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

[Dan O.]

Follain dates this conversation Nov 20.

that would be the day after Rudy's face was all over the news (BBC)

Does Follain's text mesh with what Massei printed on page 45 of his manuscript?

 

[anglolawyer]

Give it up, why don't you guys?

Rolfe.

Because it's not over yet.

 

[anglolawyer]

But you can't get away cleanly if you undertake any witnessing. You remain involved.

Anyway, supposing that all three are involved, the absence of witnessing, the initial breakdown of the pair and Rudy's changing tales are compatible only with the involvement ranking:

1. Rudy (otherwise he would have indeed turned state's witness)
2. Amanda
3. Raffaele (otherwise he would never have said that Amanda was out that night)

If you're guilty, getting away cleanly means you've hit the jackpot, certainly. But that's not the only prize on offer. Doing less jail time is an attractive alternative. I believe Rudy implicated Amanda and Raffaele in return for some soft pedalling from the prosecution in his appeal, which was heard two weeks after the conviction and resulted in a substantially reduced sentence which, with time off for good behaviour could see him out and about only a few years from now.

I don't think you have tried hard enough to imagine their respective positions had they been guilty. To gamble everything on all the evidence being falsifiable is not likely to be the best strategy in such a situation. They were separately represented. Each legal team will have fought for their own client, exclusively. The scope for cut-throat defences was considerable (and offered a much greater chance of a 'clean' getaway).

Never mind the legal teams, what about the 29 missing call recordings, some of which are of Amanda and Raffaele speaking to each other before 05/11/2007 but which have been 'lost'. They might give us an idea of any early defence strategy, formed before any legal advice was taken.

I do not understand your ranking point at all I am afraid but, on the stated assumption of guilt, you can already see defence strategy emerging in Raffaele's case - he couldn't vouch for Amanda that night. Why not stick to that? Luckily for him, it turned out there was virtually nothing locating him at the crime scene (a dubious footprint and the bra clasp) so that could have worked out fine.

And Amanda. Right from the start, her fellow murderer withdraws her alibi. How does she react? Like a guilty person, saying 'OK, I admit I was there but it was Raffaele who killed her - I was off my face with coke'? Does she heck! She not only fails to implicate him but also fails to frame the other perp too, picking on the entirely (and demonstrably) innocent Patrick. What kind of defence strategy is that? It's complete nonsense which was tossed in the trash immediately and replaced with another high risk and pathetic defence of 'I'm innocent' which depended on a series of miracles and the extended co-operation of the man who had lobbed her into it in the first place.

As I said, none of this is 'forced' but it doesn't mean it isn't strong. The post-murder conduct, to me, is just as good an indicator of innocence as the pre-murder conduct (no motive, no connection with Rudy etc. etc.).

 

[Antony]

That's exactly why I'm bored senseless by most of this, and why I made the homoeopathy comparison. It's all "well this looks a bit suspicious", and "would an innocent person have said that?"

Someone remarked that there was actually nothing Knox and Sollecito could have done that would not be interpreted as indicating guilt. Look at the pictures - don't look at the pictures. Go visit each other - stay away from each other.

What makes me angry about this particular element of the pseudo-evidence employed by the guilter faction, is that now it's about what Amanda and Raff are doing after their release. It's not enough that they ask about the buying of underwear for Amanda in the days following the tragedy; now they need to know whether they're taking up where they left off, four years on from having their relationship destroyed by others.

And so on. Same with homoeopathy. No matter what happens to the patient, it's always because the remedy is having some effect! That, and trawling back through long-discredited papers using faulty methodology or bad statistics.

There's nothing that can't be explained by the students having spent the night at Sollecito's flat, and Rudy Guede, surprised in the cottage by Meredith's unexpected return, having killed her all by himself.

You missed out: "... local police and prosecution deciding to 'solve' the crime the easy way, and refusing to admit that they were wrong 4 years after the truth came out." Unfortunately for some the possibility that police might make mistakes (or be dishonest) is such a taboo suggestion that they are forced to construct an entire ideology as an alternative to reality.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Her goal was not to throw suspicion on Rudy. It was to remove suspicion from herself.
And indeed, both specifically naming Rudy and not mentioning him at all is wrong to achieve that.

