Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[codyjuneau]

The message

Media from all over the world will be in Perugia on Monday for the verdict.

This is a one time opportunity for the innocent side to inform the media that there is very simple, logical and obvious explanation for Meredith's murder. Many in the media do not seem to understand that. If they understand it they might actually report it. If the media report it the average Joe might understand it. The average Joe will not figure it out by himself.

An understanding of the most obvious explanation of the murder is the most powerful way of showing how ludicrous the prosecution's theory is ... in my opinion.

The explanation:

• The perpetrator was a cat burglar.
• One who was described as very dangerous.
• One who had threatened occupants with a knife when caught.
• One who would throw a rock through a window to gain entry.
• One who had broken in through a second story window.
• One who had been caught and released without charge by the police.
• One who admitted to being with Meredith that night.
• One who left his fingerprints and his shoe prints embossed in Meredith's blood.
• One who left his DNA inside Meredith.
• One who left his DNA on Meredith's purse.
• One who was known to the police by the name of Rudy Guede.

This cat burglar Rudy Guede broke into the cottage that night. Meredith came home around 9 PM and caught him in the act of burglarizing the cottage. He used his knife to rob, rape and murder her.

After murdering Meredith Rudy went dancing. Later he fled to Germany.

 

[DarkStar2011]

What do you mean when you say you're "not convinced one way or the other"? Would that not be at the very least a pretty good working definition of reasonable doubt?

Good catch!

 

[bolint]

Your claims are empty. Where are the references?

???
What references? To the non-existent proofs?

Have you noticed how the prosecutions goal posts keep moving?
Their "experts" originally claimed the last activity was at 21:10 with the closing of Amelie. This is reported from the trial:

​

The prosecution called them on their conclusion by pointing out Naruto. Here is what Frank reported from the trial:

​

So is the prosecutions expert lying their little asses off in court of are they truly that incompetent?!

The defence claims to have found Naruto opening at 21:26. They explained how they had found it and it was convincing for me.
The postal police ducked the question instead of refuting it, so I accept the defence's 21.26 as the last known time of proven human interaction.

I don't build my conclusions on the conclusion of police or prosecution.
I try to build it on data.

And what happened after midnight to cause the goal post to move on that end; There is that 4 second connection to Apple at 00:58 of Nov. 2nd which the defense experts discovered but should have been bloody obvious to the prosecution since this activity was recorded by Raffaele's ISP and the prosecution had those records. More lying through their teeth or did they just overlook it?

The defense claims in a written addendum to the Raffaele's appeal that there is evidence of screensaver activity throughout the night with the final activation of the screensaver at 06:22 on Nov. 2nd. In the filing they specified exactly where this evidence was found in sufficient detail that the prosecution would be able to verify the facts using the copy of Raffaele's hard drive that they have (presuming that the postals haven't already fried it). The defense asked that this evidence be reviewed by an independent expert appointed by the court which would preclude the prosecutions standard comeback "if it was there we would have found it". The court has decided that it doesn't need to review this evidence. It has not been refuted.


So there you have it. Hours of computer activity including web access. You haven't supported your claim of what Raffaele said.

It's lawyerish.
You are talking about another time period instead of refuting head-on the lack of alibi in the critical time period.

You even shifted the goal posts by creating a time constraint that was not part of Raffaele's claimed statement.

It was most specifically the interval Raffaele claimed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Character evidence means nothing, I'm afraid. There have been many murderers of otherwise impeccable character.

I totally agree. And it's a complete non-starter to argue that Knox or Sollecito couldn't have participated in the murder based upon their characters, education, demeanour, etc*.

But in order to convict someone of murder, you have to actually have enough evidence to constitute proof beyond all doubt based in reason that the person committed the murder. In this case, not only do prosecutors not have sufficient proof to meet the reasonable doubt test, but in fact they have virtually no reliable proof whatsoever that Knox or Sollecito were anywhere near the murder scene.

* However, in a non-premeditated murder of this sort, one would expect to see prior deviant behaviour in some sort of escalating pattern leading up to the murder. There is of course a possibility that Knox and Sollecito did indeed engage in such escalating deviant behaviour, but that they managed to conceal it very well from others.

 

[Dan O.]

Linking tells us that he is incapable of forming an opinion of his own. He must wait for a judge to declare what the truth is before he can echo it.

Of course, the truth is that he has chosen the side of guilt. This is betrayed by the posts he chooses to attack and the posters he chooses to support.

