Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Minadin]

You are repeatedly insulting the Kerchers; their judgement about what is right to do and about what is relevant and useful in a trial, and directly offending their feelings and values toward their siblings. Your statements are offensive and unacceptable. You demonstrate to be incapable of having basic respect and knowledge of others rights, you are exposing and embarassing yourself showing your true contept of the victim.

Riddle me this, Batman: if the evidence tended to show the accused were guilty, why resort to naked appeals to emotion without even making reference to the evidence? Why spend your entire closing insulting the experts and calling the accused a "she-devil" and a "witch," instead of explaining how the evidence shows the defendant committed the crime?

Also, please explain to me how that picture has any tendency to show that it was Knox and Rafaele rather than Guede who did it.

Well?

 

[moodstream]

Well you can only work with the amount you've got the question is how much dna is enough and there is a mixed DNA sample of the victim's blood and Knox DNA in the room with the broken window. If there are mixes with the victims blood with an unknown persons then obviously everyones DNA would be tested.

There is nothing mysterious or conspiratorial about not taking the other housemates dna...the conclusion very early on was that they were not involved.

I feel we are going round in circles re. the DNA evidence, its all very reminiscent of the OJ case which at least proves that the Italian police are not alone in bungling cases such as these. There was only one drop of Merediths blood in Filomenas room but somehow Amanda managed to stick her foot in it. She came home to a trainwreck of an apartment and decided to take a shower in a blood-spattered bathroom...this woman must be a nightmare to all DNA collectors!

Then there is the fact - undeniable! - that she lied from the very first minute long before the police even entered the scene.

Oh and then there was the fact that both she and Sollecito switched off their mobiles on the night of the murder.

Yes I suppose the handstands, cartwheels, lack of concern for the victim, poking tongues out, laughing, kissing bf can all be put down to an interesting way or coping with stress.

I saw this early in the day and I just can't let it go. I have been out all day but just before I hit the sack I wanted to comment.

Madrigal, if a third unknown party's DNA is found in the luminol spot, then either that unknown person is also guilty of the crime, or Knox's DNA found in the spot does not connect her to the crime.

If Knox's DNA can only be left after the deposit of the luminol spot, then that would be just as true for the unknown DNA. But if the unknown DNA can pre-exist the deposit of the luminol spot, so can Knox's DNA.

The unkown DNA is not Sollecito's or Guede's, so whose it? The likely suspect is Filomena, but then, is she guilty of this crime, or did the inspector just happen to collect her DNA along with Knox's. If so, they both could have been left before the luminol was deposited.

Even if it were just Knox stepping into Meredith's blood as you say, what would happen next? How could she avoid making another spot by putting her foot down somewhere? Why isn't there a trial of some kind? Do you think she really is a witch and can fly?

 

[bolint]

They asked to see her phone and found the outgoing message and then questioned her about it.

So yes, they knew it before the interrogation.

If you mean that in the, say, 30 seconds after reading the text and before posing the first question about it, then yes, they knew it before the interrogation.

But they did not know it before Amanda's questioning began at around 22:40 Nov 5.
They only knew of the fact that an SMS had been sent and another one had been received from a given SIM at given times.

As far as I know, to this day they don't know Lumumba's text, as both he and Amanda deleted it and texts were not preserved in the phone records at that time.

 

[bolint]

So it's probably Raffaele's, but as the Judge said it might not be. It's not like the 1 in millions type odds you get with a real DNA profile, and of course, no one knows what it is.

I don't think that law prescribes "1 in millions" certainty for evidence.
If you have a DNA evidence that restricts the possible perpetrators to one 100th of the population than it is still a good evidence.

Just think of a shoeprint. We know that tens of thousands of shoes of the same model and size are made and still shoeprints are used in trials as evidence. Rightly.

