Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

It's no wonder guilters do not want either Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito telling their own stories, or even defending themselves. Today I had a contact with a friend who knew of my interest in the case, but who had bought Amanda's book and read it. "It was a page turner." Their comment was telling.

"I saw that the cops probably focussed on her, and hece Raffaele, because they had no clue what was going on... and Knox was the weirdest duck within the cops' sights. What I could not understand was that when they discovered Guede, why they didn't just let the weird duck and her boyfriend go."

I recommended Raffaele's book too - although I didn't want to appear TOO enmeshed in this....

 

[Grinder]

Motive was Guede's acc. to Massei. We've been around this 100s of times.

Maybe because you've posted your five items a thousand times. Massei gave a motive whether you like it or not. Even more significant is that Massei gets it right that in general motive in the conventional sense is not necessary. If it was as Massei described it certainly is possible that a frenzy occurred and the kids joined in. I don't agree with his idea of a motive but you are as misleading as TM and his mixed blood.

Yup, she had seen him around on a few occasions, and was in his company with others (in the most meaningful definition of "in his company") all of once. Acc. to Massei.

From Massei - Visiting the house in Via della Pergola, he had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there; Rudy was talking to both of them and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda.
In addition Rudy saw Amanda at Le Chic and I'm betting donuts to dollars that he at least made a point of saying "hi".

It's no big deal but another example of each side trying to make their points with less than factual reporting.

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe because you've posted your five items a thousand times. Massei gave a motive whether you like it or not. Even more significant is that Massei gets it right that in general motive in the conventional sense is not necessary. If it was as Massei described it certainly is possible that a frenzy occurred and the kids joined in. I don't agree with his idea of a motive but you are as misleading as TM and his mixed blood.

It's now 7 items, and it has only been 986 times. Yes, Massei did give a motive. It was Guedes'. I for one think it should be reposted at least as many times as someone else posts that Amanda had a motive to kill.

From Massei - Visiting the house in Via della Pergola, he had seen Rudy there two or three times, and on these occasions Amanda and Meredith were also there; Rudy was talking to both of them and on one occasion he confided in them that he liked Amanda.
In addition Rudy saw Amanda at Le Chic and I'm betting donuts to dollars that he at least made a point of saying "hi".

It's no big deal but another example of each side trying to make their points with less than factual reporting.

Dollars to donuts? Wow. That's what I call cutting one of the sides down to size! What I agree with is that it is no big deal. "Less than factual"? I'll take my "reporting" and reading of Massei's motivations against those who say that Rudy Guede was Knox's pimp.

You are correct. It is a matter of what is factual. My point about this list is that those who claim Massei's report to buttress the prosecution's claims is that Massei actually discounts key prosecution claims.

Tell you what. Convince people to stop posting The Machine's list which repeats "mixed blood" as if Massei found that there was mixed-blood, or this new Wiki's author, who repeats BRMull's claim that Raffaele only called the carabinieri AFTER the postal police arrived.... and I'll stop posting what Massei actually found as factual.

Agreed?

 

[Bill Williams]

I would have also stopped reposting what Massei found as factual in 2010 (from the Dec 2009 conviction) - if the SC had simply confirmed Hellmann's acquittal.

In March 2013, the SC quashed the acquittal on as-yet-unknown grounds. The coming SC motivation's report will set the grounds for the coming re-trial in Florence.

The point of posting what Judge Massei found as factual is that this will be the beginning point of the new Florence trial, pending the "marching orders" from the SC ruling.

Of course, as a fact-finding trial, the Florence court could, conceivably, reverse these 7 findings of fact - and find as factual (on what grounds I am not sure) that there IS mixed blood present at the crimescene, and that there IS some forensic presence of Amanda Knox in the murder room. This would, in my opinion, be a game changer. Heck, if it was convincing evidence, I would probably become a guilter myself.

The March 2013 SC ruling has made it all the more important to be clear what Massei found as factual - the facts he agreed with presented from the prosecution, but also the facts he debunked in his motivations report.

Rather than listen (read) Grinder and I go around this merry-go-round yet again, I'm going to leave it to interested people here to actually read their way through the Massei report. This is me and my bias, but when I read it I was continually going to the end of it to confirm that I was actually reading the report that convicted the pair.