But saying she was there with Lumumba is a good strategy for removing suspicion, eh?

The winning ticket is to stick to the truth no matter what. But unfortunately, lots of innocent people don't do that when the cops turn up the heat. They tell the cops what they think the cops want to hear, even if it's not true.

Like this guy:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/discovery_false_confession_rocha.flv

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Valentine's day offensive

According to Barbie, "It is no coincidence that Knox’s handlers in Seattle and her literary agent in New York have put her memoirs on the auction block at the exact moment the deadline to appeal came due in Italy. By riding a new wave of interest in the case, they are sure to up ante for her yet-to-be written book, which is reported to start only with her arrest and imprisonment for Kercher’s murder. She is not expected to write about the night of the crime or the morning after." I am not certain how Ms. Knox was supposed to anticipate that the prosecution would appeal, but her negotiations were prior to the Valentine's day offensive from the prosecutors. Is this retrocausality? I report, you decide.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am not missing. I continue to exist. But I don't live to discuss this case on boards.
There is no such thing as an "independent" expert. You better cancel the concept of "independent expert" from your mind because it does not belong to the law.
The law does not prevent the admission of new evidence on appeal in the absolute, but requires the filing of specific motivations for the admission (motivations that Hellmann's court failed to provide). Motivations that must have some requirements. New evidence can be introduced only if a specific requirement is acknowledged.
The evidence introduced is not called "call an independent expert", it is called "introducing new evidence", which implies that whatever the evidence is - might well be a new expert's opinion - this will not be considered like anything "independent", it will be instead be just new evidence taking the shape of a point on some of the parties, and it cannot just be allowed to be there as a "third" thing, a conclusive opinion on others opinions to solve the issues. Instead if introduction of new evidence is opened, the evidence must be of symmetrical kind. Means any party has a right to "reply" presenting their own evidence and this means the evidence must be introduced simmetrically, as an opportunity for all the parties to reply. So if the defence demands new evidence on item X and Y, and this evidence is deemed necessary with legitimate motivations, then the accusation parties will have to be allowed to introduce evidence on points X and Y as well.

To me it is obvious that the C&V does not serve at all purposes of seeking the truth, since does not add absolutely anything to the altready known facts. All findings and opinions of C&V report were already known and had already been submitted by the defense in the first trial. Just for this it's obvious the appointing of new experts was illegitimate.

No, I will not discuss on this board.

Fine. But can you provide the relevant citation in the criminal code? I find the idea that a judicially-appointed expert has the same standing as one giving testimony for one of the parties decidedly odd.

 

[Supernaut]

Not as mod:

I've looked over the evidence, and I still believe the same way I did before; that is, that AK and RS have guilty knowledge regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher. .....

As ever Mr. Mod., the question is;

which evidence are you referring to?

I anticipate the sound of cicadas.

 

[jhunter1163]

Not as mod:

The points which are suggestive to me of AK and RS's involvement are:

1. AK implicating a provably innocent man. To my mind, she was clearly trying to get the spotlight off herself, not "cracking" under police interrogation. She named Lumumba almost immediately, only an hour or so into her questioning.

2. RS knowing that nothing had been taken from the room even though, by his account, he hadn't been in there, even being unable to kick down the door.

3. Guede naming them after his conviction. Yes, I know he was probably angling for a reduced sentence. He is, however, the only person who was undisputedly there.

 

[Murdoch]

Not as mod:

The points which are suggestive to me of AK and RS's involvement are:

1. AK implicating a provably innocent man. To my mind, she was clearly trying to get the spotlight off herself, not "cracking" under police interrogation. She named Lumumba almost immediately, only an hour or so into her questioning.

2. RS knowing that nothing had been taken from the room even though, by his account, he hadn't been in there, even being unable to kick down the door.

3. Guede naming them after his conviction. Yes, I know he was probably angling for a reduced sentence. He is, however, the only person who was undisputedly there.

Surely your questions are satire and not serious?

