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

[charlatan]

Here defense team -

Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 11:03 in Italian Chronicle , suspects and investigators
of Matthew Failla - for rest of article

Can someone verify that the SC actually said he is credible because he said she had blue eyes?

Hellmann argues, he saw at an angle and from far away. In so doing Hellmann ignores the clarity with which Quintavalle was able to describe the woman, seen from the front and only 70 - 80 cm away: clear blue eyes, pale skin, a tired expression. Not only that, but the judges had to clarify that the photos in the newspapers did not show Knox's eye color, which he was certain of upon seeing her in person in the courtroom.

Please someone tell me this alleged motivation from the SC is a parody. Please.

It's on page 52:

Non solo, ma il teste ebbe a chiarire nei passi della sua deposizione, di essersi convinto della identità della ragazza apparsa sui giornali con quella che si presentò a lui di prima mattina il 2 novembre 2007, visto che dalla foto non appariva il colore degli occhi, ma di avere acquisito certezza, una volta vista direttamente la ragazza in aula.

 

[GWCarver]

GW Carver:

Scanned Moore article. Some of the legal propositions he espouses differ significantly from my own understanding of the law.

I am not sure about his statement that habeas corpus is available. I am dubious of the notion that would take five to seven years.

ETA: In fact, upon reflection, habeas may be the only way to challenge the extradition warrant once issued. Doesn't change my view on timing. In the only one I was every involved in, it did not take nearly that long. I think you are talking about 24 months, tops.

I am no expert. But I doubt very seriously anyone who is could come to a conclusion as firm as Mr. Moore's.

I know you've read Amanda's book because I read your review at Amazon, but I don't know if you have made the connection that Steve Moore was in the car that picked Amanda up from Perugia and got her out of town after her acquittal. So, his could be an informed opinion. But, I can appreciate the complexities of the law, and I get my head handed to me almost every time I try to wrestle with it, so I'll leave it to you and the rest of the lawyers to figure this out.

BTW, I predict you'll end up being pro-innocence. Almost all of the evidence-oriented people end up there, although it might take a while with so much catching up to do.

 

[MattJones]

Yes, but as the PGP are fond of saying, "the Perugia police are not on trial".

Of course, I take the opposite conclusion from the PGP: since the police are not on trial, anything they do or say has to be proved sound before it is accepted. It's those who are on trial who are entitled to the presumption of innocence, not their accusers.

By both, I meant the accused and the police.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's on page 52:

Thanks charlatan but, as Bill would say, you're making this up! I refuse to believe this until I see a certified translation. One can only imagine the SC judges were on a bet to outdo their landmark ruling that women wearing jeans can't be raped.

 

[charlatan]

Thanks charlatan but, as Bill would say, you're making this up! I refuse to believe this until I see a certified translation. One can only imagine the SC judges were on a bet to outdo their landmark ruling that women wearing jeans can't be raped.

Well, I have been smoking that Perugian devil weed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill the last quoted (in blue) segment is in fact a quote from Massei - see, it's easy.

You made the point that Massei said something about needing more bleach and no where in Massei do I find that. Yes, he treats the cottage and Raf's differently but that doesn't explain you're making the claim that Massei said they needed more bleach or whatever you now claim.

Once more you wrote - In my view, the narrative surrounding the bleach is filled with improbablities, not the least of which is Quintaville at first not seeing Knox, then a year later remembering seeing her.... where even Massei brushes all this nonsense aside by writing that perhaps more bleach needed to be purchased, because after all Quintaville say Amanda in his store.... but that "extra Bleach" wasn't used at the cottage, because if it was it would have interfered with distinguishing between bleach and blood....

So you haven't given the cite from Massei nor have you given a paraphrase paste from Massei.

I don't remember Q claiming she bought bleach only that she went to the cleaning supply aisle. Btw, Q's store wasn't a hardware store but rather a food mart.

ETA -

So they didn't search hardware stores as you state. Q's store was very close to Raf's flat and I would hope the cops interviewed all the shop people in that area.

I'm looking I'm looking. But ask youself this. What would Knox be doing in a store (where Q. said she didn't buy anything) unless they needed more bleach - esp. at the time of day Q. didn't er, saw her?