Same as with reading John Follain's book. But that's just me, and I am hopelessly confirmation biased I guess.

Your mileage will vary.

 

[Kaosium]

Note that there's a difference in Italian law between an actual motive (which involves premeditation) and establishing a 'mens rea', which is necessary in every case. Mignini's first one was the abortive effort at a Masonic ritualistic killing that didn't get past Matteini and survived only in the form of Raffaele's 'wanting to try extreme experiences,' the 'sex game gone bad.' Then he tried to establish a jealousy or financial motive when the English girls talked to the tabloids in England and he called them back, and Rudy came up with his nonsense about Amanda and Meredith quarreling over money, but the 'grievances' (which also would only serve to give Meredith a motive to kill Amanda!) didn't amount to much, and Amanda having that $5k in her bank account with more money at home and Rudy Guede having a definite reason to want to cast suspicion elsewhere considering his destitute financial straits, his DNA on Meredith's purse in her blood and that (obviously) making it look like he was there for another reason other than Meredith invited him over for smoochies made it difficult to attempt those.

He wrote up a motive to be approved by the Supreme Court which was the cannibus and comic-book fueled mayhem that is represented in Massei but that failed to impress the Supreme Court. In the end there was no official motive (of that sort--premeditation) but to establish the 'guilty mind' in writing the motivations Massei didn't agree with what Mignini had presented and decided to go with the idea that Rudy was raping Meredith and Amanda and Raffaele decided to help Rudy, where Massei mentions the hash and comics but instead of them going to the cottage with the aim of raping Meredith--which would be premeditation--it becomes an influence in their spontaneously joining in when they just happened to be with Rudy who is overcome with urges and decides to relieve them at poor Meredith's expense.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Maybe because you've posted your five items a thousand times. Massei gave a motive whether you like it or not. Even more significant is that Massei gets it right that in general motive in the conventional sense is not necessary.

"Not necessary" in what sense? In a legal sense, perhaps, it's not necessary for the prosecution to provide any reasonable motive for a crime, especially if all the rest of the evidence is very strong.

However if we're trying to get at the truth you can't just dismiss the complete lack of a motive in this case by saying "oh well, it's not necessary that the prosecution story make any kind of sense in terms of how every other murder in history has happened". A coherent story is not necessary in a really strict sense, but it's a huge problem if they can't provide one.

In exactly the same way it's not necessary to find someone's DNA in the murder room to convict them, it's just a huge problem for the prosecution narrative if someone else's DNA is all over it, but there is no trace of the accused. It's not necessary to prove the accused was there when the murder happened, but it's a huge problem for the prosecution narrative if they have a solid alibi backed up by computer evidence, whereas a rival suspect has left proof of their presence at the exact time of the murder.

Focusing on what is "necessary" seems to me to be a serious analytical error.

 

[Bill Williams]

Note that there's a difference in Italian law between an actual motive (which involves premeditation) and establishing a 'mens rea', which is necessary in every case. Mignini's first one was the abortive effort at a Masonic ritualistic killing that didn't get past Matteini and survived only in the form of Raffaele's 'wanting to try extreme experiences,' the 'sex game gone bad.' Then he tried to establish a jealousy or financial motive when the English girls talked to the tabloids in England and he called them back, and Rudy came up with his nonsense about Amanda and Meredith quarreling over money, but the 'grievances' (which also would only serve to give Meredith a motive to kill Amanda!) didn't amount to much, and Amanda having that $5k in her bank account with more money at home and Rudy Guede having a definite reason to want to cast suspicion elsewhere considering his destitute financial straits, his DNA on Meredith's purse in her blood and that (obviously) making it look like he was there for another reason other than Meredith invited him over for smoochies made it difficult to attempt those.

