Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[DarkStar2011]

Ahhh yes: one can always count on the media (particularly the press) to pick up a quote, pull it out of context, magnify it, and place it into a different context, in order to create a provocative and sensationalist story.

That's a pretty good description, plus you should add in the possible difficulties of Italian and English idioms clashing (as in "see you later"). For example, there are the disputes as to whether the words he used at another point in the interview should be translated "from now on, they are considered totally innocent," or "for the moment, they are considered totally innocent."

What he appears to have said is pure logic: that the possibility exists that they might be responsible for the crime, but there is no evidence to suggest it. To use the same approach in a different case: the possibility exists that George Bush, Sr. was the gunman who killed J.F.K. But, similarly, there's no evidence to suggest it. By making those observations, I'm not claiming that I think Bush killed Kennedy. But, in this article, the obvious spin is that "Hellmann may have had a change of heart, and now thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty."

I must admit I'm surprised that this was written by John Hooper (who, if I recall, seemed to have quite a bit more common sense than most of the reporters covering this case) and published in the Guardian. It sounds more like the sort of thing I'd expect from a Nadeau or Vogt, appearing in one of the "usual suspect" tabloids -- in which case, this story wouldn't have even been worth a comment, IMHO.

 

[Teddy2007]

Thank you!

Have you seen the fragment when Raffaele's aunt is speaking? I'd love to know what's it about. It seems like there were considerations to get him out of jail at the expense of Amanda and he refused? Interesting. Was there any deal proposals from the prosecution?

This is what I wrote over at injusticeinperugia.org:

Raffaele's sister spoke. A very dignified woman - spoke of how Raffaele taught them all a lesson in integrity - how Raffaele never abandoned Amanda, how he preferred to be unjustly condemned to a life sentence than try to extricate himself from Amanda's situation. I totally agree with Raffaele's aunt!

Raffaele's father spoke also, at length. Also a very dignified man. He criticised the prosecution. He told viewers how disgusted he was that the interrogation of his son was not recorded, with the excuse of lack of funds given by the PM - he reiterated this point several times. Good on him!

The priest at Amanda's prison spoke. He was fighting back the tears. He clearly knew Amanda to be innocent, and a very nice person.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's a pretty good description, plus you should add in the possible difficulties of Italian and English idioms clashing (as in "see you later"). For example, there are the disputes as to whether the words he used at another point in the interview should be translated "from now on, they are considered totally innocent," or "for the moment, they are considered totally innocent."

What he appears to have said is pure logic: that the possibility exists that they might be responsible for the crime, but there is no evidence to suggest it. To use the same approach in a different case: the possibility exists that George Bush, Sr. was the gunman who killed J.F.K. But, similarly, there's no evidence to suggest it. By making those observations, I'm not claiming that I think Bush killed Kennedy. But, in this article, the obvious spin is that "Hellmann may have had a change of heart, and now thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty."

I must admit I'm surprised that this was written by John Hooper (who, if I recall, seemed to have quite a bit more common sense than most of the reporters covering this case) and published in the Guardian. It sounds more like the sort of thing I'd expect from a Nadeau or Vogt, appearing in one of the "usual suspect" tabloids -- in which case, this story wouldn't have even been worth a comment, IMHO.

You're exactly right. And your Bush/JFK analogy is a very good one - it illustrates the point perfectly.

With regard to Hooper's piece, I would make two general observations:

1) Every journalist is currently looking for a different angle on this story - the media are flooded with "Knox arrives home" and "Kerchers are bewildered" stories, so any different take (especially if is contrarian or sensationalist) is manna from heaven for journalists if they want to stand out from the crowd;

2) The headline for this piece was almost certainly written by a sub-editor at the Guardian, and not by Hooper himself. It's part of the job of subs to look for an eye-catching angle to an article, and to provide a suitably eye-catching headline.

 

[RWVBWL]

Kokomani article...

Hello folks,

I don't post very often but I read voraciously. Mostly I hang out at one of the other boards posting under assumed names. But I think I've worn that paradigm out now.

