Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

I see the posters at PMF have noticed that the overall tenor of the reporting of Monday's hearing was very much in favour of the innocence camp, despite all their googling that the experts' report was going to be denounced as superficial, non-expert and biassed.

So the current "big, scary story" is how the Friends of Amanda and their expensive public relations company have succeeded in manipulating all the news media.

A small army of paid staff and unpaid volunteers has successfully inserted the FOA spin into newspapers, TV shows, Amazon reviews, blogs, letters to politicians, and even Wikipedia.

IMHO this is a story that deserves significant national attention.

I completely agree, Norbert. This is the bigger, scary story. Until this case came along I had no idea how relatively easy (with connections and palm grease) it would be to twist the news so thoroughly.

I note the discussion here is characterised as "biased, agenda driven one sided shallowness."

Wow.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

Speaking of movies I would have to say the twist, turns, up’s and downs of the police investigation, evidence gather, evil prosecutors et al, trial and appeal would not believed as a movie plot. Fact is or media reports are indeed stranger than fiction. The attached link relates to the recent witness Aviello allegedly changing his story, what is the world coming when prison witnesses cannot be trusted.

http://www.umbria24.it/meredith-aviello-%C2%ABho-detto-cose-false-concordate-con-gli-avvocati-di-sollecito-in-cambio-di-soldi%C2%BB/52791.html

I have no idea whether the above is accurate I post only to see whether others can confirm or refute.

I have no idea either, and this part won't make the movie unless they want it to be a farce, or the black comedy the 'investigation' and judicial process has suggested to me in the past. Aviello has zero credibility with me, the eight slander suits say something, which is why I was never interested in his testimony. If there was any truth to his ever-changing story, there would have been a knife and keys found where he said there would be. If in fact Raffaele's lawyers, his sister Vanessa--a former Carabinieri officer--and Amanda's lawyer CDV really conspired to suborn perjury from the grass man cometh, they would have managed to ensure a knife that would match the wounds with human blood traces (but no DNA)and a set of keys would be found. In fact if they really wanted to, they could have probably gotten a copy of the cottage door lock made as well, after all the cottage just sat there for months, if not years, unoccupied.

If they would risk losing everything they'd worked for in their lives and even face prison time, they wouldn't have settled for such an easily falsifiable story, especially when they could 'make it right' with a little work if they were going to go to that extreme. Thus my guess is Aviello is just telling stories for attention, though I suppose it is possible the prosecution put him up to this one in lieu of prosecuting him for the last one, I notice the slander investigation stemming from the story he told in court about his brother has been closed as well.

What scares me is that 30k Euros isn't that much money, and there's at least twelve police officers, two prosecutors and one little lab-tech dearly in need of any port in a storm at this moment. However, if there was actually any truth to the thought there's 30k in an apartment in Turin, you'd think they'd find that out before this all became public, also they wouldn't have concocted such an amusing counter-story with the famed transsexual and the sex-change, thus my speculation is Aviello is just an entertaining liar who's enjoying the attention to his fabrications.

 

[Justinian2]

Hi Bolint,
I'm glad to see you drop by today, so please allow me to join the discussion with you...

You bring up a different scenerio than most other Colpevolisti members, so I want to ask you why do you believe that Amanda Knox, -(after being told by text from her boss that she did not have to work that night and then, after speaking with Jovanna Popovic, who said to tell Raffaele that she did not need him to do that late night favor for her), even went back to her home that night?

What made her run over there, -(without Raffaele in tow for safety reasons), that couldn't wait until morning when she and Raffaele were planning to go on that day trip to Gubbio? Fresh clothes? A good long hot shower and to grab some sexy lingerie? What was it?

The motivation wasn’t addressed properly in the first trial. I read that motivation will be addressed at the end of this appeal. This should be interesting. The problem is that the jury might take such an interest in the motivations – even if imaginary – that they forget that there is no forensic evidence to verify any attack. The prosecution’s comic book variety fantasy motivation written by the plausibly perverted prosecutor might capture the interest of a jury to the point where they forget reality.

You raised a couple of good points. Of course the evidence doesn’t support the hypothesis that Amanda left her apartment and ran over to the house she shared with the other victim.

