stage a scene, I do not think he would have done so. So let us assume that if the scene were staged, the two are guilty for the time being. And let us also assume that the alleged staging is the only evidence available to us. Your answer implies that it is sufficient evidence; therefore, there is no problem in employing a second simplification.

Komponisto argued that if the scene were not staged then the two are innocent. Your position can be restated as, “The evidence of staging is beyond a reasonable doubt.” If it were less than that, one would have to support acquittal. You find the sworn testimony convincing, if I read 10767 correctly. I am not sure how the defense could have challenged his testimony I court, but I trust physics more. When Sgt. Pasquali showed that the spray of glass into the room was consistent with a throw from the outside, he also showed it was inconsistent with the window’s being broken from the inside, as Massei conjectured. The momentum and the point of impact are both different in Pasquali’s version versus Massei’s version.

I assign more weight to Pasquali for several reasons, including the fact that even if someone swore to not finding glass, it says little about how carefully they looked. And I am of the opinion that the laws of physics (and physiology) work in Perugia the same as they work elsewhere. Even if one assigned equal probabilities to Sgt. Pasquali’s reconstruction being correct and the sworn testimony’s accurately reflecting the lack of glass, one still has to say that the state did not meet its burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt). That’s not wankery; that’s the law.

 

[LondonJohn]

Does it make a difference. Man I almost wish I hadn't mentioned it now - I had forgotten the avaricious hunger of this thread for pointless nonsense.

But OK.

For any utility the numbers would first need to refer to murder trials, and then be further qualified by comparison with similar trials as regards the nature of the evidence, unanimous conviction or not etc etc etc.


Its hard to see what meaningful comparisons could be made with a crime in any case as extraordinary and unique as we are so often told this one is.


But hold on, bear with me for a moment - let me go out on a limb here.


I know this hasn't been mentioned here before but a very similar trial was recently conducted where a guy call Rudy Guede was convicted of a similar offence. [ In fact on looking further into this it appears much of the same evidence from the same investigation was used ]

How did that trial go on appeal ?

I think you'll find that any half-decent prosecutor could have persuaded a judicial panel in both his trials (original trial and first appeal) to convict Guede with very little effort: he was demonstrably (and irrefutably) in Meredith's room at or shortly after the time of her murder (viz his hand print in her blood on the pillow case), and his post-crime behaviour of a) not contacting anyone (least of all any emergency services), b) going out dancing and then c) fleeing to Germany are entirely inconsistent with his claims of coming across Meredith dying and trying unsuccessfully to revive her.

Please note that all of the above evidence - which in my view is sufficient to convict Guede all by itself - is irrelevant in the case against Knox or Sollecito. And that (in my opinion) is why Guede has been correctly convicted, and why Knox and Sollecito will likely be acquitted on appeal. There's simply not sufficient evidence to prove that they participated in the crime.

 

[babycondor]

... So let us assume that if the scene were staged, the two are guilty for the time being. ...

IF the scene were deliberately staged by Amanda and Rafaelle, that is. Certainly not proven BRD (beyond reasonable doubt), as you pointed out.

In my opinion there was plenty of "staging" done, intentionally or not, by other individuals during the investigation. Wrapping that mop and carrying it into Meredith's room, for example. And spraying that awful pink stain all over the bathroom, for another. The filmed the bra clasp collection...etc.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

police staging

IF the scene were deliberately staged by Amanda and Rafaelle, that is. Certainly not proven BRD (beyond reasonable doubt), as you pointed out.

In my opinion there was plenty of "staging" done, intentionally or not, by other individuals during the investigation. Wrapping that mop and carrying it into Meredith's room, for example. And spraying that awful pink stain all over the bathroom, for another. The filmed the bra clasp collection...etc.

babycondor,

I agree with both of your points about staging. The pink bathroom photo was one of the lowest points in the case, and that is going a piece. I chose to accept Fuji's assumption for simplicity. Even if one does, his argument rests on assigning great weight to the lack of glass on the ground below and no weight at all to Pasquali's reconstruction, and I see no reason to do either one.

 

[platonov]

Bear in mind that when I was typing that paragraph I was talking about forum members in general, not confining my remarks to this thread.