Anyway, what do you think of this Sun reference to Kokomani? Is this new information or is this a story that has floated before? - OBT

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ut-the-fight-goes-on-for-Meredith-family.html


"Riddle of evidence from the Albanian

EXCLUSIVE from BOB GRAHAM in Perugia

THE spotlight is now set to turn on one of the most controversial witnesses in the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Albanian Hekuran Kokomani, 37, claimed in court he had driven past the home where Brit Meredith Kercher was killed and saw Knox and Sollecito outside.

He claimed Knox started screaming and pulled out a large knife from a bag. He also alleged that Sollecito tried to punch him.

Kokomani's story was ridiculed by the defence teams but prosecutor Giuliano Mignini maintained it was "credible and reliable evidence" that placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime.

But now we can reveal that the day before Meredith's body was found convicted small-time drug dealer Kokomani PARKED his car in the driveway of the two-storey home she shared in Perugia, Italy.
Several sources in the town claim to have information that suggests he met Rudy Guede, the man still in jail for the murder.

Giuseppe Castellini, editor of the local Giornale dell Umbria paper, told The Sun that Kokomani was at the scene to do a drug deal with Guede. Ivory Coast immigrant Guede, 26, was convicted in a separate fast-track trial and jailed for 30 years — cut to 16 years on appeal.

He then claimed Knox and Sollecito had been in the house and had directed the savage killing.

Guede previously claimed the pair were NOT in the building.

In the weeks that followed the murder, Kokomani fled to Albania claiming that while he was in Italy his life was in danger. Last week he confirmed in a phone interview he had parked his black Golf in front of the house Meredith and Amanda shared — which had been empty.

The change in his story undermines the prosecution's belief that Knox and Sollecito were at the house at a time when they said they were at Sollecito's flat.

Raffaele's dad Dr Francesco Sollecito told The Sun: "We must find out the truth of Kokomani because the stories we heard in the court were lies."

FBI veteran Steve Moore said of Kokomani: "Investigators need to get to the truth of what he was doing there that evening and what was happening with the meeting with Guede."

Hi Brooktrout,
Thanks for the link.
Another piece of the puzzle is coming into view.
I have wondered whose dark coloered car was seen in the cottage driveway the night Meredith Kercher was murdered.
It was not Raffaele's Audi A3 that was seen, but Kokomani's black Golf. Aha!
Raffaele never split town after the murder, but Rudy did. As did Kokomani.Interesting...

Now, if we can ever find out who got cats blood on the light switches, and who messed up Stefano's bedroom...

I wonder if Kokomani's DNA sample was ever collected? I doubt it, heck the boyz downstairs did not even have their DNA collected, from what I recall.
What if Kokomani's DNA matched what was found on the bloodstained paper towels/napkins that were found outside?

I wonder if Kokomani's fingerprints were even collected?
Weren't there something like 14 or 17 unattributed fingerprints found in the gals apartment, with a some even found in Miss Kercher's bedroom?

I wonder of something else also:
Frank Sfarzo, has, over the years in his cryptic style of writing, made mention that he doubted that Rudy was the killer, and said he is going to dig a little deeper. For IIRC, right before he had his site shutdown, he said that after Raffaele and Amanda are free, well...

Now that they're free,
I'm curious to see where Frank Sfarzo goes next...
RW

 

[Katody Matrass]

PMF is up and running alright. They are now a forefront fighting agianst a miscarriage of justice

One guy made a sensible observation - Hellmann in a TV interview refused to clarify the 530.1 / 530.2 controversy, but if the verdict was 530.2 he would have said it to cool down everyone. He don't want to say because it is 530.1 and the Italians would jump and pile on him agressively.

Fiona is very confused and wrote a really ridiculous post (and incredibly short for her), she asks what convicted RG

His dna was in the room: but since he admits he was in the cottage it could be there through contamination or transfer, just as RS's dna was in the room but can be explained by those factors. His bloody footprints are there, but they have no evidential value because RS's bloody footprint is also there and means nothing. Or it is not certain it is RS's footprint and so how can it be certain that the footprints are RG's? To me all the same considerations apply.

Fiona, how many years are you obsessing with the case and you have no idea Guede was identified by his palmprint in blood?

