Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Fine]

This is easily explained if the cleanup is in the shower and perhaps impossible to produce otherwise. Halfway through the cleanup, Rudy steps out of the shower and reaches across the sink to grab the soap. A drop of watery blood falls from his hand into the sink. A similar action causes the drip into the bidet. Rudy retreats back to the shower and finishes rinsing the blood off himself then uses the shower sprayer to clean the sides and basin of the shower stall.

Now it's your turn. How does a drip of watery blood fall into an otherwise blood free sink and bidet without using the shower for the cleanup?

____________________

Dan,

Why the heck would Rudy need a bar of soap to rinse Meredith's blood from his trousers? (Or did he want to wash behind his ears?) And why would there be a bar of soap on the bathroom sink, since there was already a bottle of self-dispensing soap there. (See: HERE.)

Those drops of pink stuff on the sink, bidet, and toilet seat cover were vampire blood, so their presence predates Rudy's cleanup activities and don't figure in any reconstruction of Rudy's activities the night of November 1st. Knowing that Meredith applied the vampire blood in the bathroom on October 31st, and then on November 1st ---on two occasions---scrubbed the vampire blood from her face........shouldn't we expect to find traces of that vampire blood in her bathroom?

///

 

[katy_did]

Not that it matters a lot, but I just took another look at the photos. The droplets of diluted blood appear to have fallen on a dry surface. Dan O. is a good observer

Hmmm, but how can you tell? The entire surfaces of the sink/bidet would've been dry when they photographed the droplets, I guess, since it had been 17/18 hours at least since they were left there. The drips of blood would've only been visible because they dried a different colour.

 

[Dan O.]

____________________

Dan,

Why the heck would Rudy need a bar of soap to rinse Meredith's blood from his trousers? (Or did he want to wash behind his ears?) And why would there be a bar of soap on the bathroom sink, since there was already a bottle of self-dispensing soap there. (See: HERE.)

So he is getting liquid soap from the dispenser. The reason should be obvious, he doesn't want to get caught red handed.

Those drops of pink stuff on the sink, bidet, and toilet seat cover were vampire blood, so their presence predates Rudy's cleanup activities and don't figure in any reconstruction of Rudy's activities the night of November 1st. Knowing that Meredith applied the vampire blood in the bathroom on October 31st, and then on November 1st ---on two occasions---scrubbed the vampire blood from her face........shouldn't we expect to find traces of that vampire blood in her bathroom?

It's entirely possible that they were. But unless there is some new evidence I have been unaware of, these drops were not specifically tested and found to not be the victims blood. Even if they are vampire blood, their presence is evidence against the use of the sink or bidet on the murder night and do not contradict the use of the shower.

///[/QUOTE]

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you see an admission or a confession in this?

Yes.

I see sorrow, noting that he was hurt and she feels bad and that she harmed him,

Me too. So would a judge using this sort of thing at trial. "That she harmed him" is admission of come sort of guilt.

but I also see her saying she didn't mean to, and isn't that the requirement that has to be met at least on some level?

The accused is not a trier of fact. The accused is a giver of evidence, and it is up to the trier of fact to determine what she "meant" to to.

She also suggests coercion by including 'withstand the pressures.'

Again, the accuser is not the trier of fact. I suggest to you that this is alos a tacit admission that she corroborated something, rather than initiated somethin, meaning the suspicion that Lumumba needed rounding up.

I dunno, I find this the best candidate so far

Thank you.

but does it meet the requirement simply because she feels bad that he was hurt and knows she contributed?

Yes, it meets the requirement, and no, "feeling bad" doesn't figure into conviction, it figures into sentencing. There. Now I'm up to an even 1,000,000.

Here's the thing: would it be a crime if you were to sign a statement suggesting you thought--but weren't sure--I had been the person you saw leaving the scene of a murder? You might find out later I was innocent and felt bad if I was convicted in part on your mistaken testimony, but would you be culpable for three years in prison for it?

I would be if when free and clear of the coersion I asked for a pen and paper.... I think we're approaching the 1,000,000th time I've made this point.