He wrote up a motive to be approved by the Supreme Court which was the cannibus and comic-book fueled mayhem that is represented in Massei but that failed to impress the Supreme Court. In the end there was no official motive (of that sort--premeditation) but to establish the 'guilty mind' in writing the motivations Massei didn't agree with what Mignini had presented and decided to go with the idea that Rudy was raping Meredith and Amanda and Raffaele decided to help Rudy, where Massei mentions the hash and comics but instead of them going to the cottage with the aim of raping Meredith--which would be premeditation--it becomes an influence in their spontaneously joining in when they just happened to be with Rudy who is overcome with urges and decides to relieve them at poor Meredith's expense.

Yes. Massei's mens rea reasoning in the motivations is the sudden, almost inexplicable (when paired with the finding of no psychopathology for the pair) choice for evil.

Thanks for this clarification. I'm still going to say, Massei found no motive other than for Guede. For Massei to get into this - in my opinion - is to expose Mignini's ever changing attribution of motive. That's the last thing Massei wants to do, so he avoids the question all together. IMO. Can you think of a reason not to phrase it this way?

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe because you've posted your five items a thousand times. Massei gave a motive whether you like it or not. Even more significant is that Massei gets it right that in general motive in the conventional sense is not necessary.

"Not necessary" in what sense? In a legal sense, perhaps, it's not necessary for the prosecution to provide any reasonable motive for a crime, especially if all the rest of the evidence is very strong.

However if we're trying to get at the truth you can't just dismiss the complete lack of a motive in this case by saying "oh well, it's not necessary that the prosecution story make any kind of sense in terms of how every other murder in history has happened". A coherent story is not necessary in a really strict sense, but it's a huge problem if they can't provide one.

In exactly the same way it's not necessary to find someone's DNA in the murder room to convict them, it's just a huge problem for the prosecution narrative if someone else's DNA is all over it, but there is no trace of the accused. It's not necessary to prove the accused was there when the murder happened, but it's a huge problem for the prosecution narrative if they have a solid alibi backed up by computer evidence, whereas a rival suspect has left proof of their presence at the exact time of the murder.

Focusing on what is "necessary" seems to me to be a serious analytical error.

This conversation makes it worth it to have posted the list 986 times!

It's not necessary to prove that Knox and Kercher had a deteriorating relationship, but the absence of a deteriorating relationship (as per Massei) should be a flag. Not in and of itself, but in combination with other factors.

It's not necessary to prove that there is mixed-blood belonging to AK/MK, but the absence of mixed-blood (arguably the backbone of the prosecution's case at one time!) should be a flag. Not in and of itself, but in combination with other factors.

It's not necessary to prove that Raffaele called the carabinieri AFTER the postal police arrived, but when it is shown he called before the postal police arrive, this should be a flag. Not in and of itself, but in combination with other factors.

It's not necessary for the Massei court to have closed off further DNA analysis by disallowing an independent review, but it should be a flag that when such a review is, in fact, eventually done and the review confirms what ALL world-wide DNA labs and experts have been saying.... this should not be exculpatory of Knox and Raffaele in and of itself, but in combination with other factors.

The prosecution was hell bent in substituting the breadth of evidence for the depth of evidence, leaving it up to courts (now there will be at least three fact finding courts!) to sift through it all.... hoping that if one elemnt fell (the DNA evidence collapses) that someone out there just might say, "but what about all the other evidence?" Not that ANYONE has ever claimed THAT!

When shown, one by one, that all this other evidence is mostly, if not toally, complete invention then one has to scratch one's head and ask, "Why were these two even charged, much less convicted?"

All I am doing is reading the Massei report and coming up with 7 points within Massei that tend to discredit the prosecution on main points of fact. I'm not even making them up or giving them a biased slant. It is simply what Massei, the convicting judge, says.

The trouble is, like the March 26 SC ruling, there was a lag time between Massei's ruling and his reasons for judgement.....

..... giving people in the cybersphere time to claim all sorts of things... like mixed blood, like a bad relationship between Knox and Kercher, like psychopathology that willing people extended into Knox's family and supporters.

But....... oooops. You read Massei, the first trier of fact, and none of that is there?

Did the guilters retract the claims? No. They are hell bent and since Mar 26, 2013, smell blood again.

Lets at least agree to begin (again) from where Massei's fact finding left off. The Kerchers today deserve no less than the truth here, not wild theories and pet scenarios.