However, for this rendezvous to have any merit as a planned event, Amanda would have had to have called Guede to arrange the meeting. Of course there is no evidence that Amanda ever met or talked to Guede other than by one random introduction. How could this be first degree murder (I understand that first degree murder isn’t a concept supported by Italian law), if it required that Amanda had to be more or less randomly called by her boss and told she didn’t have to come in that night. If this was a planned sexual encounter, it would have had to have been planned in advance. It would also plausibly require abstinence from sex of all types including self-sex.

Further plausible requirements for interests in self mutilation and the mutilation of others (as proposed by the prosecution) are long term boredom and long term sexual frustrations. Guede would have had met these requirements since he was a loner, out of work and not going to school. Amanda and her boyfriend were engaged in school and doing well. They were in a new love affair. They were not in the same emotional category as Guilty Guede. Not even close.

The other parts of your response are very interesting too. I will respond to them later as I don’t want this response to get overly long.

 

[spartacus]

Aviello was obviously either seeking attention or purposely trying to mess with the judicial system from the beginning, or both. The lawyer of Sollecito Giulia Bongiorno is a popular member of parliament and famous for getting off the former Italian prime minister on corruption charges and collaboration with the mafia. Accusing her of trying to pay him off is like Charles Manson accusing Hillary Clinton of trying to buy him off. No one in Italy really believes it.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I see the posters at PMF have noticed that the overall tenor of the reporting of Monday's hearing was very much in favour of the innocence camp, despite all their googling that the experts' report was going to be denounced as superficial, non-expert and biassed.

So the current "big, scary story" is how the Friends of Amanda and their expensive public relations company have succeeded in manipulating all the news media.







I note the discussion here is characterised as "biased, agenda driven one sided shallowness."

Wow.

Rolfe.

It is pretty transparent. Like I said, these people only respect the system when it's going their way. Now it's obviously going in the opposite direction and conspiracy theories are flying everywhere on that site. The trashing of Hellmann right now is just beginning and will just get more directed in the near future because it's obvious what's happening.

His independent experts aren't "independent" now, simply because they came to a conclusion that goes against their stupid paradigms. Right now the murmurings about Hellmann are just passive, but just watch. It will get worse.

http://i.imgur.com/gG9tg.png

 

[Kaosium]

The shoeprints from Meredith's door to the entrance originate from where?
Inside the room there are know shoeprints near the door.
Likewise there are know shoeprints at all in the bathroom.
The first shoeprint is magically in front of the door, out of nothing.
How is it possible?
(Do we have an image of this first shoeprint?)

You can find pictures of the shoeprints here and a layout of the bedroom here, it looks like perhaps there was at one point something in front of the door. Regarding the bathroom, it is my understanding at that point Rudy wasn't wearing at least one shoe. At some point he must have gone from shoes, to no shoe to make the bathmat print, to wearing shoes again as he left. Where he put his shoes back on is relevant to where footprints start and begin.

I don't think that there was cleanup going on after the first phone call.
I even doubt that Amanda was in the cottage between 10:00-12:30
She was there earlier.

Why do you think that?

It is quite clear that Raffaele did not see the toilet in the state it was discovered by the police. Otherwise he wouldn't have said that it was clean.
And yet, he said that he looked at it and it was clean. Is not it a lie?
(the rest later)

Or maybe just a mistake? I dunno 'bout you, but I don't know any perfect people, and in any recounting of complex events there is bound to be incorrect information given and misguided understandings. In fact it dominates this case, especially in regards to police. One cannot look at the mote in Raffaele's (and Amanda's) eye and ignore the beam in the policemens' eye in this case. In any event Raffaele and Amanda are hardly 'professional' murder witnesses, however the police--and prosecutors--ought to be held to a higher standard as they are supposedly professionals, and hold the lives and freedoms of people in their claws.

However in this case there are so many instances of police and prosecution mistakes/lies it beggars the imagination, so I'll make a bet with you: pull out all the 'lies' you can find from Raffaele and Amanda, and I'll match it with one from police and prosecutors in this case, and far more relevantly I'll show how those lies/mistakes from police and prosecutors were meaningful in as much as they served to defame the defendants as 'liars' or degenerates and some of them were even produced in court as 'evidence' against them!