“Patrick? I don’t see you. But I’m sorry. I’m sorry because I didn’t mean to do wrong to do you. I was very naïve and not courageous at all; I should have been able to withstand the pressures that caused me to do harm to you. I didn’t mean to contribute to what you have suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didn’t deserve what you experienced and I hope you will be able to find peace.”

This shows the awareness and admission I'd expect of a decent person, who nonetheless did the deed. I'm a "If you do the crime you do the time" sort of guy. Whether I actually like Amanda Knox as a person is completely beside the point.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes.


Me too. So would a judge using this sort of thing at trial. "That she harmed him" is admission of some sort of guilt.

So in other words in your view she put her own neck in the noose by proffering that apology? I wonder if that's why he kept demanding (another) one publicly? It certainly didn't appear to mean anything to him the way he refused it. If she had not made that statement do you therefore think it would be more difficult to convict her? Why do you suppose her lawyers let her make it then?

The accused is not a trier of fact. The accused is a giver of evidence, and it is up to the trier of fact to determine what she "meant" to to.


Again, the accuser is not the trier of fact. I suggest to you that this is also a tacit admission that she corroborated something, rather than initiated something, meaning the suspicion that Lumumba needed rounding up.

Yes, but the 'trier of fact' has to prove that she both knew he was innocent (or probably so) and she meant to falsely accuse him. Relying on the fact she feels bad for what happened because of what the police did to him because of her confused statement doesn't necessarily prove either one of those things.

Yes, it meets the requirement, and no, "feeling bad" doesn't figure into conviction, it figures into sentencing. There. Now I'm up to an even 1,000,000.

I understand, as I recall your argument is more technical in nature? In other words the letter of the law was breached and must be respected but not necessarily by three years in prison?

I would be if when free and clear of the coersion I asked for a pen and paper.... I think we're approaching the 1,000,000th time I've made this point.

However does a statement that she might remember, but can't recall for sure due to confusion, prove that she deliberately accused an innocent man for nefarious purposes in the first place become more valid because she adds more about the confusion part? Amanda said she was trying to clear up that she wasn't sure about any of what she signed, that was the purpose of the first note, the second one the next day totally withdrew it.

The memoriale of the Seventh says she thought Patrick was the murderer when she signed the original statements, however there isn't a clear unambiguous accusation of murder in either one, in fact in the second it notes she didn't (supposedly) witness the actual murder. The first note merely adds definition to what she meant by confused.

As you've allowed, it wasn't her who initiated this sequence of events, and it was that which actually 'harmed' Patrick, her signing of two statements and writing two notes didn't do a damn thing to Patrick and wouldn't have if the cops hadn't taken action on them, which as you've also allowed they probably would have anyway. Amanda didn't mean to harm Patrick and she didn't at all, despite the fact she feels badly about what happened as a result of her statements.

Here's the thing: what is the difference between what she signed and wrote and someone who is unsure of what they witnessed--and makes that
clear in the witness statement itself? She 'confusedly' remembers Patrick is the murderer in the first one, followed up shortly thereafter by another one that says she didn't even witness the murder and includes more odes to confusion.

Should mistaken witness accounts made in good faith and qualified that they are not definite assertions be punishable by years in prison? I don't think it's a good idea for the Italian Republic to make clear that any violation of their laws regarding the protection of witness and suspect rights can be avoided by the police simply blaming any mistake made by them on the person they took into the back room in the middle of the night and turned off the cameras and got two signatures on statements that look like they come from someone who'd been slapped around.

This shows the awareness and admission I'd expect of a decent person, who nonetheless did the deed. I'm a "If you do the crime you do the time" sort of guy. Whether I actually like Amanda Knox as a person is completely beside the point.

Here's the thing though: did she do the crime or does she feel badly that the result of her being used in the back room by police for their own purposes caused another to get harmed as a result? Incidentally do you think they could obtain a legitimate conviction without using her spontaneous statement?