 

[GWCarver]

I read about a quarter of Massei's motivation, and couldn't take any more. He sounded like an articulate moron, but I doubt if morons get elevated to judges. So, he must have had some other reason to sign his name to all of that nonsense, but I don't have any idea what it might have been, other than maybe it's what he has to do to keep his job.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes. Massei's mens rea reasoning in the motivations is the sudden, almost inexplicable (when paired with the finding of no psychopathology for the pair) choice for evil.

Thanks for this clarification. I'm still going to say, Massei found no motive other than for Guede. For Massei to get into this - in my opinion - is to expose Mignini's ever changing attribution of motive. That's the last thing Massei wants to do, so he avoids the question all together. IMO. Can you think of a reason not to phrase it this way?

As a one-liner, no, but if challenged you ought to be able to expand upon it and fill in the details. A 'talking point' is supposed to be a condensed argument, not deceptive, it's to get a point across with conciseness (which Grinder appreciates!) and there is most definitely a point to be made regarding both Amanda and Raffaele not having any reason to want Meredith dead and the damned silly things Mignini came up with in the attempt to provide something despite having more than a year investigating it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Can you think of a reason not to phrase it this way?

As a one-liner, no, but if challenged you ought to be able to expand upon it and fill in the details. A 'talking point' is supposed to be a condensed argument, not deceptive, it's to get a point across with conciseness (which Grinder appreciates!) and there is most definitely a point to be made regarding both Amanda and Raffaele not having any reason to want Meredith dead and the damned silly things Mignini came up with in the attempt to provide something despite having more than a year investigating it.

I will commit the term "mens rea" to memory. Of course Massei would have had to have provided one - well, he would have had to have provided one in any country descended from English law. A quick look on the web says that Italy has been following this in criminal process since the 1200s.

Still, Massei's finding that it was Guede's motive and not either Amanda's or Raffaele's is about as big a repudiation of Mignini and the prosecution as there can be - indeed, with Hellmann's now quashed aquittal being in play for about 17 months one could say that every "finder of fact" saw Mignini for what he was on the issue of motive - a motive that Mignini, apparently (if you believe John Follain's anonymous prosecutorial sources!) still pounds away about.

After all, if Machiavell is right and all this is a Masonic conspiracy to begin with - not to mention a conspiracy in play against Mignini since the Narducci case as Mignini himself said - then BOTH Hellmann AND Massei are on the same side of THAT conspiracy...... it ain't the Masons!

Finally, dovetailing into this is also the finding that neither Knox nor Sollecito had any psychopathology about them. At least as found as factual by Massei, and presumably by Hellmann too in the now quashed acquittals. No motive, no psychopathology, just a mens rea (I typed that without looking!) to suddenly and inexplicably choose evil.

How many times does this have to be typed before even a hardcore guilter says, "You know, none of what Mignini ever claimed really does add up!"?

Me, my bias is being totally gobsmacked that the SC just didn't want rid of this mess and Mignini's madness. After all, what is a new Florentine prosecutor going to say? That this actually IS a Masonic conspiracy to impugn the motives or mens rea of Giuliano Mignini over the Narducci case?

 

[anglolawyer]

Here's the memory thing about "he said/no I didn't". Background is that Bedford testified that Kamboj told him he put two extra cases in the container, after x-raying him. The cases were definitely there, so somebody put them there.

Kamboj consistently denied either putting any cases in the container, or saying he had. In all his police statements, and repeatedly at the FAI. He persistently said, not my job, these cases are heavy, I'm not paid to do that. It's notable just how often he was asked, and yet how consistent he was, for nearly two years. He knew that Bedford was saying he had said that, but he never agreed. (He would not have been admitting to doing anything wrong if he had confirmed Bedford's account.)

Then ten years later it starts all over again. How the hell can he possibly have an original memory left at that stage? This is his examination in chief. He is a prosecution witness and the prosecution would prefer if he had put these cases there, because that arguably makes them legitimate.




Look at that line of questioning! Will you call your colleague a liar? A bit underhand, no?

Now here's what the judge made of it. This is during the closing speech for the defence.




"It goes some way." The judge says so. The defence advocate is trying to say that the earlier account is to be preferred, but the judge isn't necessarily in agreement.