99% (or so) of the time it ought to be the other way around, this just happens to be one of the cases where 'every cop is a criminal and all the sinners saints.' Not literally of course, but close enough so you can't help but to notice.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Aviello was obviously either seeking attention or purposely trying to mess with the judicial system from the beginning, or both. The lawyer of Sollecito Giulia Bongiorno is a popular member of parliament and famous for getting off the former Italian prime minister on corruption charges and collaboration with the mafia. Accusing her of trying to pay him off is like Charles Manson accusing Hillary Clinton of trying to buy him off. No one in Italy really believes it.

You are probably right about how Italians may view this latest twist. However, it still begs the question why were any of the prison witnesses called in the first place; it was a high risk strategy.

 

[HumanityBlues]

You are probably right about how Italians may view this latest twist. However, it still begs the question why were any of the prison witnesses called in the first place; it was a high risk strategy.

High risk strategy or not, it doesn't really matter anymore. What the independent experts had to say is far more important and significant. What are your thoughts on their conclusions?

 

[Diocletus]

There are hints elsewhere that the cops are going to try and claim the evidence collection video was somehow doctored in collusion with the defense.

I highly doubt that they were in open communication with the defense. If they were, that would be quite a problem.

More likely, I think, is that their conclusions resemble/echo things said by the defense experts in the first trial. And that would be for the simple reason that they agree with them. Contrary to this being an "incriminating" point, the more experts that come together and agree on a point, the more likely they are to be right.

I'm sure though, that Comodi and Stefanoni are scratching their heads trying to figure out how all these experts could be so wrong, and concluding simplistically that they must be "colluding."

 

[Kaosium]

You are probably right about how Italians may view this latest twist. However, it still begs the question why were any of the prison witnesses called in the first place; it was a high risk strategy.

I think Aviello might have been to 'show up' the Massei Court, and this one backfired in their face as it suggested this was one instance where Massei ruled against the defence and was absolutely right to do so. In Italy there's the 'inquisitorial' search for the truth motif, thus prosecutors and courts are compelled to hear testimony from basically anyone without regard to much of anything in the way of standards. This is how clowns like the olive-throwing guy and Curatolo end up in court, as they're required by law and tradition to hear them out unless they're certain their testimony will be untrue. Therefore Giancarlo Massei should have allowed Aviello to testify, but did not, and now we see he was right to do so.

Alessi and the other two that actually testified is something completely different and under the same procedures of the Italian Courts is something the defense isn't 'responsible' for, and thus wasn't taking a 'risk.' That had to happen under the Court's auspices, elsewise they were failing in their duty to search for the truth. All three of them corroborated that Guede told them Raffaele and Amanda weren't there, which is meaningful testimony any way you look at it, and required for the court to hear, and the defense couldn't have stopped it even if they wanted to. Keep in mind one of those guys was shrouded because the state uses his testimony in other cases to convict criminals, as authorities do with similar characters in both our countries, thus just because they're behind bars doesn't indicate their testimony is meaningless, nor does it reflect on the defendants who have no choice who Rudy talks to.

 

[Fine]

Where was that rock found?

I knew this video, too.
Now look again the scene images where the real rock was found. Unlike the test rock which settles in a middle position, the real rock is far to the right. In the test video's room it would be around the table's leg.

As for the glass, my problem is with the glass pieces on the outer sill.

_________________

Bolint,

Well, I wonder just where the real rock was found. We know where it was when first photographed, on the afternoon of November 2nd, as seen here..........

Rock, on the floor of Filomena's bedroom, photographed on afternoon of November 2, 2007.

Notice that the rock is mostly in a shopping bag, and the shopping bag ripped. Suggesting that someone had grabbed the bag by its strap handles, and lifted the bag or dragged the bag across the floor, resulting in the rip. The rock just falling into the bag might crumple the bag but not rip it. Before this photograph was taken eight people had been in Filomena's bedroom investigating what appeared to be a petty burglary, and known to have compromised the scene in other ways.

In her trial testimony, Amanda---one of the first in Filomena's bedroom---said she saw no rock. If Amanda is telling the truth, this suggests that when Amanda entered Filomena's bedroom the rock was still fully inside the shopping bag and, later, someone moved the bag, causing it to rip and topple over, exposing the rock, as seen in the photograph.