Here's another thing. The Italian Court System doesn't work on precedent, instead the purpose of the Court of Cassation is to ensure rulings by lower courts are in compliance with Italian law, it is the 'final interpreter.' Therefore just because Massei ruled that the statements were admissible for the calunnia trial doesn't mean the Supreme Court, which disallowed both for the murder charge, (as evidence against Amanda) will even be permitted as evidence in the calunnia trial, Massei just made a very strange decision on that issue. It may very well be that there should have been no calunnia trial at all, as would be the case due to the 'evidence' being obtained in a matter not in compliance with Italian law, as already ruled by the Supreme Court.

If I understand properly you think she should face conviction on this charge, but not punishment outside being considered a felon for life with all the consequences of that, as an incentive for people not to sign things for the police no matter what violations of their right occurred, that's an entirely different issue in your mind?

I think this is a recipe for police abuse of staggering proportions as it provides an incentive for police to use any means possible to get what they want, secure in the knowledge that as long as they blame the results of any mistakes on the people whose rights they've abused they will not be prosecuted, and if anyone objects all they have to do is destroy the evidence (or ensure it never exists) and when they complain prosecute them for that. That is the situation as it stands in Italy, it would be nice if there was any reason to think the police might be held to account for their violations, but as long as Amanda is convicted on the calunnia charge there's no reason to think they will be, as the fault lies solely with Amanda and their 'punishment' of not being able to use the evidence they obtained in violation of her rights bypassed.


That is what the police have done here in this case, the interrogation that was deemed not in compliance with Italian law produced three trials against Amanda and her family for objecting to her treatment despite the fact the statements were deemed inadmissible due to her rights not being respected. I find it even more sickening that they could convince her that it was her fault for what they did to Patrick, despite the evidence suggesting she didn't want them to do any of that.

Incidentally, Bill, I just like to post on this subject, the stimulation causes me to think things through, don't take it personally. I find the present situation in Italy frightening if they can convict Amanda of calunnia and thus totally escape consequences for their actions despite the fact they lied through their teeth about all of it and might have taken away Amanda and Raffaele's effective lives as result, by simply prosecuting their mistake which started with what they did to obtain those statements. It is all well and good to say that they should be punished regardless, but as long as Amanda is convicted that simply isn't going to occur and might well not even if she is acquitted. It could very well be that you will be deemed correct and her spontaneous statement at the outset of the appeal will be the 'evidence' that she is guilty of this offense, but I find the big picture implications of her conviction on this charge appalling for the various reasons I laid out.

 

[Dan O.]

Not that it matters a lot, but I just took another look at the photos. The droplets of diluted blood appear to have fallen on a dry surface. Dan O. is a good observer

I actually hadn't had a chance to look at the photos myself but that's what I suspected would be found. If the bowl were wet at the time the blood drops fell in, they would have merged with existing drops and surface wetness and would have become further diluted in the progression towards the drain. But the description we have is that the chain of drops are the same color all the way down. This is a single drop loosing parts of itself as it rolls down and not picking up any more water.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm reading through Kevin Lowe's JREF thread about the Amanda Knox threads here on JREF, his thread is called "WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?"

I was not even much aware of the tragic Perugia murder when Mr. Lowe started his thread in Jan 2011. Much of the thread, to my read of it anyway, concerned which "side" of a rather wide debating-gulf had a corner on the facts? I'm sure that the folk who were around and following that thread back then have a better sense of it than I.

Both sides, acc. to Lowe's thread, accuse the other side thusly: "You on that side pull out your long-since discredited theories, we on this side simply rely on the facts. You on your side rely on an irrational love/hate of Amanda Knox, we on our side simply dispassionately assess facts."

Well, hopefully you do not regard this as too much of a set up, becuase it describes my recent experience rather well. I actually am on one side of the murder-guilt debate, and believe I do rely on facts, with no particular emotive feelings for Knox, Sollecito.... to be honest, not even Meredith may she rest in peace - at this point in time it is really Kercher's family I feel for. Apologies, that's just the way I feel.