Is his choose strictly based on judge Massei's ruling? Will he find it that easy to suddenly be on the side of innocence when judge Hellmann rules for acquittal? This will be interesting to watch.

 

[DarkStar2011]

I might be inclined to agree with you if you could point to testimonials from persons who know or have known Amanda Knox, and having known her conclude that she is capable or likely to have violently and for no reason attacked and killed Ms. Kercher.

I, for one, might consider it a "sign of desperation" if pro-innocence posters had no other basis for their arguments, and were putting all their case on the statement of her chaplain.

But, in fact, that is not the case. The facts of the case completely fail to prove the involvement of Knox and Sollecito in Kercher's murder. The chaplain's statement is merely an interesting side-note in that a member of the prison establishment (who, according to another post here, is on quite cordial terms with Mignini) strongly disagrees with the conviction. Had the chaplain said nothing, the facts would be unchanged.

On the other hand, had the chaplain reported that he thought Knox acted like she was bearing the burden of an enormous guilt, would the guilters have jumped all over it, claiming that it should be considered as proof that she should be convicted again? Based on the entirely character-assassination-driven strategy of the prosecutors and their allies (including those at PMF and TJMK) I have a hard time thinking that they'd judge the hypothetical words of such a chaplain as being irrelevant to the case.

 

[lionking]

Linking tells us that he is incapable of forming an opinion of his own. He must wait for a judge to declare what the truth is before he can echo it.

Of course, the truth is that he has chosen the side of guilt. This is betrayed by the posts he chooses to attack and the posters he chooses to support.

Is his choose strictly based on judge Massei's ruling? Will he find it that easy to suddenly be on the side of innocence when judge Hellmann rules for acquittal? This will be interesting to watch.

Dan O, what will be your position if the conviction is confirmed? I'm betting you will disagree. Should I then accept your version of "the truth" over the court's?

Sorry, I will accept the court's decision.

 

[DrDave]

Linking tells us that he is incapable of forming an opinion of his own. He must wait for a judge to declare what the truth is before he can echo it.

Of course, the truth is that he has chosen the side of guilt. This is betrayed by the posts he chooses to attack and the posters he chooses to support.

Is his choose strictly based on judge Massei's ruling? Will he find it that easy to suddenly be on the side of innocence when judge Hellmann rules for acquittal? This will be interesting to watch.

Are you incapable of getting his name right?

 

[moodstream]

Character evidence means nothing, I'm afraid. There have been many murderers of otherwise impeccable character.

Yes, but here the claim is that Knox lacks an impeccable character. She killed because she has borderline personality disorder, she is a she-devil, a witch, etc, etc. The prosecution is not claiming that Knox has impeccable character and is also the killer. They are claiming that her character is not impeccable.

Here we have a lot of credible testimony to Knox's good character from people who have have known her both before her trip to Perugia and after she was imprisoned, and even from her instructors in Perugia.

It seems to me that you are accepting that the testimonials to Knox's good character from the priest and the parliamentarian, among others, is credible and accurate in describing Knox as non violent and mentally stable. If you are, then I would say you are accepting that the prosecution has it wrong. Knox would not kill Kercher because she is not borderline, not a she devil and not a witch.

Or, you are saying the testimonials are not credible and accurate, in which case I would ask, why not? Who says anything else? What is your source?

 

[DarkStar2011]

Are you incapable of getting his name right?

Typos happen. (The second one is particularly easy, as it involves dropping a letter that's right next to the previous letter on the keyboard -- it can be hard to register a full press of the second key with a given finger whey you've just registered a full press on an adjacent key with the nearest finger.)

 

[lionking]

Are you incapable of getting his name right?

You should have seen the reaction a while ago when I spelt Kercher incorrectly. My right to an opinion was challenged.

 

[LondonJohn]

You should have seen the reaction a while ago when I slept Kercher incorrectly. My right to an opinion was challenged.

But you'd think that one of the most vocal members of the prosecution team (Comodi) would have taken the trouble to find out how to pronounce the victim's surname, wouldn't you.....?

("Kerker")

 

[DrDave]

But you'd think that one of the most vocal members of the prosecution team (Comodi) would have taken the trouble to find out how to pronounce the victim's surname, wouldn't you.....?

("Kerker")

Depends - is the ch sound in the Italian language? If not, it might be very difficult to make it correctly. I can't say many French names and when the difference is explained to me there is no difference to me between the right and wrong versions.