///

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Latest from Pilot: "The silence from the now louder than usual FOA childish cheerleaders about this turn of events is absolutely deafening"

When are these people going to see the truth? It's over! Amanda and Raffaele will be free very soon. What else do we need to say?

 

[Draca]

THE FOA media manipulation

I see the posters at PMF have noticed that the overall tenor of the reporting of Monday's hearing was very much in favour of the innocence camp, despite all their googling that the experts' report was going to be denounced as superficial, non-expert and biassed.

So the current "big, scary story" is how the Friends of Amanda and their expensive public relations company have succeeded in manipulating all the news media.

Quote:
"A small army of paid staff and unpaid volunteers has successfully inserted the FOA spin into newspapers, TV shows, Amazon reviews, blogs, letters to politicians, and even Wikipedia.

IMHO this is a story that deserves significant national attention."

THE FOA would call this - An independent grassroots organization.

Haven't they ever read Injustice In Perugia? - Injustice in Perugia is an independent grassroots organization working to correct the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.


As Mary_H would say: They could get experts who believe in guilt interviews and articles also.

In fact they have:

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/12/amanda-knox-statement-analysis.html

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...raffaele_sollecito_and_amanda_knox_what_migh/

 

[Diocletus]

THE FOA would call this - An independent grassroots organization.

Haven't they ever read Injustice In Perugia? - Injustice in Perugia is an independent grassroots organization working to correct the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.


As Mary_H would say: They could get experts who believe in guilt interviews and articles also.

In fact they have:

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...raffaele_sollecito_and_amanda_knox_what_migh/

Which one is the sucker in the following scenario:

Person A: Gets paid to be right. Yay!

Person B: Doesn't get paid to be wrong. Whoops.

 

[Justinian2]

Wired's Spencer Ackerman obtained a copy of an FBI training powerpoint on the Middle East, which taught agents that the "Arabic mind" is "swayed more by words than ideas and more by ideas than facts."

That's what I've been saying about the perverted prosecutions of Perugia.

The more into trivia these arguments go, the more persuasive the guilter arguments become. The guilter arguments asymptotically approach 50% likely as they approach the fringes of what is known and what can be known. Furthermore, they cause the FOA to engage in speculation which diminishes their credibility.

 

[RWVBWL]

_________________
Bolint,

Well, I wonder just where the real rock was found. We know where it was when first photographed, on the afternoon of November 2nd, as seen here..........
<snip>
Notice that the rock is mostly in a shopping bag, and the shopping bag ripped. Suggesting that someone had grabbed the bag by its strap handles, and lifted the bag or dragged the bag across the floor, resulting in the rip. The rock just falling into the bag might crumple the bag but not rip it. Before this photograph was taken eight people had been in Filomena's bedroom investigating what appeared to be a petty burglary, and known to have compromised the scene in other ways.

In her trial testimony, Amanda---one of the first in Filomena's bedroom---said she saw no rock. If Amanda is telling the truth, this suggests that when Amanda entered Filomena's bedroom the rock was still fully inside the shopping bag and, later, someone moved the bag, causing it to rip and topple over, exposing the rock, as seen in the photograph.

///

Greetings Fine,
I too had noticed that the bag was ripped when I first saw where it landed.
I recall thinking that this was odd, for how does a bag, standing upright, rip from a rock falling on it? Hmmm.
I've never seen this point discussed before, glad that you pointed it out and I look forward to reading other folks opinion on this...
RW

 

[LondonJohn]

You are probably right about how Italians may view this latest twist. However, it still begs the question why were any of the prison witnesses called in the first place; it was a high risk strategy.

I can't understand why so many people don't seem to know how and why the inmates were called to give testimony.

Firstly, contrary to what is often incorrectly written, these inmates were not defence witnesses. They were summoned by the court, at the request of the defence.

Secondly, the reason why the defence teams requested that the inmates' testimony be heard was that it was possible that one of the stories might be partially or totally true. The defence teams were never claiming that either of the stories was true.