So just when I thought there were no facts left for me to check out, someone pulls a subtle claim out of the great ether of the Internet claiming, "Of course Knox is a bad person, she bragged that she had sex with a stranger on a train while on her way to Perugia."

I've tracked down the hip swivel claims, the cartwheel claims, the "she ***** bled to death" claim, which all nitpickers, myself included, will recognize as canon in this case. When I first readthose things, I thought those were the needless inflammations of people wanting to sully Ms. Knox's reputation - especially ahead of trial, when passion can run high.

I discovered that in the main, those things actually did happen. The problem was in the meaning one assignes to them. Are hip swivelers and police-station-cartwheelers prone to the kind of violence claimed by the prosecution.

So I calmed down a bit, of course they are not. Knox is a strange person, obviously not very street wise, and oh so painfully young at the time.

But this "sex on a train with a stranger" business. I'll admit, the wanring bells went off - is this the type of Foxy Knoxy silliness the early tabloids used to sully the public record with sensationalism simply to sell papers?

Confession is good for the soul. I spent 45 minutes Googling, purposely staying away from pro-innocence sites, let I be doing my own version of confirmation bias. Pro-innocence people are not immune, c'mon folks, admit it.

But in answer to Lowe's question, "WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?" as it relates to a potential argument about sex-on-a-train, this actually sounds like something you could actually establish a fact, or debunk. Black or white. No middle ground?

Now, before I get to the results of my wasted 45 minutes, there's always a second level to these sorts of minutiae, described by some as whack-a-mole. All of a sudden the "losing" side claims something conspiratorial about why the public record is as it is - that the "fact" itself has been massaged.

I bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pocket that such a conspiracy is entertained by the losing side here. (Then again, I wouldn't be typing this if it didn't already confirm MY bias. Sue me!)

A lot of folk who don't like Knox very much made great use of this - Google shows. Some claimed to have read it in her prison diary, but unless I missed something, the claim is untrue.

It turns out that Knox did send an e-mail back to a family member in Seattle about sex on a train. BUT BEFORE STOPPING HERE!!!! (ALL CAPS becuase I know someone will take that bare admission out of context,) the first level of explanation is that pro-Guilt people saw such an admission on a My Space site, before it mysteriously disappeared, no doubt, they imply, because the massive PR campaign to sanitize the 'Net from anything that made Knox look anything less than lily white was found and pulled.

Also, the fact that the number one reference point that comes up in relation to this factoid is The Mail of the U.K. did not fill me, an innocentatii, with much hope (I assume The Mail is a tabloid, publishing well before the phone hacking scandal caused most tabloids to smarten up).

Apparently sister Deanna was with Knox, which without other facts, makes it seem even more sallacious. Acc. to the Mail, c Nov 2007.

However, the context of the offending e-mail? Turns out the man in question was named Frederico. They met him on the train from Florence to Milan. This is where it gets murky. One version of the e-mail I found after 45 minutes claims that, no, there was no sex on the train or afterwards - just Knox's musing in the e-mail that this might be an Italian male's fantasy. Ha ha ha ha. Not funny then Knox, and tragically not funny in 20-20 hindsight.

I guess that suggestion alone is enough to somewhat sully a 20 year old's reputation. Then I found another seemingly original citation - a note claiming to be the text of the e-mail which only makes mention of Frederico buying both Deanna and Amanda dinner once in Milan - and no mention of the 'S' word at all. It is plain, though, that Knox made a bad choice (in my eyes anyways) of agreeing to smoke marijuana with Frederico before they go their separate ways. Why do I say bad choice? I just disapprove of people smoking marijuana. Especially with people they have just met. Sue me. And, again, with 20-20 hindsight, who knows what disaster will befall you to be used against you later on?

Are we posting innocent stuff on Facebook in 2011 which will come back to haint us when an employer in 2025 reads it?

Back to the point at hand. Some still stick to this talking point, even though in 45 minutes of websearching, I could find only two items claiming to be original citations. There isn't even a citation that I could find (maybe you can help) on the guilter pages.