If you don't like my opinion, then try to change it. I assure you, I have no horse in this race. However, if you spend your time on personalities and irrelevancies, don't be surprised if the uncommitted lurker doesn't leap to espouse your conclusions.

Rolfe.

I have no intention trying to change your or anyone else's opinion.

I asked a Q on the 'science' HERE and got no response (unsurprisingly) and actually responded to Fuji's post that was directed to you.

Indeed given that you are so convinced by arguments that I find by turn plainly ill-informed, mendacious, risible, chauvinistic (sometimes racist) and misogynistic* [and exhibit other features that I cant mention here] I'm not sure it would be possible should I even care to try.

As a result I can assure you I have absolutely no problem being on the other side of fence from you on this issue.

* This is a particularly charming example I came across while searching for another post recently where a poster had the 'idea' for a new thread exploring a sexual relationship between MK and one of the men [RG] convicted of her rape/murder unless comments about the vitriolic attacks on MKs father weren't discontinued.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Only the page numbers on the italian original will be unchanging for the duration of this debate. The PMF translators were simply wrong to impose a new numbering scheme on their version and claim that is somehow more official. When the full translation of the partially missing page is inserted, when questionable translations are updated and when commentary is added; the English page numbers will change and all the references to those english pages will be invalid. But my references using the official page numbers of thhe original Italian document will still be valid and they will be valid for any future translation to any other language too.

If you want to continue using the page numbers that are only valid for a specific version of one translation, go ahead. But don't go attacking me for not following your perverted rules.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have no intention trying to change your or anyone else's opinion.

I asked a Q on the 'science' HERE and got no response (unsurprisingly) and actually responded to Fuji's post that was directed to you.

Indeed given that you are so convinced by arguments that I find by turn plainly ill-informed, mendacious, risible, chauvinistic (sometimes racist) and misogynistic* [and exhibit other features that I cant mention here] I'm not sure it would be possible should I even care to try.

As a result I can assure you I have absolutely no problem being on the other side of fence from you on this issue.

* This is a particularly charming example I came across while searching for another post recently where a poster had the 'idea' for a new thread exploring a sexual relationship between MK and one of the men [RG] convicted of her rape/murder unless comments about the vitriolic attacks on MKs father weren't discontinued.

The alleged carrying of the knife for protection actually contributed to another year on Amanda's sentence (the opposite of a mitigating factor).

 

[platonov]

The alleged carrying of the knife for protection actually contributed to another year on Amanda's sentence (the opposite of a mitigating factor).

No it was 3 months* and I was being more than a little 'speculative' in any case regarding the Afghani and 'premeditation' - Hence the "Or Not" and the earlier "perverse fit of pique"

* Not much relative to 26 yrs (or 25.75 if you wish for precision) or a 'possible' addition (of say 6yrs) for a finding of premeditation.

 

[Draca]

babycondor,

I chose to accept Fuji's assumption for simplicity. Even if one does, his argument rests on assigning great weight to the lack of glass on the ground below and no weight at all to Pasquali's reconstruction, and I see no reason to do either one.

I agree, I think it is very possible that no noticeable signs of climbing would be left on the ground or wall during a break-in.

The point about the lack of photos is that Massei makes it a big factor on why the break-in HAD to be staged. He bases this on the observations of one officer who failed in her job to photograph the crime scene by documenting this with photos. To make it worse, Ron Hendry has pointed out a photo taken of the cottage where it DOES look like someone possibly left marks on the top of the window from standing there.

Massei pg 51 on Pasquali
"The climber, in leaning his hands and then his feet or knees on the windowsill, would have caused at least some piece of glass to fall, or at least would have been obliged to shift some pieces of glass in order to avoid being wounded by them. Instead, no piece of glass was found under the window, and no sign of any wound was seen on the pieces of glass found in Romanelli's room."

"These are elements and considerations which do not appear to deserve the emphasis given to them by the consultant."

Here Massei dismisses Pasquali because of the lack of glass as observed by Gioia Brocci. The power this officer's words are given! An expert opinion is considered by Massei to not have even shown the break-in as a reasonable possibility because Gioia Brocci said so - there was no glass, nothing.