 

[Teddy2007]

What is becoming ever more clear is that the more Machiavelli talks, the more he lets down his guard. We now know he was in the court room for Maresca's closing comments. It seems fairly obvious to me that he is a journalist or in some way working for the media. What is also obvious is that there are journalists in Perugia that support Mignini no matter what he does, writing favourable articles. There are even some (Castellini) that help him find witnesses, and appear on Italian TV programs as "experts" listing discredited evidence to the willingly-fooled Italian public. We also know that outside the court room on judgement day, there were people with megaphones shouting "Giustizia per Meredith". Sounds eerily familiar. I find that to be odd behaviour, unless...

I don't think Amanda and Raffaele had a chance in the beginning. There is a network of chums working together to defend the impossible. Machiavelli seems more interested in defending Maresca and Mignini than he does in discussing the evidence of the case. He clearly knows Mignini. This whole thing stinks. There maybe something even darker behind all of this - perhaps they really do believe they are all fighting the Masons, and that somehow Amanda and Raffaele were mixed up in it. I recently read an article from an Umbrian journal suggesting exactly that, and surprise surprise, defending the good Mignini.

 

[codyjuneau]

How to encourage citizens to help the police (in no particular order):

• Turn OFF the video and sound recorders.
• Ask the helpful citizens for information.
• Call them liars when they answer truthfully.
• Tell lies to the helpful citizen.
• Play one helpful citizen against another.
• Keep them awake all night.
• Cuff them on the back of the head when they answer truthfully.
• Deny them bathroom breaks.
• Deny them an attorney.
• Gang up on them.
• Supply a biased interpreter if they don't speak the native language.
• Threaten them.
• Encourage them to accuse someone.
• Suggest a suspect to them.
• Continue until they forget the truth.
• Tell them they have suppressed memories.
• Make them scream in frustration.
• Write a statement for them saying they confusedly know who committed the crime.
• Get them to sign the statement.
• Immediately rush out and arrest the 'accused' person in the statement.
• Investigate the 'accused' person.
• When the 'accused' person turns out to be innocent throw the helpful citizen in jail for 3 years.

Is it any wonder the only witnesses the Perugian police can find to help them are innocent naive kids, crazies or homeless heroin addicts?

 

[codyjuneau]

Kudos to all the pro innocent people on this forum who post with patience, knowledge and intelligence to bring truth to those who have the humanity, integrity and common sense required to understand and accept the truth.

Eternal honor to Judge Hellmann, Judge Zanetti and the jurors for having the courage and conscience to determine a verdict which renders the delirious opinions of Mignini, Commodi and Machievelli utterly and justifiably irrelevant.

Eternal dishonor to Mignini and his minions for their deceit and corruption.

The truth set Raffaele and Amanda free.

The truth will condemn Mignini.

Eternal love for poor beautiful innocent Meredith.


Arrivederci ... See you later ... Good evening

 

[DarkStar2011]

I think he works for Mignini's PR Super Railroad.

True -- here he is, right now!

 

[DarkStar2011]

Maresca is now defending another Stefanoni, Pietro Stefanoni, driver in an alleged hit-and-run mishap in which an American woman was killed. Anybody believe Stefanoni's far-fetched story in his defense? HERE. Does Maresca believe him?

///

Maybe Maresca just hates Americans?

Seriously, I have no idea if the accused's story is "far-fetched" or not...but, if there's anything I've learned in this case, it's to be wary of rushing to judgment after only a few days based on what prosecutors and/or stories in the Italian media might report.

 

[Mary_H]

This may help sway British opinion:

British couple accused of growing opium poppies fall foul of a vendetta by Italian neighbours

"...the anonymous caller, who contacted police about poppies growing in the garden of the couple's restored farmhouse near Perugia, Umbria, "clearly does not like Dr Gillis"...

....During the raid, at dawn on Tuesday, police were said to have sent so many cars that they could not all fit in the road outside the house....

A more sensationalist take on it here:

Sunday, October 09, 2011
Mignini's "Keystone Kops" Arrest British Doctor and Wife for Wild Poppies on Property

NEXT UP: Machiavelli tells us the police had no choice!

 

[DarkStar2011]

Sorry but it is true. I'm not going to have a pissing match with you on this but I've been here well before 1983 and the yellow is mellow phrase was/is definitely part of life in Seattle particularly for teaching kids.