 

[anglolawyer]

Not as mod:

The points which are suggestive to me of AK and RS's involvement are:

1. AK implicating a provably innocent man. To my mind, she was clearly trying to get the spotlight off herself, not "cracking" under police interrogation. She named Lumumba almost immediately, only an hour or so into her questioning.

2. RS knowing that nothing had been taken from the room even though, by his account, he hadn't been in there, even being unable to kick down the door.

3. Guede naming them after his conviction. Yes, I know he was probably angling for a reduced sentence. He is, however, the only person who was undisputedly there.

Oh dear.

1 So if she implicated a guilty man then that would be OK? Compare her two statements to the police at 1.45 and 5.45 on 06/11/2007 as analysed upthread by me and you will see how her second statement irons out flaws in the first which the cops had been too stupid to understand. Both are quite plainly full of content fed to her by the cops. We can park the discussion until we see/hear those tapes.

2 when did Raffaele ever say nothing had been stolen from Meredith's room?

3 defence strategy, pure and simple - and it worked too, 16 years being way better than 30. In his first attempt he was specific that Amanda was not there. You can disregard anything Guede says unless it's backed up somewhere.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

off-the-cuff

Not as mod:

The points which are suggestive to me of AK and RS's involvement are:

1. AK implicating a provably innocent man. To my mind, she was clearly trying to get the spotlight off herself, not "cracking" under police interrogation. She named Lumumba almost immediately, only an hour or so into her questioning.

2. RS knowing that nothing had been taken from the room even though, by his account, he hadn't been in there, even being unable to kick down the door.

3. Guede naming them after his conviction. Yes, I know he was probably angling for a reduced sentence. He is, however, the only person who was undisputedly there.

1. The questioning began around 11 and the statement was not until 1:45. I also believe that continued agressive interrogation went on between 1:45 and 5:45. Amanda was not in good physical or mental shape by 5 November according to contemporaneous reports.
2. You may be confusing Filomena's room with Meredith's room. I think that Raffaele noted or was told that Filomena's computer had not been taken, and assumed that nothing else had been removed.
3. Guede has generally been vague in his statements, but I agree that his words are self-serving.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not as mod:

The points which are suggestive to me of AK and RS's involvement are:

1. AK implicating a provably innocent man. To my mind, she was clearly trying to get the spotlight off herself, not "cracking" under police interrogation. She named Lumumba almost immediately, only an hour or so into her questioning.

2. RS knowing that nothing had been taken from the room even though, by his account, he hadn't been in there, even being unable to kick down the door.

3. Guede naming them after his conviction. Yes, I know he was probably angling for a reduced sentence. He is, however, the only person who was undisputedly there.

You'll probably get six or seven simultaneous replies to your post, of which mine will only be one, so don't feel obliged to reply to everything everyone posts.

In response to (1) there are relevant facts you may not be aware of. Specifically that Knox had been told that the police had proof that Lumumba was the murderer, told that the police had proof that Knox had been present at the time the murder was committed, and told that she had repressed the memory of it all. She was then "encouraged" by tag-team interrogations and slaps to the back of the head to "remember" what really happened.

This particular interrogation tactic is not used by competent police forces because it's known to produce false statements exactly like Amanda's.

In response to (2) this is very weak evidence at best that Raffaele knew anything at all. In Agatha Christie novels everything everyone says is either precisely true or a giveaway that they are hiding something. In real life people get things wrong. You can't swing a cat in these forums without hitting several people saying stupid things they didn't really mean to say, and that's in a medium where they have time to compose and edit their statements. In real time people say all sorts of dumb things.

In response to (3), this too is very weak evidence for the reasons you state.

The reason (2) and (3) taken together are not compelling is that the hypothesis that Knox and Sollecito teamed up with Guede to murder Kercher is really, really improbable. No such murder has ever occurred before, ever. Gangs kill, couples in dysfunctional long-term relationships kill, but psychologically normal people in new relationships just don't team up with near-strangers and overcome a serious language barrier to murder their housemates.

When there is only weak evidence for a very improbable hypothesis, and there is very strong evidence for a perfectly probable hypothesis, it is not reasonable to favour the improbable hypothesis.