But even with this there's a question posed, which follows from this non-evidence - "Why are you defending someone who would have sex in a lavatory on a train?" One poster even goes so far as to imply that Knox is now a prostitute, trading sex for a meal.

But back to the "WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?" Is not it at least incumbent upon us to first establish if the deed actually took place?

It turns out that there is scant evidence that it actually did. I know, I know, I know, someone is going to say that a major author (John Follain?) makes mention of this fact in his book - so it must be true, right? Or that the massive PR firm with supernatural powers erased the original source from the guilt-sites.

Where, though is the first source? Where does this factoid exist in situ? If BOTH sides argue this way, not going back to the original source, surely we're all doomed!?

This, to me, is a classic example of why I am on the side I'm on, so I can offer a partial answer to Kevin Lowe's query. We can argue our opinions, but let's at the very least stipulate a set of facts, and argue from there.

And to those who oppose the detail of what I've found out about sex-on-a-train, I do realize that your mileage varies. I do realize that you are suspicious that the My Space page came down, if in fact that is what happened. I do realize that you'll have your examples which work in the other direction. I wish you'd post them.

The final thing is this: why in the name of all that is good, would someone want to call anyone a "prostitute" based on this kind of flimsy connect-the-dots-which-mostly-do-not-exist?

That is the one of the queries I have that thread away from Kevin Lowe's original "WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?"

Yes, your mileage will vary.

 

[Bill Williams]

So in other words in your view she put her own neck in the noose by proffering that apology?

Yes. Quite the double bind, eh? But that is my view, yes.

I wonder if that's why he kept demanding (another) one publicly?

Even if Lumumba himself only wanted a further apology, I bet his lawyer was rubbing his hands together in anticipation.

It certainly didn't appear to mean anything to him the way he refused it. If she had not made that statement do you therefore think it would be more difficult to convict her? Why do you suppose her lawyers let her make it then?

1) They had bigger fish to fry. 2) They dropped the ball. 3) they thought, as you do, that the last court would do away with the conviction based on law, not evidence. One of these three. Otherwise I have no idea.

Yes, but the 'trier of fact' has to prove that she both knew he was innocent (or probably so) and she meant to falsely accuse him. Relying on the fact she feels bad for what happened because of what the police did to him because of her confused statement doesn't necessarily prove either one of those things.

If you had been the trier of fact, this is what would have happened, then.

I understand, as I recall your argument is more technical in nature? In other words the letter of the law was breached and must be respected but not necessarily by three years in prison?

I now suspect you write this because you don't want me repeating my position for a 1,000,001st time. Either that or world peace is not far behind.

...<sinister deletia>.......

Here's the thing: what is the difference between what she signed and wrote and someone who is unsure of what they witnessed--and makes that clear in the witness statement itself? She 'confusedly' remembers Patrick is the murderer in the first one, followed up shortly thereafter by another one that says she didn't even witness the murder and includes more odes to confusion.

1) both participated in doing harm to another. 2) Ah, er, I can't think of a #2 right now.

Should mistaken witness accounts made in good faith and qualified that they are not definite assertions be punishable by years in prison?

Mistaken is a 20-20 hindsight kind of word.


.... <more sinister deletia>......

If I understand properly you think she should face conviction on this charge, but not punishment outside being considered a felon for life with all the consequences of that, as an incentive for people not to sign things for the police no matter what violations of their right occurred, that's an entirely different issue in your mind?

Yes. Every one of us, whether frail elderly or naive twenty-something needs to find the strength someone down deep to resist colluding with the devil. Both when the devil offers us riches or beats the crap out of us. Ooooops, unduly medievalizing this situation belongs mainly to Mignini. I may have just committed calunnia. But you get my dirft.

I also believe we should also try our best not to be helpful. Esp. when they are putting the boots to us. Ask Patty Hearst about that phenomenon. Time heals even what you're fearing.