O.K., to take a cue from the rest of the discussion here: please provide some links to your proof. See if you can find one place where the city, county, or state governments or utility companies suggest not flushing urine. (No, sites from unofficial extremist environmental groups don't count.)

There have been, in fact, a number of PSA spots, particularly on radio, advocating for water conservation and offering tips on how to save water...and not flushing the toilet is definitely not one of them. Some of them suggest, as I have mentioned before, techniques like putting bricks or water bottles in the tank to cut down on the amount of water flushed each time, or going to compostable toilets. But leaving urine sitting unflushed in a toilet? Never.

Furthermore, I've known many, many people in this area. I've maybe had one person suggest that approach, and that person was openly an extreme pro-environmentalist who probably deposited their feces in the compost pile. Otherwise...no one. And, of all the people I've known in twenty-eight years, not a single one of their houses or apartments have ever had unflushed toilets.

Granted, I've found plenty of unflushed (of both kinds) public toilet stalls, but no more so than in other places I've lived, such as southern California or the northeast -- and those are clearly more a matter of rudeness and inconsideration than any sort of environmental consciousness.

 

[LondonJohn]

I will suggest to you that the prosecutors' basic mistake came during jury selection.

There's no such thing as jury selection in Italian criminal trials. Neither the prosecution nor defence has any influence over the composition of the six lay judges. They are selected arbitrarily (along with some alternates), and that is that. Other than that, you made a good point

 

[LondonJohn]

Seriously, virtually everything you've written here recently is utterly nonsensical, and is just a bunch of copypasta from PMF.

How about trying to have a rational conversation for a change?

This isn't PMF. Here, unlike there, you don't get brownie points for toeing any so-called "party line" (because there aren't any "party lines" here) and you don't get turfed and "thanked for stopping by" for disagreeing with others.

But you are expected to actually say something worthwhile and intelligent in the midst of a discussion, instead of just copying and pasting the same old drivel from elsewhere.

So, how about a real discussion? Are you game?

I'm still very interested in the nature of the relationship between Machiavelli/Yummi and Giuseppe Castellini, editor of the Giornale dell'Umbria (Umbria Journal) newspaper. Machiavelli/Yummi has so far artfully dodged a response to this question - as is his prerogative, of course. But I think that Machiavelli/Yummi might be a lot more involved in this case than many people realise.

 

[LondonJohn]

Meredith Kercher family are set to sue Amanda Knox for £8million.

HERE

HUH?

This seems to be the product of some complex and very sad rationalisations on the part of certain members of the Kercher family. It's worth bearing in mind some factors which would undoubtedly be dictating this move:

1) It appears that most (if not all) of the Kercher family still believe that Knox and Sollecito participated in Meredith's murder, and that the Hellmann acquittals were a travesty.

2) It's very possible therefore that the Kerchers see a civil action as a statement of principle as much as (or more than) a monetary matter - i.e. they want to hear a court assign some quantity of guilt to Knox and Sollecito.

3) If that's the case, it's highly likely that Fred Goldman's successful civil action against OJ Simpson (after the criminal court acquittal) is serving as a template for the rationale of bringing a civil case against Knox/Sollecito.

4) The Kerchers will be well aware of rumours about the amount Knox might make in interviews, book/film rights etc. Although these amounts are probably vastly exaggerated, and although it may well be that Knox and her family have no interest in excessively profiting from this sad saga, it's very possible that the Kerchers are partially motivated by disgust and/or anger about this - especially if they still believe that Knox is a murderer who "got away with it".

5) The Kercher family have undoubtedly run up significant legal costs. They probably therefore feel that it is justifiable - both legally and morally - to seek financial redress from someone who a) killed Meredith (in their view), and b) stands to make plenty of money in the aftermath of the acquittals.