But I imagine four other people have said the same thing by now.

 

[jhunter1163]

1. Why would she name him at all?

2. Do you have any citations supporting your contention regarding Filomena's room?

3. I am willing to concede that Guede has a vested interest in implicating others, but that isn't a reason to dismiss what he says. He placed them at the scene.

 

[Grinder]

Not as mod:

The points which are suggestive to me of AK and RS's involvement are:

1. AK implicating a provably innocent man. To my mind, she was clearly trying to get the spotlight off herself, not "cracking" under police interrogation. She named Lumumba almost immediately, only an hour or so into her questioning.

She was told that the police had hard evidence that Patrick had killed Meredith and that she was there. They did have her say what "they knew to be correct" after she buckled, according to the police chief. Why wouldn't she have pointed towards Rudy, since she left his evidence? At that point if she were guilty, why wouldn't she buckle and tell the truth?

2. RS knowing that nothing had been taken from the room even though, by his account, he hadn't been in there, even being unable to kick down the door.

Yes, if it is exactly as reported his statement is a bit odd. However, to be fair, Filomena noticing immediately that her make-up was missing is just as odd. Raffaele looked in the room and saw the computer and a few other things that made him think nothing was taken.

Perhaps, he was asked if anything was taken and he answered that he didn't know or that he hadn't noticed anything missing. He seems and seemed like a nervous Nelly and might have just blurted out stuff when talking to 112.

3. Guede naming them after his conviction. Yes, I know he was probably angling for a reduced sentence. He is, however, the only person who was undisputedly there.

If Rudy would have testified at the appeal hearing and allowed cross instead of having Mignini read a statement that had language many think Rudy didn't understand and that's why he didn't read it himself.

To my mind, either they were somehow all equally responsible or A&R weren't involved at all. If either of the kids was just slightly involved, that one would have talked. If Rudy had an account that would help him, he would have made it by now. Why on the Skype call did he say Amanda wasn't there? If he thought the call was being recorded and he knew the kids had been arrested, why not help that case along?

 

[Supernaut]

Not as mod:

The points which are suggestive to me of AK and RS's involvement are:

1. AK implicating a provably innocent man. To my mind, she was clearly trying to get the spotlight off herself, not "cracking" under police interrogation. She named Lumumba almost immediately, only an hour or so into her questioning.

Discussed ad nauseam. It's Groundhog day! Even Hellmann declared that the interrogation had been extremely coercive. As to exactly what went down in the 'questura' on Nov 5th/6th, it's quite literally the cops' word against AK's, as the cops "forgot" to record or even transcribe anyhing, or "were contrained by budget" or "thought AK was a witness NOT a suspect" etc' etc'.

2. RS knowing that nothing had been taken from the room even though, by his account, he hadn't been in there, even being unable to kick down the door.

He did not say "nothing had been taken" but that nothing obvious (such as laptops in other rooms) had been taken.

3. Guede naming them after his conviction. Yes, I know he was probably angling for a reduced sentence. He is, however, the only person who was undisputedly there.

Please try harder.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

1. Why would she name him at all?

See above. The police told her he did it, that she witnessed it, and that they needed her help to close the case.

2. Do you have any citations supporting your contention regarding Filomena's room?

It's not good form to make claims with no citations yourself, which are in error to a significant degree, then demand citations of others.

3. I am willing to concede that Guede has a vested interest in implicating others, but that isn't a reason to dismiss what he says. He placed them at the scene.

The first version of his story, told to a friend, had a stranger show up and murder Meredith. Guede never said anything to implicate Knox or Sollecito until after he had the opportunity to find out that the police had decided to go after those two. As such I don't see how it can count as evidence either way, since Lone-Wolf-Guede and Did-It-With-Them-Guede would both see it as in their interests to finger Knox and Sollecito at that point.

Evidence needs to me something which is more likely to be true if the hypothesis is true. This doesn't seem to me to be something that is any more likely to be true if Knox and Sollecito were involved than if they were not.