Never mind the specifics, is this a common way of dealing with this sort of discrepancy, or how do you think it should be handled?

Rolfe.

It all looks perfectly OK to me. You are just unhappy with the final assessment and your unhappiness may be justified for all I know. Witnesses are supposed to be tested in the witness box so their relability can be assessed first hand. Kumboj might have been flatly denying handling the cases back in 1988 because he feared getting into some kind of trouble, what with not being very bright and 300 dead people spread out all over Scotland. And why was Bedford so adamant? What about reexamination? Was Kumboj asked whether he would have denied handling the bags if that weren't true? He sounds like the sort of person who is so intimidated by the situation he will agree with whoever questions him last. I recommend a career as a baggage handler.

Surely the court has to assess his evidence along with all the other evidence pertaining to the question of the baggage handling i.e. in context. The context might be more important than this particular evidence. If the contention is that his statements to police must trump his live evidence due to the passage of time I say definitely maybe. Mr Taylor made that submission but it evidently was not considered.

Are we straying off topic?

 

[anglolawyer]

I wasn't suggesting "some sort of conspiracy", but my impression is that lawyers seem to think the rest of the evidence can be trumped if only they can induce a witness to express some doubt or contradict themselves in the witness box. And I think they quite often get their way.

Rolfe.

Well, I don't think so but if you have a dozen other examples that might change my POV.

 

[Kaosium]

I will commit the term "mens rea" to memory. Of course Massei would have had to have provided one - well, he would have had to have provided one in any country descended from English law.

That's how it was explained to me, thus I used terms that might be familiar to those with systems based on Common Law. It's the same concept as I understand it.

Still, Massei's finding that it was Guede's motive and not either Amanda's or Raffaele's is about as big a repudiation of Mignini and the prosecution as there can be - indeed, with Hellmann's now quashed aquittal being in play for about 17 months one could say that every "finder of fact" saw Mignini for what he was on the issue of motive - a motive that Mignini, apparently (if you believe John Follain's anonymous prosecutorial sources!) still pounds away about.

After all, if Machiavell is right and all this is a Masonic conspiracy to begin with - not to mention a conspiracy in play against Mignini since the Narducci case as Mignini himself said - then BOTH Hellmann AND Massei are on the same side of THAT conspiracy...... it ain't the Masons!

Didja know the Jesuits were once expelled from (much of) Europe for conspiring behind crowns? Guess where they went?

Do you know who invented the concept of political conventions in the US? Right around where I was born as a matter of fact...

Hrm.

p)

Finally, dovetailing into this is also the finding that neither Knox nor Sollecito had any psychopathology about them. At least as found as factual by Massei, and presumably by Hellmann too in the now quashed acquittals. No motive, no psychopathology, just a mens rea (I typed that without looking!) to suddenly and inexplicably choose evil.

LOL!

The little words are easy, try memorizing the ones Halides1 has to use on a regular basis! Like the name of the diffusion confirmatory blood test in the link he just reposted. It starts with an 'O,' there's other letters that follow it arranged without any discernible pattern. That's grade school stuff for that field though, their favorite trick it to mush together Greek and Latin roots nearly randomly, ending up with unpronounceable nonsense that may very well only differ from something completely different by one little letter in a 24 letter word.

How many times does this have to be typed before even a hardcore guilter says, "You know, none of what Mignini ever claimed really does add up!"?

I doubt anything can, it's one of the reasons I stopped participating in the discussion for a long while, it's pointless with some people, and trying to figure out why they cannot or will not look at the evidence or learn something about how to evaluate it lost it's luster a while back. It reminds me of why I didn't spend much time 'debating' the 911 people, I ran into someone (elsewhere) trying to make hay over Rumsfeld's 9/10/2001 speech about how byzantine the military bureaucracy is, it included a line about not being able to track some 2.3 trillion in transactions. This passionate young lady took that as the pentagon losing (or stealing) 2.3 trillion dollars, which isn't what Rumsfeld meant. He meant as each dollar winds its way through that labyrinth and is (supposedly) accounted for by each level (thus each dollar is counted multiple times) the system in place is so unwieldy and inefficient it cannot be done satisfactorily. It certainly doesn't mean the Pentagon actually 'lost' or 'stole' that money and would attack the twin towers to distract everyone when they were 'caught.'

