Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bolint]

I think that coming to any other conclusion shows a lack of critical thinking. When one side only talks about behavior and side issues, and the other uses hard facts and evidence, it is pretty clear. In a debate or mock trial, this would be over in 10 minutes.

The difference is that you claim they are crystal clearly innocent while arguing with debates and trials.
The moment you utter "reasonable doubt" you lose your right to claim innocence. Let alone crystal clear innocence.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Hi everyone,
I've seen it written that Raffaele and Amanda were out eating pizza when that fatefull call came in to come into the Questura for further questioing on the night of Nov. 5, 2007.

Yet Candace Dempsey had reported, on page 137 of her book 'Murder in Italy' that Raff and Amanda, trying to feel a little normal, were having dinner at a friend of Raffaele's nearby apartment.

Now this was never a big deal, but I just like to get the facts straight. So I've wondered were Raff and Amanda eating pizza at some joint on the town or were they at Raffaele's friends place? Pretty easy question, but 1 that's been hard for me to definately get an answer for.

These 2 recent posts from Kestral and RoseMontague, with hilites, have answered that question and told me where the confusion comes from:




At 3:00pm, the afternoon, Raff and Amanda were eating pizza while out on the town.





So that night, they were indeed at a friends place, trying to have a normal evening by having a real dinner, when that call came.
In my humble opinion, this is hardly the actions of a young couple who had just participated in thier 1st murder...
RW

Agreed. good posting...

 

[JREF2010]

I think if there actually was a PR Supertanker, they would be trumpeting this in the media. The fact that Rudy barely gets a mention is what is odd to me.

I keep reading that Meredith has been forgotten, but almost every story I read mentions her, and has at least one picture of her (which is good). But many have little to no mention of who killed her, and that he has been convicted already.

This has been a most odd thing. I watch many tru crime shows now, etc..etc.. since this case.

And often there are debates, typical cases of an exspouse verus a new spouse etc,...

but rarely if ever , is there this Rudy....3rd wheel...who left all this evidence , is a 199% liar, and yet was there...

and in this trial he is rarely mentioned, probably due to legal manuevers.

toss in Pacelli and Patrick (which I never understood why he wasnt a separate trial ??? like the Calunnia and Mignninis conviction etc...Patrick is a completelty different case, why is he derailing this one?)

and its hard to comprehend and understand my own confusion at times.

but the crime was over by 10:13 pm...the cell log doesnt get confused.
the evidence in adn on Meredith is only of one person and thats Rudy.

now we can only hope for honesty from the court which is an acquittal, and fear the politics of corrupt humans.

 

[bolint]

So, what would be the Aristotlean mean between the extremes? That they may have been involved, but there is not enough solid evidence to convict?

"Solid evidence" is a vague notion.
Especially because its solidness is defined differently by the parties.

 

[JREF2010]

So that night, they were indeed at a friends place,
trying to have a normal evening by having a real dinner, when that call came.
In my humble opinion, this is hardly the actions of a young couple who had just participated in their 1st murder a few days earlier, who had already had extensive questioning...
RW

RW
thats an intense point in time for this case, a great example of more than one issue.

you have the proof that recording conversations were taking place at 10:30pm Nov 5.
(means> no budget crisis then= Migninni is caught lying on video to LA7, as he said the Interrogation was not recorded due to budget issues)

then you also have a sample of actual conversation that they were abiding to the police and not planning on escaping to Germany with Rudy. Not how murderers would act.

there is not one piece of evidence connecting them to Rudy, not even the bugged rooms or cell phone taps.

its too bad they weren't calling lawyers instead of eating though, if they had lawyers before the interrogation they'd not been condemned by Migninni of Satanic Sex Drug Orgy Murder.

 

[bolint]

you have the proof that recording conversations were taking place at 10:30pm Nov 5.
(means> no budget crisis then= Migninni is caught lying on video to LA7, as he said the Interrogation was not recorded due to budget issues)

Not so fast. This was a bugged phone call.

 

[Dougm]

The difference is that you claim they are crystal clearly innocent while arguing with debates and trials.
The moment you utter "reasonable doubt" you lose your right to claim innocence. Let alone crystal clear innocence.