 

[smkovalinksy]

From the posts on TrueJustice (interpreting the prosecution's 112 page appeal---"Perugia’s Excellent Umbria24 Posts Details Of Prosecution’s Contentions Against The Hellman Verdict" and "Weighing The Ten Points On Which The Umbria Chief Prosecutor’s Supreme Court Appeal Is Based"), it really would appear that Hellmann, the independent experts, the C & V report, everything, is being dismissed and swept away. No wonder Knox's family is crying harassment. ( Amanda Knox's Family Slams 'Harassment' By Italian Prosecutor" )http://news.yahoo.com/amanda-knoxs-...NjBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

It is almost as though Hellmann's review all those months did not occur.

I had thought this appeal to the Court of Cassation in Rome was to be argued on very narrow technical grounds only, within the Hellmann report, but this would not appear to be the case. Its as though time has been rolled back a few years.

 

[Bill Williams]

1. Why would she name him at all?

Apologies for joining in, but it is very hard these days to get people would believe in guilt to post. At least in forum where the points they make can be held to the light of day. So, I for one, value you here....

Then again, you ask, "Why would she name him at all?" Because the cops took the risk at interrogation (which at that time was still legally an interview of someone "informed of the facts") telling her that they had proof that Lumumba was there. Why would Knox at that point, doubt the cops?

2. Do you have any citations supporting your contention regarding Filomena's room?

Nope - you don't get to ask the quesiton this way - sorry. This is classic, "I say something that proves Knox/Sollecito is guiltym and you ask me for proof, well I'm going to turn it around and ask that you prove that they are NOT guilty." You are entitlted to your opinion on what you think about them, but in a criminal case, the porcess is this - you assume they are innocent, and then you cite evidence that calls innocence into doubt... not the other way around.

You want us to prove that Sollecito DID NOT say something? Eg. that he DID NOT make a statement about whether something had been robbed from Meredith's room? Just how does one do that?

3. I am willing to concede that Guede has a vested interest in implicating others, but that isn't a reason to dismiss what he says. He placed them at the scene.

"Dismiss" vs. "heavily doubt"? Ok, I'll then cycle back to the very first thing Guede says in a Skype call from Germany back to a pal in Italy, a call taped unknown to Guede. He says, "Amanda wasn't there." If Guede had dropped dead the next second, we'd have had what amounts to a deathbed confession.

It was when Guede was in the hands of lawyers paid to represent his best interests that all of a sudden, "Knox and Kercher fought over rent money," and "Sollecito was the Italian guy I fought with after taking a dump, and Knox was standing in the doorway."

Put that up against his Skype call. Everyone is allowed to form an opinion based on this. My money is on the chance that the vast majority of people compare the two and decide that Guede was telling the truth in the Skype call.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Grinder]

From the posts on TrueJustice (interpreting the prosecution's 112 page appeal---"Perugia’s Excellent Umbria24 Posts Details Of Prosecution’s Contentions Against The Hellman Verdict" and "Weighing The Ten Points On Which The Umbria Chief Prosecutor’s Supreme Court Appeal Is Based"), it really would appear that Hellmann, the independent experts, the C & V report, everything, is being dismissed and swept away. No wonder Knox's family is crying harassment. ( Amanda Knox's Family Slams 'Harassment' By Italian Prosecutor" )http://news.yahoo.com/amanda-knoxs-...NjBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

It is almost as though Hellmann's review all those months did not occur.

I had thought this appeal to the Court of Cassation in Rome was to be argued on very narrow technical grounds only, within the Hellmann report, but this would not appear to be the case. Its as though time has been rolled back a few years.

Reading TJMK can be hazardous to your health - it should be a required statement on the site.

They can write whatever they want in an appeal. That doesn't mean that the Corte Suprema di Cassazione will accept all those arguments.

Since Mach says he won't be commenting, we can't ask him, but I assume that much of this appeal is for local consumption. Galati gets to make Mignini, Massei, and others in Perugia happy by putting their theories back in the press.

On a another site it was said by Yummi that this appeal by Galati and Maresca will put on the record what "the facts" of this case really were, for all of time. He also asked that a public letter be written backing the prosecution. It sure seems he has a vested interest in the case.