I find this part of the Massei Report particularly depressing. Massei bases the staged break-in on his personal bias and logic. His logic can not be proven right or wrong and hey, he's the judge, so he wins. There doesn't seem to be anything the defense can do to protest against the judges logic. After Micheli's spiderman comment they might not have realized this would be such an issue.

I think the 'staged' break-in remains a real threat in the appeal because it is based on a judges choice and logic. Massei has shown that he can decide what he wants despite what evidence was or was not presented. It doesn't matter that the prosecution didn't present proof of no glass or markings - hey they have super observer Gioia Brocci on the beat. It also doesn't matter that, unlike the defense's Pasquali, the prosecution didn't make a demonstration showing how the glass could be distributed across the room throwing the rock toward the wardrobe.

What if photos existed and there were no signs as stated? Would the lack of marks on the wall and ground be proof that that someone couldn't have broken in through the window. Why, even if true, would visible clues have to have been left? Is it unreasonable that no glass or marks would be left?

 

[Danceme]

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?

They should have mentioned it. Raffaele also should have mentioned he stayed up all night with his laptop (as the defense claims is proved by the computer records) while Amanda slept (because none of her stories contained this all night video watching/surfing? detail) but this would have contradicted his story to the police that Amanda could have left while he was sleeping (which he wasn't if you believe computer records show that).
Raffaele should have testified to their alibi, he didn't. That was a mistake given the evidence (and make of that what you will) presented in terms of phone and computer records as well as Amanda's own testimony which did not describe their night this way. What exactly was a jury to make of this?

 

[Danceme]

Massei pg 51 on Pasquali
"The climber, in leaning his hands and then his feet or knees on the windowsill, would have caused at least some piece of glass to fall, or at least would have been obliged to shift some pieces of glass in order to avoid being wounded by them. Instead, no piece of glass was found under the window, and no sign of any wound was seen on the pieces of glass found in Romanelli's room."

I think Massei is more convinced by the shards of glass still laying on the sill that were not swiped away by the intruder as he balanced there trying to open the window latch. Even if he came over via the planter wall he could have brushed them off with his foot before he stepped on or as he stepped on the sill as no doubt it would be pretty precarious standing on a shallow ledge almost 14 feet in the air with the added slipperiness of large pieces of broken glass underfoot.
It would seem if this break in were real that the intruder went out of his way to make things difficult for himself.

 

[theRealBob]

babycondor,

I agree with both of your points about staging. The pink bathroom photo was one of the lowest points in the case, and that is going a piece. I chose to accept Fuji's assumption for simplicity. Even if one does, his argument rests on assigning great weight to the lack of glass on the ground below and no weight at all to Pasquali's reconstruction, and I see no reason to do either one.

There isn't any great evidence to support staging a breakin.
I believe the placing of the larger pieces of glass on the sill is the most convincing evidence concerning the breakin theories. The evidence points to someone finding a way in through the window.
I don't see any great need for there to be glass on the ground ...outside..the window.

Also a quite important factor in this case which seems to arise with every bit of evidence debate is - : if the cops say there wasn't any glass on the ground below, that doesn't mean it's true.

 

[theRealBob]

. Personally, I like to read the documents that are available and read the Google translation of Massei before the PMF translation was done. Still, everything that is meaningful in the report has most likely been quoted here on several occasions and reading it will not reveal the super sekrit evidence for guilt or the photographs of the ground below the window.
.

The Massei report is mainly interesting for finding the bias in his musings on the evidence.
His personal staged breakin theories are totally imaginitive and unreliable.

 

[Draca]

I think Massei is more convinced by the shards of glass still laying on the sill that were not swiped away by the intruder as he balanced there trying to open the window latch. Even if he came over via the planter wall he could have brushed them off with his foot before he stepped on or as he stepped on the sill as no doubt it would be pretty precarious standing on a shallow ledge almost 14 feet in the air with the added slipperiness of large pieces of broken glass underfoot.
It would seem if this break in were real that the intruder went out of his way to make things difficult for himself.

There is plenty of room to the right side of the window sill to enter the room.

For that matter, where is the proof of staging. If they staged the window, why didn't they sprinkle glass along the the whole sill ? Why did glass only land on the right hand side after they threw the rock from the inside?