I think this is a recipe for police abuse of staggering proportions as it provides an incentive for police to use any means possible to get what they want, secure in the knowledge that as long as they blame the results of any mistakes on the people whose rights they've abused they will not be prosecuted, and if anyone objects all they have to do is destroy the evidence (or ensure it never exists) and when they complain prosecute them for that. That is the situation as it stands in Italy,

Nice try, but not quite. The superior court got it half right when they ruled the interrogation illegal for the larger charges, but it was aquirk of criminal procedure that allowed the same jury to hear it on the lesser charge. Sound to me, a non expert, like some tweaking is being begged for, not radical overhaul on this point.

I'm sinisterly not responsing to the rest of this, because as you see, I can generate my own long posts above! Sharon Feinstein once asked, "Don't you people have jobs?" The fact is I do!

 

[komponisto]

WOW. I did NOT expect the motivation to be released this early!

I've been quickly skimming through. Two points to note so far:

(1) (p. 27) On the issue of the implications of the Cassazione decision in the Guede case, Hellmann and Zanetti specifically quote the passage from that ruling that I translated earlier:

... [R]ight from the outset we must resist the attempt -- reflected in [literally "pursued by"] the entire structure of the defense case, but out of place in the context of this decision -- to involve the [Cassazione] panel in endorsing the hypothesis that others, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, were responsible for the murder, aggravated by sexual violence, of Meredith Kercher. The decision that this Court is called to make concerns only the responsibility of Guede with regard to the act under dispute; any participation of others in the crime will be taken into account only to the extent that this circumstance bears on the matter that is our only concern: the modification or confirmation of the judgement of responsibility of the defendant -- the latter being wholly agreed upon by the judges of the first and second level.

(2) (pp. 29-35) The theory adopted on the calunnia is that it was the result of pressure and stress (and most of the discussion is sympathetic to Amanda and sounds like Hellmann and Zanetti are agreeing with the defense!), but Amanda should have known that Lumumba was innocent, because he had little connection to Meredith. The decision to retain the calunnia charge appears to be narrow and legalistic in nature (they say that the law doesn't require that she have done it with any particular psychological motive, such as trying to shift blame away from herself) -- exactly the kind of thing that could be the subject of a Cassazione appeal.

 

[Bill Williams]

This just in:

The Hellman motivations' report has commented on why the appeal upheld calunnia.

It seems Hellmann's et. al. judgment was that Knox should have known that Lumumba could not have done the crime. Reason? Knox knew there was little to none connection between Kercher and Lumumba, and therefore should have been skeptical in the extreme that Lumumba could have done the deed - even if the police were browbeating her with that claim.

It looks like the Hellmann report is not terriby complimentary of the police interrogation either.

In any event, some pro-guilt people are now assigning Hellmann with the same satanic influence that everyone else is assigned when they look at the evidence and sya, "There's nothing here to even hint that Knox and/or Sollecito had something to do with this."

My view: case closed. Your mileage will vary.

Bill W. Williams

 

[Rolfe]

Ah. I did expect it to come out before Christmas. I hadn't noticed quite how near Christmas we are. I need to ignore this and write some more cards.

Is someone working on a readable translation, and if so, any idea how long that will take? How long is the document, anyway?

Rolfe.

 

[Grinder]

I do believe my December 23rd prediction may win closest to award - ah those that doubted Hellmann could finish ahead of deadline - my faith is rewarded.

 

[bookworm]

Ah. I did expect it to come out before Christmas. I hadn't noticed quite how near Christmas we are. I need to ignore this and write some more cards.

Is someone working on a readable translation, and if so, any idea how long that will take? How long is the document, anyway?

Rolfe.

143/144 pages

 

[Katody Matrass]

Great news!



The court basically agreed with the defence about everything, including the reconstruction of the November 5 interrogation, ToD, Guede's responsibility..

Quite nice gift from the judges to Raffaele and Amanda before Christmas

 

[Bill Williams]

If all we are arguing about now that the Hellmann motiviation's report is:

1) will the calunnia conviction survive appeal?
2) how some pro-guilt people can call an Italian judge "a liar"

Then this is all but over. Sheesh, even those of us only accused Judge Massei of faulty reasoning. I don't think I ever once heard Massei described as a "liar".