 

[RoseMontague]

This is what I wrote over at injusticeinperugia.org:

Raffaele's sister spoke. A very dignified woman - spoke of how Raffaele taught them all a lesson in integrity - how Raffaele never abandoned Amanda, how he preferred to be unjustly condemned to a life sentence than try to extricate himself from Amanda's situation. I totally agree with Raffaele's aunt!

Raffaele's father spoke also, at length. Also a very dignified man. He criticised the prosecution. He told viewers how disgusted he was that the interrogation of his son was not recorded, with the excuse of lack of funds given by the PM - he reiterated this point several times. Good on him!

The priest at Amanda's prison spoke. He was fighting back the tears. He clearly knew Amanda to be innocent, and a very nice person.

A good kid and a good family. Thank you as well.

 

[RWVBWL]

The Massei report includes a blood alcohol of .43g/l and the english girls said they didn't drink. How did she get the alcohol in her system. BTW, that reading is not the one that needed to be thrown out because of police contamination.

Hi Grinder,
I wrote this the other day:

Barbie Nadeau writing, on page 162 of 'Angel Face':
"Later toxicology reports showed that she may have been very drunk, but the prosecution wrote those off as bad forensics - they said her body had not been stored properly, so the blood alchol levels were due to fermentation, not intoxication."
RW

 

[Mary_H]

How in the world is falsely accusing a man of murder "behaving ethically." I saw a video by Ann Coulter online (who I absolutely loathe and never watch but she did make a good point) She said that even if Amanda buckled to the stress of the situation and the interrogation, Patrick sat in jail while he was being investigated for 14 days. Even if Amanda was so stressed from the interrogation, she had two weeks to calm down and come to her senses and realize the truth of what she was saying didn't add up and she should have come forward.

The post you replied to explains how accusing a man of murder was behaving ethically. You explained it yourself in a later post of your own, "The other thing is 'when in Rome.' Plenty of people change their personality when they ... get mixed up with other people."

Ann Coulter knows nothing about this case. Her sole purpose is to inflame and divide. Amanda retracted her confession to the police on November 6th, and further retracted it to her mother (overheard by the police from her jail cell), her lawyers and the news media by November 9th. Even if the police were so gullible as to believe the word of a girl they had just tortured, they had plenty of time to calm down and realize that Patrick's alibi was good, instead of waiting until Rudy was in custody to set Patrick free.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Daily Maverick

Such a pity, I love this online publication since it's usually very objective or when they have a strong opinion it's based on fact. Sorry I can't post links yet the website is called DAILYMAVERICK and you add a .co.za at the end

Here is the link. There are some errors, but I have seen worse.

 

[snook1]

What's next for Amanda and Raffaele regarding their, still, not closed case?

As I understand, the appeal in the Supreme Court is not granted yet for the prosecution. Correct? Do they have to wait for the Court to agree to hear their case and then, they could proceed? What's the possibility that the verdict, once again, will be overturned? Will Amanda and Raffaele be forced to come to Perugia and serve their sentences(if overturned in the Supreme Court)?

 

[LondonJohn]

Those...ermmmm..... "folks"..... over at .org really do have rationalisation down to a fine art. All we heard in the run up to (and immediately after) the Hellmann verdict was that if Knox was acquitted she would be straight off the plane and whoring out her story to all and sundry in an undignified money-grab.

But now that it appears that all Knox wants to do (in the short term at least) is to have privacy, and that she doesn't want to do lots of interviews, the fine......"folks"...... have decided that this behaviour is at odds with someone who's innocent and has "nothing to hide".

That forum is becoming a fascinating case study in a whole host of important areas in individual and group psychology. I am not being facetious when I suggest that it is worthy of serious academic study in and of itself.

 

[Paninaro]

Maori is not ignorant, Maori is just lying, because he is serving the interest of his client talking in television. He feels sure that it is a 530.1 acquittal. I would also "feel sure" of that on tv if I was paid for that. (or maybe Hellman told him; maybe Maori was not the only one to be paid).

Mignini, Maresca, Comodi all declared they don't know whether it is 530.1 or 530.2. Three important persons in the trial say what I said (as well as Giulia Bongiorno) because this is simpky the obvious: it is impossible to know, until you see what is written in the dispositivo. The fact is in a sloppy reading Hellman didn't say it, and that is a fact: thus nobody knows, and whoever asserts he knows for sure is a fraud, because it's impossible to know.