I strongly suspect that the Kerchers are now in a very unpleasant position - a position that has largely been imposed upon them by an avaricious lawyer, and a corrupt and fanatical prosecutor. They owe a huge amount of money that they can't afford, and are essentially now playing high-stakes roulette. If they do nothing, they face a huge bill from Maresca that they probably can't pay. If they pursue a civil action against Knox (and Sollecito?), they will add to their legal costs, but stand to win a lot of money if the action is successful. And what's more, as far as they are concerned, the money is not a hypothetical - they imagine that Knox is sitting on a gold mine, and will have a bank account stuffed full of riches within the year. When you add in the righteous anger and disgust, and the "crusade for justice" angle, it's a complex and very sad situation.

I have no idea who is giving the Kercher family legal advice at this stage (although I'm guessing it's not Maresca). My personal view is that the Kerchers would be best served by doing two things: 1) wait for the Hellmann motivations document to be published, and for any potential prosecution appeal to the Supreme Court, before doing anything concrete; 2) wait to see what Knox and her family might offer. On that second point, I have a suspicion that a lot of people - not least the Kerchers themselves - might be very surprised. If so, now is definitely not the time for the Kerchers to be acting vindictively or antagonistically towards Amanda Knox.

 

[RoseMontague]

It is interesting they are still pursuing this case despite Maresca's showing those pictures to the guests and reporters in court. It must have something to do with justification. They feel they were justified and not the Sollecito's. I don't get it, maybe there is another explanation.

I think this comment is shameful and I m surprised by you writing this.
I am susprised you don't see what are the two differences.
First, the venue and the audience and the kind of show is different. Maresca is showing pictures in court, during a trial. Only to the people in court, warning them about the content, with no one recording and keeping the picures or diffusing them, and this happens in the trial when the investigation is over.
The Sollecitos televised the pictures, did that outside a legitimate venue, and while a trial had not been opened.

Second, the Kerchers are entitled to decide about the memory of her daughet, they are the victim's party are legitimately committed to defend her interest in the way they decide to do. They don't need a justification, because they have a right. I cannot forcibly strip naked a girl, but she can do it, beceuse she is the owner of her body. The Kerchers throught their representatives can dispose of the memory, honor and interest of their deceased daughter and sister.
The problem with the Sollecitos is that they have no right to. They are not only using something illicitely, they are also using soething that doesn't belong to them.

I see I missed all the discussion yesterday about your comment regarding my comment.

I could care less what your personal feelings about me are and I feel no shame for my comment.

I think the court had seen these pictures before and had access to them any time they wanted to view them and the court was not cleared of guests and reporters because Maresca wanted to show them to the guests and reporters simply for the shock value in some sort of misplaced last ditch effort to sway public opinion.

I think this along with the change in venue will hurt the Kercher's case against the Sollecito family.

Just my opinion.

 

[Dan O.]

I will suggest to you that the prosecutors' basic mistake came during jury selection.

Which prosecutor are you talking about? The one that was virtually unheard and unseen during the entire appeal hearing or the one that technically wasn't supposed to be there?

 

[RoseMontague]

Granted, I've found plenty of unflushed (of both kinds) public toilet stalls, but no more so than in other places I've lived, such as southern California or the northeast -- and those are clearly more a matter of rudeness and inconsideration than any sort of environmental consciousness.

Allow me to interject some personal experience I had dealing with unflushed toilets. I believe it was 1996 and I was living in Durham County NC at the time Hurricane Fran hit. It came into the coast of NC as a category three, proceeded inland and around midnight decided to stall over the Durham/Raleigh area for 8 solid hours before moving on. Power went out, phones and cable were down. We had a battery powered transistor radio that we had on to follow the news. The only station that could be picked up was some station in Ohio, very strange, a long way from Durham but it came in as clear as a bell. It was some talk show deal and all the folks from Raleigh/Durham that had working phones were calling in to report on events and let everybody know their situation. The folks at that station pretty much became the Raleigh/Durham news source until the next morning. I will never forget the sheer power of that storm continuing non stop for many hours. I ended up losing several 200 year old oak trees and many of my beautiful magnolia and bradford pear trees. We had firewood for the next five years when we were done cutting them all up. Lost some fences and shingles but no major damage to our home.