There's already bleach handy to the pair? And a mop. I mean, isn't the whole reason to make a big deal about the mop and pail to imply that it was used in a clean-up? Yet, Massei says nothing forensically interesting was found in the mop either.

 

[Antony]

By both, I meant the accused and the police.

To be exact, your expression was "I start with the presumption that both are innocent."

Does that mean that you presume that the police acted in good faith? There is no such presumption to be made. Since they are the accusers, they have to demonstrate that they acted correctly, otherwise all their evidence has to be discarded.

Of course, the reality is that there is stone-cold proof of police misconduct - yet it is still the defendants who are facing demands they prove their innocence.

 

[MattJones]

To be exact, your expression was "I start with the presumption that both are innocent."

Does that mean that you presume that the police acted in good faith? There is no such presumption to be made. Since they are the accusers, they have to demonstrate that they acted correctly, otherwise all their evidence has to be discarded.

Of course, the reality is that there is stone-cold proof of police misconduct - yet it is still the defendants who are facing demands they prove their innocence.

I do presume that the police acted in good faith. I do not presume that they handled the evidence correctly. And where I find they did not, I do not presume malice. Give me a couple of hours and let me get to a computer (on iPhone now) and I will try to explain why I think that.

 

[Antony]

I do presume that the police acted in good faith. I do not presume that they handled the evidence correctly. And where I find they did not, I do not presume malice. Give me a couple of hours and let me get to a computer (on iPhone now) and I will try to explain why I think that.

That's a fair distinction. However, I think in this case there are very considerable indications of perjury and falsifying evidence on their part - certainly enough to invalidate everything they have thrown at Amanda and Raff (including the callunia charge against Amanda).

If they were to be charged with any of this, of course, then they would be entitled to presumption of innocence like any other accused.

 

[Grinder]

I'm looking I'm looking. But ask youself this. What would Knox be doing in a store (where Q. said she didn't buy anything) unless they needed more bleach - esp. at the time of day Q. didn't er, saw her?

There's already bleach handy to the pair? And a mop. I mean, isn't the whole reason to make a big deal about the mop and pail to imply that it was used in a clean-up? Yet, Massei says nothing forensically interesting was found in the mop either.

I don't believe Q so I don't believe she was shopping for anything. Having said that perhaps she was buying or stealing a mop head to use for the "cleanup" subsequently to disposed of before being discovered in order to hide the blood and DNA mopped up at Raf's with bleach.

I realize that with the departure of Dr. Hundred MPH Rock that the position of Minister of Misinformation is open, but it would be nice for people to not put forward falsehoods.

You will look for some time I would guess but being the nice guy I am, I'm pulling for your discovery.

 

[anglolawyer]

I do presume that the police acted in good faith. I do not presume that they handled the evidence correctly. And where I find they did not, I do not presume malice. Give me a couple of hours and let me get to a computer (on iPhone now) and I will try to explain why I think that.

That will be interesting. I don't know why you make these presumptions. It's like announcing a bias. What's wrong with just looking at what happened without any presumptions at all?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't believe Q so I don't believe she was shopping for anything. Having said that perhaps she was buying or stealing a mop head to use for the "cleanup" subsequently to disposed of before being discovered in order to hide the blood and DNA mopped up at Raf's with bleach.

I realize that with the departure of Dr. Hundred MPH Rock that the position of Minister of Misinformation is open, but it would be nice for people to not put forward falsehoods.

You will look for some time I would guess but being the nice guy I am, I'm pulling for your discovery.

That's quite the accusation. No matter.

 

[Grinder]

I do presume that the police acted in good faith. I do not presume that they handled the evidence correctly. And where I find they did not, I do not presume malice. Give me a couple of hours and let me get to a computer (on iPhone now) and I will try to explain why I think that.

In most all situations regarding this investigation I put the mistakes to incompetence. It one issue that we here disagree on. Some here believe that the PLE was framing her from very, very early on. I don't. I do think they had her in their sights as a chief suspect from the beginning

One poster here believes that the PLE erased the incoming text from Patrick because it made her reply look less ominous. Anglo can link you to his Groundreport article on the subject.