Moreover, Hellmann himself declared on La Repubblica that he doesn't know if Knox and Sollecito were on the scene of crime. Angeletti, a lay judge, says he had no certanity. This is all incompatible with 530.1.

Finally, I have already demonstrated - gave a link, a quote, and I can give many more - that "non avere comesso il fatto" does not mean 530.1. So I don't know why you are desperately try to deny the obvious but I'll not investigate the mystery.

Does the court have to decide if the verdict is 530.1 before they read the verdict and is that put on record so that we could find out, or can they wait and decide later on, when the sentence report is written?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Those...ermmmm..... "folks"..... over at .org really do have rationalisation down to a fine art. All we heard in the run up to (and immediately after) the Hellmann verdict was that if Knox was acquitted she would be straight off the plane and whoring out her story to all and sundry in an undignified money-grab.

But now that it appears that all Knox wants to do (in the short term at least) is to have privacy, and that she doesn't want to do lots of interviews, the fine......"folks"...... have decided that this behaviour is at odds with someone who's innocent and has "nothing to hide".

That forum is becoming a fascinating case study in a whole host of important areas in individual and group psychology. I am not being facetious when I suggest that it is worthy of serious academic study in and of itself.

I agree, and have long thought the same thing Re an academic study. The question of how intelligent and otherwise reasonable people become self-deluded, unable to change their stance after a plethora of contradictory evidence - the C&V report should have tipped them off that the winds of change were blowing ; yet they put the chance of acquittal at 1 % - is important.

And how every form of mean-spirited witch hunting and scapegoating projection, replete with psychological self-misunderstanding which grows cruder with each post - can find its way onto one forum, whereby increase of appetite grows by what it feeds on, is indeed material for serious research re the abnormal psyche.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Fiona is very confused and wrote a really ridiculous post (and incredibly short for her), she asks what convicted RG

Quote:
His dna was in the room: but since he admits he was in the cottage it could be there through contamination or transfer, just as RS's dna was in the room but can be explained by those factors. His bloody footprints are there, but they have no evidential value because RS's bloody footprint is also there and means nothing. Or it is not certain it is RS's footprint and so how can it be certain that the footprints are RG's? To me all the same considerations apply.


Fiona, how many years are you obsessing with the case and you have no idea Guede was identified by his palmprint in blood?

I'd like to see her explain how Rudy's DNA got into Meredith's vagina by contamination or transfer.

 

[Machiavelli]

And not only that, he also appears totally blind to the rather obvious motivation for Maresca, Mignini and Comodi to try to obfuscate over whether it was 530.1 or 530.2.

(In case it needs spelling out: 530.2 acquittals make the prosecutors (and Maresca) look reasonable, competent and honest, while 530.1 acquittals make them look vindictive, incompetent and mendacious.)

You are offending Maresca, Mignini and Comodi asserting that they "try to obfuscate", while you have the proof that it was the judge who obfuscated this by not mentioning. Because I have proven that "non aver commeso il fatto" does not mean anything like 530.1, and we know that Hellmann declared he doesn't know if Knox and Sollecito were at the crime scene.

However, the actual point is that 530.1 would not make the prosecutors look mendaticous, it would instead make the court judges look idiots and that would mean: a verdict that commits suicide. This because they convicted Knox for calunnia (also for other reasons): 530.1 coupled with a conviction of calunnia, and with some of the evidence, would be a self-defeating kamikaze sentencing report with no chance of survival at the Casazione. Hellmann would be shooting in his foot by writing a 530.1 + calunnia.

 

[LondonJohn]

PMF is up and running alright. They are now a forefront fighting agianst a miscarriage of justice

One guy made a sensible observation - Hellmann in a TV interview refused to clarify the 530.1 / 530.2 controversy, but if the verdict was 530.2 he would have said it to cool down everyone. He don't want to say because it is 530.1 and the Italians would jump and pile on him agressively.

Fiona is very confused and wrote a really ridiculous post (and incredibly short for her), she asks what convicted RG


Fiona, how many years are you obsessing with the case and you have no idea Guede was identified by his palmprint in blood?