Hellmann's criticsm of Massei is the use of 39 "probablies" in tying together what amounts to nonexistant evidence. "Amanda 'probably' brought a kinfe with her to the cottage from Raffaele's", that sort of thing. Hellmann was right on - you don't convict someone of transporting a weapon used in a murder based on a "probably", esp. when the weapon in question has Knox's DNA on the handle and a small piece of Rye-grain on the blade.

Case Closed.

 

[Dougm]

This just in:

The Hellman motivations' report has commented on why the appeal upheld calunnia.

It seems Hellmann's et. al. judgment was that Knox should have known that Lumumba could not have done the crime. Reason? Knox knew there was little to none connection between Kercher and Lumumba, and therefore should have been skeptical in the extreme that Lumumba could have done the deed - even if the police were browbeating her with that claim.It looks like the Hellmann report is not terriby complimentary of the police interrogation either.

In any event, some pro-guilt people are now assigning Hellmann with the same satanic influence that everyone else is assigned when they look at the evidence and sya, "There's nothing here to even hint that Knox and/or Sollecito had something to do with this."

My view: case closed. Your mileage will vary.

Bill W. Williams

Re: the highlighted portion above. That reasoning seems somewhat "Massei-like". Sort of a "she should have known he didn't do it". About a man that she had only known a few weeks, and seemed nice, but was foreign to her. Well, the roomates and British girls should have known that Amanda did not do it either, because there was no reason to think she would. And Raffaele had no connection to Rudy at all, so there was no reason to think that he did the deed with him, but lots of people made that leap anyway.

This seems like very weak reasoning -- I thought it would be more of the "she requested the pen and paper when she was not under duress" reasoning.

 

[katy_did]

I particularly like this bit, from Nick Pisa's Daily Mail article:

He also picked up on the infamous CCTV footage of Miss Knox buying underwear with Mr Sollecito in which a shopkeeper said he 'overheard them discussing hot sex' and said: 'The fact she bought a G string and not a more conservative piece of underwear is not an indicator of an insensitive soul, inclined to obscene behaviour.'

See, now that just throws my whole moral universe into chaos.

 

[Bill Williams]

It turns out that both Raffaele and Amanda WERE convicted originally on the basis of a cartwheel.

Note to self: if ever arrested, do not do anything quirky. Do not eat pizza with a friend. Do not cry because of the death of a friend - then again, if you do not cry they'll hang you for that, too.

And do not, repeat: do not, say "hoopla". Do not sit on a friend's knee even if it is for comfort. Do not react with anger at the death of a friend, saying, "She *****....." <sigh> you know what I mean.....

I'm starting to repeat myself. Apologies.

But everyone of us, guilty or not guilty, needs a list of things not to do if arrested or suspected. Those things will result in the nastiest of comments made about you 4 years later by people with nothing better to do than make nasty comments.

And your friends and family will have nasty comments made about them. If you ever write a book, your publisher will be vulnerable to those nasty comments. Personally. Heck, even the acquiting Judge will have ad hominem attacks leveled at him.

So, do not, repeat, do not do anything quirky. You may have the right to remain silent, but you will have no right to be quirky with no street smarts.

Remember you read it here first.

 

[katy_did]

Re: the highlighted portion above. That reasoning seems somewhat "Massei-like". Sort of a "she should have known he didn't do it". About a man that she had only known a few weeks, and seemed nice, but was foreign to her. Well, the roomates and British girls should have known that Amanda did not do it either, because there was no reason to think she would. And Raffaele had no connection to Rudy at all, so there was no reason to think that he did the deed with him, but lots of people made that leap anyway.

This seems like very weak reasoning -- I thought it would be more of the "she requested the pen and paper when she was not under duress" reasoning.

It's almost like it was written to be overturned, isn't it?

 

[Fine]

Amanda's calunnia conviction will be appealed and ---contrary to earlier reports---the Hellman court's acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele for murder was unanimous. Raffaele has already spoken. A statement from Amanda is expected shortly.
HERE.

///