 

[LondonJohn]

Dan O, what will be your position if the conviction is confirmed? I'm betting you will disagree. Should I then accept your version of "the truth" over the court's?

Sorry, I will accept the court's decision.

Just a small but important clarification: this appeal trial does not "confirm" or "overturn" the verdict of the first trial (which is not, incidentally, a conviction: Knox and Sollecito are still legally innocent). To use these terms implies that the appeal court is using the judgement of the first court as a starting point. That's what happens in the type of appeals system you are used to in Australia, and it's the same in the UK and US. In fact, it's the same in Italy too, when you're talking about post-conviction appeals.

But the trial currently being held in Hellmann's court is not an appeal in the same sense of the term. It's a totally new assessment and judgement of the case, made without reference to the arguments, deliberation or verdict of the first trial. It's interesting how many journalists (including, of course, the usual suspects) are making the same mistake. And it's not correct or acceptable to claim that using the terms "confirm" or "overturn" is merely a convenient shorthand: these terms have very specific connotations, and those connotations are not applicable to the appeal trial currently in progress for Knox and Sollecito.

 

[LondonJohn]

Depends - is the ch sound in the Italian language? If not, it might be very difficult to make it correctly. I can't say many French names and when the difference is explained to me there is no difference to me between the right and wrong versions.

Yes it is. Think "Cello" (the musical instrument) for example. Or "Valpolicella". Or "Cappuccino". It's just Comodi being lazy, ignorant and disrespectful.

The pronunciation of the "ch" is as in "cello" or "chief". It's not as in the original Germanic "ch" pronunciation as in "loch" or "Van Goch" (unless you're an American of course, and inexplicably choose to pronounce that name "Van Goh"....)

 

[lionking]

Just a small but important clarification: this appeal trial does not "confirm" or "overturn" the verdict of the first trial (which is not, incidentally, a conviction: Knox and Sollecito are still legally innocent). To use these terms implies that the appeal court is using the judgement of the first court as a starting point. That's what happens in the type of appeals system you are used to in Australia, and it's the same in the UK and US. In fact, it's the same in Italy too, when you're talking about post-conviction appeals.

But the trial currently being held in Hellmann's court is not an appeal in the same sense of the term. It's a totally new assessment and judgement of the case, made without reference to the arguments, deliberation or verdict of the first trial. It's interesting how many journalists (including, of course, the usual suspects) are making the same mistake. And it's not correct or acceptable to claim that using the terms "confirm" or "overturn" is merely a convenient
shorthand: these terms have very specific connotations, and those connotations are not applicable to the appeal trial currently in progress for Knox and Sollecito.

Everyone knew what I meant, and I got my meaning across in less than two paragraphs. Yes, I am aware of the peculiarities of the Italian system.

 

[Antony]

Yes it is. Think "Cello" (the musical instrument) for example. Or "Valpolicella". Or "Cappuccino".

... or even "Sollecito", if I have heard right from TV and radio news reports of the case.

 

[LondonJohn]

... or even "Sollecito", if I have heard right from TV and radio news reports of the case.

Yes indeed! The "c" in his name does indeed have the same "ch" pronunciation as the "ch" in "Kercher". How ironic....

 

[DrDave]

Yes indeed! The "c" in his name does indeed have the same "ch" pronunciation as the "ch" in "Kercher". How ironic....

Pretty bad form then!

 

[Dan O.]

It was most specifically the interval Raffaele claimed.

Since you refused to source your claim I had to go digging for myself.

The statement which I suspect you are basing your claim on being:
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

I navigated to the computer for another two hours after the call from my father and I stopped only when Amanda came back, presumably to the 1.​

This is from a news account of an interrogation of a witness being treated as a suspect. The statement has not been admitted by the court. There is no verification that this is actually the suspects statements (where are those recordings again?) And as we have already seen with Amanda's, it is quite likely the product of what the police already believed to be true. You have not supported that this statement was actually what Raffaele was saying.

And, the time frame of this statement only partially falls within your shifted goalposts (perhaps you shouldn't have moved them so far).


Now, if your original claim: "They would have been arrested anyway based on the false alibi, etc." is claiming that ILE would arrest someone based only on their own fabrications in what that call an interrogation, then I would have to agree with you. In fact, this appears to be what they did since they were already in the process of arresting Raffaele when they started interrogating Amanda.