We were on well water (300 feet deep well) and with the electricity out and no well pump we had no drinking or flushing water. Power would remain off for weeks. A neighbor had a generator and was kind enough to let others in the area use his faucets for water. I remember making many trips with gallon jugs up and down that road, carrying water. Needless to say, we flushed only when we absolutely had to. One bathroom for pee that we hardly ever flushed and one for the other that contained many of our gallon jugs. LOL. I came to hate the smell of old pee. Never again. Bought a generator after that and never used it once.

 

[LondonJohn]

Some thoughts on what Hellmann may write in his motivations report re. "lone attacker vs multiple assailants":

Firstly, it's very important to understand that Hellmann is under no obligation whatsoever to propose a narrative of the crime in his motivations report. The sole aim of the report is to explain how the court reached its verdicts on the charges against the accused. In this instance, Hellmann's court was purely tasked with determining whether the various charges against Knox and Sollecito could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The motivations document therefore has the sole obligation to explain how and why the court came to determine that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted of all the main charges (and how/why the court decided that Knox was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the criminal slander charge).

Therefore, the motivations document has absolutely no mandate to propose its version of "the truth" in relation to the murder. Furthermore, one could argue that it would actually be exceeding its remit by attempting to do so. Hellmann's court was not tasked with deciding what really happened that night. And, in fact, it's perfectly possible that his court arrived at its verdict without ever even giving significant consideration to what really happened that night. All it had to decide was whether the evidence proved beyond doubt that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder (and the other charges) - and that can be don in complete isolation of a wider consideration of the "truth" about the murder.

However, I will offer a prediction at this time: I predict that Hellmann's motivation will say that it was his court's opinion that the murder was most likely committed by a single person, Rudy Guede. I think he will add the important caveats that 1) his court does not exclude the possibility of other assailants, and 2) it was not the role of his court to rule on this matter. But I think that he will make a specific point of stating that the evidence is all consistent with a sole assailant: Guede.

I make that prediction for two main reasons: firstly, Hellmann has already expressed dissatisfaction with the previous trial against Knox/Sollecito, and has made public statements after the appeal trial which tend to indicate that he's inclined towards the "lone assailant" theory; and secondly, the staging charge was struck out by Hellmann's court on the 530.1 basis that "it did not take place". In other words, Hellmann does not believe that the break-in (or other elements of the crime scene) was staged. Therefore, by extension, Hellmann's court believes there was a real break-in that night. And if it believes that, then in my opinion it's almost certain that Hellmann's court believes that it was Guede who broke in, and who subsequently attacked, sexually assaulted and killed Meredith.

In other words, I believe that Hellmann's court has reached precisely the same conclusion that we reached here many months ago: Guede broke in; he went to the toilet; he was surprised by the unexpected arrival home of Meredith at 9pm; he tried and failed to exit the cottage without alerting Meredith; there was a confrontation which evolved into a sexual assault and murder; Guede cleaned himself up and exited the cottage, throwing the phones away on his way back to his flat.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm still very interested in the nature of the relationship between Machiavelli/Yummi and Giuseppe Castellini, editor of the Giornale dell'Umbria (Umbria Journal) newspaper. Machiavelli/Yummi has so far artfully dodged a response to this question - as is his prerogative, of course. But I think that Machiavelli/Yummi might be a lot more involved in this case than many people realise.

Quit false insinuations: I did not "artfully dodge" any question. I do not answer if I deem answering is inappropriate or unimportant or if I forget.

It happens that I don't know Giuseppe Castellini at all, never met him, and I don't live in Umbria.

But one thing has to be made clear: as a principle of policy, I do not answer to any question concerning relations with journalists (or about any possible or alleged relation with journalists).

 

[Keeper]

More from Lumumba in the London Evening Standard

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ys-bar-owner-she-accused-of-being-murderer.do

The journo who wrote this can maybe shed light on the difference between Lumumba's comments on his treatment at the hands of the police above and in this interview below...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html