I spent a few days chatting with this young woman trying to point out the entirety of the military budget the previous decade barely exceeded that number. Naturally she wouldn't believe any US government source, so I found an official French source with the same data--she was insistent the Froggies were in on it too! I got nowhere, even though the claim was ludicrous on the face of it, however no matter which source I tried it was somehow 'tainted' compared to her 'informative unbiased non-partisan' (kooky nonsense!) website. Eventually I just gave up, there's little point talking to those who cannot think without the aid of a website!

Me, my bias is being totally gobsmacked that the SC just didn't want rid of this mess and Mignini's madness. After all, what is a new Florentine prosecutor going to say? That this actually IS a Masonic conspiracy to impugn the motives or mens rea of Giuliano Mignini over the Narducci case?

I highly doubt there will be any more official mention of Masonic conspiracies by the new prosecutor!

 

[anglolawyer]

@Dan O.

You can be brutal sometimes. Reading around it seems Koko was unsure (or perhaps unclear) whether The Great Olive Fight occurred on 31 Oct or 01 Nov. We can settle it the same way Galati settles which night Toto saw them: we know where they were on Hallowe'en so it must have been the following night. I had better amend the wiki

 

[anglolawyer]

Mens rea is just the wrongful thought element that must be present in all crimes (except the strict lability kind). If I trip and fall against you that is not assault - I didn't mean it. If I walk out the shop with something I forgot to pay for, that isn't theft. More subtly, if I slap you lightly and you drop dead that's not murder, the mens rea for which (in E & W) is intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

2.3 trillion dollars! I never knew. How did they ever think they could get away with it?

 

[Kaosium]

Mens rea is just the wrongful thought element that must be present in all crimes (except the strict lability kind). If I trip and fall against you that is not assault - I didn't mean it. If I walk out the shop with something I forgot to pay for, that isn't theft. More subtly, if I slap you lightly and you drop dead that's not murder, the mens rea for which (in E & W) is intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Yes, and the process of establishing that (or whatever akin to it) in the Motivations sounds like a motive, in that it suggests they likely engaged in that behavior from insatiable lust and carelessness, speculatively because of their hash use and comic book reading.

However that's not really a motive in the Italian system, that's what the Supreme Court said, but they (Massei and Cristiani) still had to write a motivations and give a reason for the actions compatible with them being guilty of the offense and deserving of punishment.

2.3 trillion dollars! I never knew. How did they ever think they could get away with it?

They didn't! That website she kept linking to and praising caught them! She had dictionary definitions for 'tracking' and 'transactions' and if she put them together just right (a. for this one c. for that one) it was irrefutable conclusive proof Rumsfeld was saying the Pentagon lost 2.3 trillion dollars.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, and the process of establishing that (or whatever akin to it) in the Motivations sounds like a motive, in that it suggests they likely engaged in that behavior from insatiable lust and carelessness, speculatively because of their hash use and comic book reading.

However that's not really a motive in the Italian system, that's what the Supreme Court said, but they (Massei and Cristiani) still had to write a motivations and give a reason for the actions compatible with them being guilty of the offense and deserving of punishment.

This kind of hurts my sensibilities. Mens rea and motive are two entirely different things. You prove mens rea in our case by pointing to the wounds to her throat and saying, 'Look! Who could do this without intending to kill or cause serious harm?' Motive is why you commit the crime. Massei is not discussing mens rea when talking about motive.

On a different point, I suggest there is always a motive for murder, even 'motiveless' ones, such as random spree killings. Some self-gratification, at minimum, must be involved.

They didn't! That website she kept linking to and praising caught them! She had dictionary definitions for 'tracking' and 'transactions' and if she put them together just right (a. for this one c. for that one) it was irrefutable conclusive proof Rumsfeld was saying the Pentagon lost 2.3 trillion dollars.

Don't you think they went too far? I can understand stealing two trillion but who needs an extra point three? That's just greedy. I hope they catch this Rumsfeld guy some day. How you can defend a guy like that beats me Kaosium.