Oh, I understand that. I separate the two concepts. My personal view is that both are true. However, one can never be sure of innocence 100%, since something truly bizarre could have happened. Like I can't prove that aliens did not land in my backyard last night, and leave with no trace, all the while using their invisibility beam so no one saw them.

They might be guilty. There are just no believable facts that show this. If that were to change, I could change my mind.

 

[bolint]

its too bad they weren't calling lawyers instead of eating though

They would have been arrested anyway based on the false alibi, etc.

 

[snook1]

I found this at .org:

The equation for the defence is:

No alternative scenario presented [calling criminals as witnesses was a mistake, got Rudy in the trial]
+ no effective denial of staged break in
+ no good explanation AK's half confession and "diabolic slander" [Pacelli]
+ no effective denial multiple attackers
+ no AK/RS exclusion due to footprints (they exclude only RG)
+ no convincing argument for earlier TOD
+ no convincing denial of what Curatolo and other witnesses said [their examination was thorough in first degree]
+ no explanation [not even tried] for many lies and contradictions
+ no denial profile AK and RS on knife and clasp [C+V never deny this, avoid to deny]
+ no proof of contamination
+ mixed blood DNA and other DNA traces in prints
+ Rudy said they were
--------------------------
= Very Likely Conviction

I can't believe how bad they are. I really can't. After all these years, and especially after this past year, they still are unable to speak the truth. The list above is not only hilarious and incorrect but also it's yet another proof how detached from reality they are. I would like to address some of the issues listed.

no alternative scenario presented [calling criminals as witnesses was a mistake, got Rudy in the trial]
- there is a scenario that the defense presented, Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher after he got caught by her, he broke in through a window, used a knife (just like he did in Rome the same year), calling criminals as witnesses was a legal obligation for the defense, nothing else

no effective denial multiple attackers
- at the first trial the prosecution's expert couldn't rule out that one person attacked and killed Meredith, what I would like to add is that if there were multiple attackers, as the prosecution claims, then where are their traces? there is plenty of DNA from Guede in that room - purse, jacket, on Meredith, in Meredith, how come the other attackers didn't leave anything?

no convincing argument for earlier TOD
- an empty duodendum, scream described by Rudy around 21:20, Meredith's telephone activity

no convincing denial of what Curatolo and other witnesses said [their examination was thorough in first degree]
- Curatolo was laughed at by the judge Hellmann and the jury, he said he used heroine all the time, during the time when murder happened, he most probably was stoned, he confused the dates, as to other witnesses - Nara=heard alot, seen nothing; Quintavalle=a joke, no recipt, no cameras showing Knox, other people working in his shop didn't see her, different jacket colour, came forward after very long time; Kokomani=wtf?

no denial profile AK and RS on knife and clasp [C+V never deny this, avoid to deny]
- Knox's DNA on knife - surprise surprise, she cooked; Sollecito's DNA on clasp - it was there along with many others, were they all in the room that night?

Rudy said they were
- since when Rudy is reliable? Why they believe him and do not believe Amanda and Raffale? After all, his DNA was in that room, correct? Is he more credible that the other two? What about the Skype call, where he said they weren't involved? What about the fact that he said they were involved, 5 months after his arrest?

This, along with many other things that the defense said (plus what will Ghirga say on Monday) is enough to create not only a reasonable doubt, but to be sure the two didn;t have anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher and most likely they will be both acquitted on Monday.

 

[smkovalinksy]

"Solid evidence" is a vague notion.
Especially because its solidness is defined differently by the parties.

Nothing could be less vague, or less ambiguous, than solid forensic, indisputable evidence. Such is not open to interpretation.

 

[Dan O.]

They would have been arrested anyway based on the false alibi, etc.

Why must you lie like that? Are you a tool of the prosecution?

If you think they lied about their alibi, put together your case and argue it with evidence. Don't just echo unsupported claims and run away.

 

[JREF2010]

Not so fast. This was a bugged phone call.

show me proof tapped phones are cheaper than bugged rooms and I'll have some more questions.

they had bugged rooms in the very same questura/station, at that same time frame. officer Colatone did the translations through the walls.

do you have a budget report or papers that proves Migninnin isnt lying?
I'd like to see it.

 

[snook1]

show me proof tapped phones are cheaper than bugged rooms and I'll have some more questions.

they had bugged rooms in the very same questura/station, at that same time frame. officer Colatone did the translations through the walls.

do you have a budget report or papers that proves Migninnin isnt lying?
I'd like to see it.