Thirdly, the thrust of the defence argument on this issue was that that Massei's court had refused to investigate the inmates' claims. The defence teams argued that this was in breach of the judicial codes, and that the court's goal of seeking the truth means that it should investigate all avenues that have any possibility of finding the truth. Hellmann clearly agreed that there was a possibility that the inmates might have something to add to the picture, which is why he acceded to the defence's request and summoned the inmates.

And lastly, the reason why it was necessary for the court to investigate these inmates' stories is that only the courts had the powers to compel the various parties to testify, as well as other investigative powers. The defence simply could not have investigated the inmates properly, and the police/prosecutors had no appetite to do so. So the court was the only appropriate investigative body.

In summary, therefore, the inmates were not brought to court by the defence, and nor were they part of an active defence strategy of claiming that either group was telling the truth. In fact, the defence requested that Hellmann call the the inmates, in order to investigate fully whether either of their stories had any validity or veracity. In the event, it's strongly apparent that neither story stands up in any way, but the whole point is that it was only in Hellmann's court that this outcome could be definitively determined.

I therefore do not see it in any way as a "backfire" for the defence: the defence teams never claimed that either story was true, but rather they simply requested that the court determine the veracity of the stories. The court did exactly that, and we move on. To me, therefore (as I've said before), there was no downside risk to the defence making this request to the court. If the court investigated the claims and found them to be false and/or unsupported (as happened), then the defence position wouldn't change at all. But if either of the stories had been found to be partially or wholly true and verifiable, then there would have been huge potential upside to the defence.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think Aviello might have been to 'show up' the Massei Court, and this one backfired in their face as it suggested this was one instance where Massei ruled against the defence and was absolutely right to do so. In Italy there's the 'inquisitorial' search for the truth motif, thus prosecutors and courts are compelled to hear testimony from basically anyone without regard to much of anything in the way of standards. This is how clowns like the olive-throwing guy and Curatolo end up in court, as they're required by law and tradition to hear them out unless they're certain their testimony will be untrue. Therefore Giancarlo Massei should have allowed Aviello to testify, but did not, and now we see he was right to do so.

Alessi and the other two that actually testified is something completely different and under the same procedures of the Italian Courts is something the defense isn't 'responsible' for, and thus wasn't taking a 'risk.' That had to happen under the Court's auspices, elsewise they were failing in their duty to search for the truth. All three of them corroborated that Guede told them Raffaele and Amanda weren't there, which is meaningful testimony any way you look at it, and required for the court to hear, and the defense couldn't have stopped it even if they wanted to. Keep in mind one of those guys was shrouded because the state uses his testimony in other cases to convict criminals, as authorities do with similar characters in both our countries, thus just because they're behind bars doesn't indicate their testimony is meaningless, nor does it reflect on the defendants who have no choice who Rudy talks to.

Ah, I should have read your reply before posting my own! Needless to say, I totally agree with your position, and it tallies with my own argument on this issue.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm seeing one argument that the appeal is merely lip service, because Knox and Sollecito were de facto found guilty by the court that convicted Rudy Guede, and this cannot be reversed. Therefore it doesn't matter in the slightest what arguments the defence advance, or what new evidence they produce or what old evidence they discredit. The could even find a completely watertight alibi for both defendants for the entire evening and night, but it would be to no avail. Hellman is legally bound by the Guede decision and must convict.

What planet is this guy on?

The other is that this is all a clever ploy by Hellman to show up the Italian justice system in the best possible light. The defence have been given every advantage, even partisan "neutral" experts, look how fair we are, but then the great Stefanoni's stellar, world-class work is vindicated in the examination, and all stand amazed.

Wow. Where did he think that up?

Rolfe.

 

[snook1]

Latest from Pilot: "The silence from the now louder than usual FOA childish cheerleaders about this turn of events is absolutely deafening"

When are these people going to see the truth? It's over! Amanda and Raffaele will be free very soon. What else do we need to say?

But what exactly he wants us to say? The Aviello revelation is so irrelevant, so not important...I, honestly, don't care about this development at all.

What's childish, dear Stint, is that you're unable to see what's happening and call us, the supporters of truth, childish cheerleaders. Look around you, Stint, look at the people you're surrounded with. They're lost.

Freedom for Amanda and Raffaele.