Yes, I saw that rather embarrassing illustration of ignorance as well.

I've argued before that Guede could have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of Meredith Kercher on three pieces of evidence alone:

1) His handprint in Meredith's blood, found on the pillow underneath Meredith's body. It's worth pointing out that the police made their first positive identification of Guede by running this print through their databases: he was not a suspect who was subsequently linked to the print. The bloody handprint is totally unimpeachable evidence that Rudy Guede was present in Meredith Kercher's room, during or very shortly after her murder. And he had no business whatsoever even being in the girls' cottage, let alone Meredith's room.

2) His appearance at the two clubs in the centre of Perugia within hours of the murder. Guede was seen dancing and partying without any reticence or visible concerns. This, at a stroke, disproves Guede's defence of being an innocent bystander while others killed Meredith, of trying to help her as she lay dying, and of fleeing in panic at the thought of being falsely accused.

3) His flight to Germany within 48 hours of the murder. Again, this is totally incompatible with anything other than a belief by Guede that he had something to fear from being in Perugia while the murder investigation was ongoing. It's an illogical thing for Guede to have done if he really was no more than an innocent visitor to the house who happened to get caught up in the aftermath of the murder.

And that's why, in my opinion, the DNA evidence against Guede is actually of only marginal importance when one is assessing his guilt: he can be proven to be guilty without the DNA evidence even being necessary. And in fact, the handprint evidence is even better than any DNA evidence: it not only proves that Guede was in Meredith's room, but because it was made in her wet blood it proves exactly when he was in her room.

 

[Machiavelli]

Does the court have to decide if the verdict is 530.1 before they read the verdict and is that put on record so that we could find out, or can they wait and decide later on, when the sentence report is written?

They have to decide before.

 

[snook1]

I'd like to see her explain how Rudy's DNA got into Meredith's vagina by contamination or transfer.

I was just going to say that.
It would not surprise me to see them claiming that it was, in fact, a contamination.
Plus, from what I've seen, they're now talking about some conspiracy theory involving Hellmann.

PS. Where's Stint aka Pilot?

 

[Mary_H]

If she was led to the story, which I believe, and she was asked to imagine what it would have been like I don't find the detail of covering the ears to be strange at all.

The phone story has been around forever. Why would they turn off their phones in relationship to the crime? It makes more sense that if they turned off their phones (as I understand it Amanda said she turned it off but Raf's couldn't be determined) they would have done it to keep people from interrupting them while at home having fun.

If they were committing the crime they would have left them on at Raf's and hoped an incoming text would ping the phone there.

The Massei report itself points out that phone records cannot show whether a phone was turned on or off. The only reason the police know Amanda's phone was turned off was because she told them so. There is no record of Raffaele ever saying his phone was turned off at any time. If it were turned off, it is unlikely he would have turned it on around 6 am (when the delayed text from his father came in) instead of just leaving it off until he got up for the day.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

Okay, lets look at what you just agreed with. I'll assume your agreement means you agree with LK that the following statement is false (not true).

"No doubt this affair has cost her (AKs) family a lot, and four years of false imprisonment must be worth something." - "Not true"

Whether or not you believe it was justified, to assert that the cost of defending AK for the past four years did not amount to a lot of money lacks any rational basis in fact. While the exact amount the Knox family has spent in the last four years in not my business, that amount is surely not a trivial sum ($500,000 to $1,000,000 seem to be in the ballpark). For the record LK has asserted that the Knox's did not have to pay their attorneys because that is somehow covered (by the state?) in the EU. Others have shown that assertion to be false.

Yet here you come to us and reassert LKs argument yet again. LKs point that the Knox family haven't spent a lot of money in this case lacked a rational basis in fact and your agreement with that point is irrational. The jury is still out on whether you are an irrational person or just rash. But you have managed to raise suspicion.

I haven't agreed to anything. I was making a point, which I have since admitted was incorrect. I have never mentioned anything about court costs, nor do I have an opinion on it.

But please, let me know the result of rationality jury. I just hope you don't try me for something I haven't done, with suspicions raised from incorrect statements I said under duress.