And, to me, it's completely ridiculous to have bugged rooms for Knox and Sollecito and to not record their famous interrogations.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I found this at .org:



I can't believe how bad they are. I really can't. After all these years, and especially after this past year, they still are unable to speak the truth. The list above is not only hilarious and incorrect but also it's yet another proof how detached from reality they are. I would like to address some of the issues listed.

no alternative scenario presented [calling criminals as witnesses was a mistake, got Rudy in the trial]
- there is a scenario that the defense presented, Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher after he got caught by her, he broke in through a window, used a knife (just like he did in Rome the same year), calling criminals as witnesses was a legal obligation for the defense, nothing else

no effective denial multiple attackers
- at the first trial the prosecution's expert couldn't rule out that one person attacked and killed Meredith, what I would like to add is that if there were multiple attackers, as the prosecution claims, then where are their traces? there is plenty of DNA from Guede in that room - purse, jacket, on Meredith, in Meredith, how come the other attackers didn't leave anything?

no convincing argument for earlier TOD
- an empty duodendum, scream described by Rudy around 21:20, Meredith's telephone activity

no convincing denial of what Curatolo and other witnesses said [their examination was thorough in first degree]
- Curatolo was laughed at by the judge Hellmann and the jury, he said he used heroine all the time, during the time when murder happened, he most probably was stoned, he confused the dates, as to other witnesses - Nara=heard alot, seen nothing; Quintavalle=a joke, no recipt, no cameras showing Knox, other people working in his shop didn't see her, different jacket colour, came forward after very long time; Kokomani=wtf?

no denial profile AK and RS on knife and clasp [C+V never deny this, avoid to deny]
- Knox's DNA on knife - surprise surprise, she cooked; Sollecito's DNA on clasp - it was there along with many others, were they all in the room that night?

Rudy said they were
- since when Rudy is reliable? Why they believe him and do not believe Amanda and Raffale? After all, his DNA was in that room, correct? Is he more credible that the other two? What about the Skype call, where he said they weren't involved? What about the fact that he said they were involved, 5 months after his arrest?

This, along with many other things that the defense said (plus what will Ghirga say on Monday) is enough to create not only a reasonable doubt, but to be sure the two didn;t have anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher and most likely they will be both acquitted on Monday.

Excellent refutation. Let's hope the jurists are as sharp as you are, and not dim from bias and investment and projection as the poster at PMF is.

 

[RWVBWL]

you have the proof that recording conversations were taking place at 10:30pm Nov 5. (means> no budget crisis then= Migninni is caught lying on video to LA7, as he said the Interrogation was not recorded due to budget issues)

Not so fast. This was a bugged phone call.

Hi Bolint,
What's more bang for the buck?

What costs more $$$?
To record a person who is sitting in a room, (most likely with 1 way mirrored windows in it),
and answer direct questions from a police officer
or
record, and transcribe probably hours and hours of conversation taken from a mobile cell phone?


ETA: Hey Bolint,
I hope that you too don't feel that any of us are gangin' up on ya,
we're not, we are all in different parts of the world and just wanna debate with ya, that's all.
And you do bring up some good points sometimes...
Peace, RW

 

[lane99]

Unlikely.

If this had been an overweight 40 something guy, it would be a non-story. Exactly the same as the Casey Anthony thing and the girl in Aruba.

Its just today's society, that's all. Nothing callous about that remark at all. If you can't handle accepting what you already know deep down, I'm sorry. But its the truth. If she weren't a hot 20-something, we'd never know about this.

Never.

As I alluded to, Knox's looks are not *completely* incidental to the furor that this case has generated. But they're just one of a myriad of bit players performing in this circus.

The most (in)famous criminal in Canadian history is a dumpy 40yo name "Clifford Olson". His crimes happened 30 years ago. But even now I'd be surprised if there's a single adult in Canada that hasn't heard of him. So, so much for your theory. By coincidence, Olson finally did the world a favour and died yesterday. He won't be missed. Nor, unfortunately- and more to the point- forgotten.

At any rate, considering what she's had to pay for it, I guess I'm a bit surprised that some people still seem to manage to be jealous of the attention Knox has been getting while this tragedy plays itself out.