ETA Anyone hear the story about the astrophysics lecture in which the professor told the class that in six billion years the Sun would expand and swallow up the Earth? At the end of the lecture a very worried-looking student put his hand up and asked him how many years he said it would take and the lecturer said '6 billion' and the student sat back and said, 'Thank God! I thought you said 6 million!'

 

[Rolfe]

It all looks perfectly OK to me. You are just unhappy with the final assessment and your unhappiness may be justified for all I know. Witnesses are supposed to be tested in the witness box so their relability can be assessed first hand. Kumboj might have been flatly denying handling the cases back in 1988 because he feared getting into some kind of trouble, what with not being very bright and 300 dead people spread out all over Scotland. And why was Bedford so adamant? What about reexamination? Was Kumboj asked whether he would have denied handling the bags if that weren't true? He sounds like the sort of person who is so intimidated by the situation he will agree with whoever questions him last. I recommend a career as a baggage handler.

Surely the court has to assess his evidence along with all the other evidence pertaining to the question of the baggage handling i.e. in context. The context might be more important than this particular evidence. If the contention is that his statements to police must trump his live evidence due to the passage of time I say definitely maybe. Mr Taylor made that submission but it evidently was not considered.

Are we straying off topic?

That was an interesting reply, but I don't think we should pursue it in the specifics because it would go off-topic. It's not, in essence, a very important point as far as the actual case goes. It was the principle of hounding the guy twelve years after the actual event to get him to say something different from what he'd always said, when it seems clear to me that twelve years later he had absolutely no idea what he'd done, that interested me.

(Actually, I think the judges did sort of go with Mr. Taylor on that in the end. As I said it's not that pivotal. And Kamboj wasn't a baggage handler, he was a security guard who was manning the x-ray station. He was on £2.40 an hour. The baggage handlers were on £5 an hour. No wonder he said "I'm not paid to do that"! Just an aside. I would have thought the x-ray bods would have been on more money than the suitcase-heavers. And if you think Kamboj doesn't sound very bright, he's a raving genius compared to the other x-ray operator.)

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

This kind of hurts my sensibilities. Mens rea and motive are two entirely different things. You prove mens rea in our case by pointing to the wounds to her throat and saying, 'Look! Who could do this without intending to kill or cause serious harm?' Motive is why you commit the crime. Massei is not discussing mens rea when talking about motive.

What I meant was in fulfilling the requirement (where he talks about it in his report in narrative form) to show that Amanda and Raffaele intended to commit murder (but not premeditated--spontaneous) and needed to be punished he supports it with what sounds like a motive (to fulfill lust inspired by hash and comics) but that isn't what he's doing. I may well have forgot a qualifier when making the comparison with mens rea as it's not the same hurdle, just what he's doing there is closer to it than what we would think of a motive, in court or out.

What happened to LJ, anyway? I popped in here every once in a while and he was posting, but it doesn't seem like he's posted in a long time. He consulted a lawyer familiar with the Italian system and posted on this subject, using mens rea as a comparison.

On a different point, I suggest there is always a motive for murder, even 'motiveless' ones, such as random spree killings. Some self-gratification, at minimum, must be involved.

Yes, I agree, but the distinction being made here is between premeditation in which they must prove a motive through the Supreme Court and a 'spontaneous' act; in the US it might be more like the difference between murder in the first degree and manslaughter, dunno about the UK. A motive allows for stiffer punishment, for example had the Michaeli Court determined that the evidence of Rudy Guede being a burglar who was close to being evicted and having left his traces on Meredith's purse with Meredith's rent money, cellphones and credit cards having been stolen and Rudy haven gotten to Germany and survived somehow was enough evidence to say that Meredith was killed for her money, (motive) they could have given Rudy a stiffer sentence. Since Mignini stuck with the 'staged break-in' and absolved Rudy of being a burglar (in this instance) there was no chance of that.

Don't you think they went too far? I can understand stealing two trillion but who needs an extra point three? That's just greedy. I hope they catch this Rumsfeld guy some day.

That was an interesting conundrum for her! Was Rumsfeld a whistle-blower or did he just 'let it slip?'