 

[Dougm]

I found this at .org:

The equation for the defence is:

No alternative scenario presented [calling criminals as witnesses was a mistake, got Rudy in the trial]
+ no effective denial of staged break in
+ no good explanation AK's half confession and "diabolic slander" [Pacelli]
+ no effective denial multiple attackers
+ no AK/RS exclusion due to footprints (they exclude only RG)
+ no convincing argument for earlier TOD
+ no convincing denial of what Curatolo and other witnesses said [their examination was thorough in first degree]
+ no explanation [not even tried] for many lies and contradictions
+ no denial profile AK and RS on knife and clasp [C+V never deny this, avoid to deny]
+ no proof of contamination
+ mixed blood DNA and other DNA traces in prints
+ Rudy said they were
--------------------------
= Very Likely Conviction

With all due respect to your fine post, I have another rebuttal to the above.

All this is asking the defense to prove something! They have flipped the burden of proof upside down!

So I will turn their arguments back around to the correct way the jury is supposed to consider these things in a court of law:

+ Althernative scenario presented, even though that is not necessary
+ no proof that staged break in ever occured
+ AK's half confession/alleged slander explained
+ no effective proof of multiple attackers
+ no proof AK/RS made the footprints and no proof when they were made and no proof they are in any way related to the murder
+ no convincing argument for later TOD, and Comodi stated that killer had Meredith's phones at 10;03
+ Curatolo and other witnesses completely unreliable
+ explanation made for many lies and contradictions (???)
+ C&V declared profile MK and RS on knife and clasp "unreliable as evidence"
+ C&V stated that contamination could not be ruled out, and correct procedures were not followed (see point above)
+ mixed blood DNA and other DNA traces in prints (never proven per point above)
+ Rudy said they were there (oh come on now. Talk about lack of critical reasoning skills!!!)

This could have been one line. The prosecution needs to prove the case, and they didn't.

 

[Caper]

Can someone tell me why this post is wrong:

Certainly there are false confessions. But there are far fewer cases in which someone fingers an innocent person. Furthermore, Raffaele Sollecito admitted that he told "a bunch of ********" to the police in his first alibi. Lying to the police after your girlfriend's roommate was slaughtered is probably not a great idea.

The "unbelievably bad" DNA evidence also includes a nice drop of Knox's blood that she herself admits wasn't there the day before. I would say that it is incredibly bad luck to have bled on the same night that your room mate happened to be murdered in the next room, particularly on top of your having given a "false confession."

Finally, the bare footprint on the bath mat. Suppose you still think it is Rudy Guede's, despite the fact that it doesn't fit his foot on about 8 of the 10 or so measurements. It's pretty amazing that the rest of the footprint isn't there, nor are there any visible prints leading up to it, despite the fact that it was so bloody. Most defenders of Knox have to come up with a ridiculous argument about how that lone footprint got there. But the other hypothesis is that it's Sollecito's footprint. Interestingly, it fits his foot on about 8 of the 10 or so measurements, and there is at least one bare print matching his in the hallway.

There is other evidence, but I just wanted to highlight these so that others would understand that there are reasons for suspecting Knox and Sollecito.

 

[BaileyBell]

And, to me, it's completely ridiculous to have bugged rooms for Knox and Sollecito and to not record their famous interrogations.

They bugged the rooms and tapped the phones, but didn't record the interrogation, so either the police were incompetent or corrupt.

I am rather new to the case so I am wondering did the wiretap and bugging happen before the interrogation?

Also how was the Amanda confession not found inadmissible to the court for the lack of legal representation and recording of the interrogation?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

blood on the faucet: argument by misdirection

Can someone tell me why this post is wrong:

Caper,

The drop(s) of blood is(are) on the faucet. It shows Amanda's DNA profile but no other. The only way to date it is to assume that when Amanda described the bathroom as clean, what she meant was that the blood on the faucet was not present. Given how the faucet looked, I think it is quite possible that Amanda overlooked the blood. The whole argument looks like an attempt at misdirection. Instead of acknowledging the Conti-Vecchiotti smackdown of the forensic police, it attempts to deflect attention away from ILE's mistakes and toward an inconsequential bit of blood in a bathroom.
ETA
Raffaele later said it was the police who said words to the effect, "Don't give us fertilizer." Raffaele has had two basic stories: what he said on 5 November, and what he said on every other occasion.