It does appear that as time went by that people involved in the prosecution did become, let's say, more aggressive proving their case.

The bra clasp is probably the number one piece of evidence that has the look of tampering. Now if those other DNA markers matched up to some policeman or cub reporter, we'd really have something.

The interrogation presents different issues that I think may be common to these in Italy.

You should be aware that several of the cops involved have been charged with violating the rights of a cop's ex-husband and his psychologist.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's a fair distinction. However, I think in this case there are very considerable indications of perjury and falsifying evidence on their part - certainly enough to invalidate everything they have thrown at Amanda and Raff (including the callunia charge against Amanda).

If they were to be charged with any of this, of course, then they would be entitled to presumption of innocence like any other accused.

Briars seems to "get" what's at stake here. If Curatolo is discredited for what many regard as obvious reasons, this almost surely means that Mignini was corrupt, in the sense of bringing evidence he almost certainly knew to be manufactured into court. That's why Briars has to change the subject to consider bloggers instead....

Same with Quintavalle. I mean, without him saying Knox bought anything, what, really, is the worth of Quintavalle's testimony? The implication perhaps is that they'd run out of bleach, or a mop, but mostly that Knox had lied about her own version of her movements.

If Quintavalle is bogus.... then again, my bias is that Mignini almost certainly brought an obvious whopper into court.

Then there are the motives Mignini considered. Statnic ritual? Sex-game gone wrong? Sour/ugly/revenge relations between Meredith and Knox? And then absolutely no motive at all?

At the very least the fictional "reasonable person" would conclude that Mignini never really did have a handle on how this crime happened (or why), and completely missed that the case was 100% complete by simply prosecuting Rudy alone.

There might be room for manoeuvring if Rudy is found guilty and AK and RS end up with a verdict which essentially says, "not proven". But the ISC seems to have perhaps taken care of that by wanting a better evaluation of "sex game gone wrong".

This requires the new prosecution to not just back up to the previously entertained motive which was abandoned, but the one before that which was abandoned even before!

Given my record for predictions, I'd say that the ISC was purposely trying to make Mignini look foolish. But given the record, I won't.

Did Mignini behave criminally? In my view he did if he condoned the manufacturing of evidence....

 

[JREF2010]

just an observation of the slang..PGP....pro guilt party....

this makes no sense because within the "party" is severely divided beliefs.

splintered contradicting beliefs, there is no agreement of one solid theory of this crime amongst those who accuse.

instead there are only these people who believe in some type of guilt, in general, even the judges cant agree with any stable and logical theory.

now the ISC seems to demand a decisive conclusion from a prosecution who cant even prove one theory, let alone ten other theorys.

if Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty, the decisive conclusion will be "there isnt one!"

Like the motive became to be "there isnt one!"

hey I'm starting to get this Italian Legal system!

 

[anglolawyer]

In most all situations regarding this investigation I put the mistakes to incompetence. It one issue that we here disagree on. Some here believe that the PLE was framing her from very, very early on. I don't. I do think they had her in their sights as a chief suspect from the beginning

One poster here believes that the PLE erased the incoming text from Patrick because it made her reply look less ominous. Anglo can link you to his Groundreport article on the subject.
It does appear that as time went by that people involved in the prosecution did become, let's say, more aggressive proving their case.

The bra clasp is probably the number one piece of evidence that has the look of tampering. Now if those other DNA markers matched up to some policeman or cub reporter, we'd really have something.

The interrogation presents different issues that I think may be common to these in Italy.

You should be aware that several of the cops involved have been charged with violating the rights of a cop's ex-husband and his psychologist.

Sure. You can't really understand the case without reading this.

 

[Bill Williams]

just an observation of the slang..PGP....pro guilt party....

this makes no sense because within the "party" is severely divided beliefs.

splintered contradicting beliefs, there is no agreement of one solid theory of this crime amongst those who accuse.

instead there are only these people who believe in some type of guilt, in general, even the judges cant agree with any stable and logical theory.

now the ISC seems to demand a decisive conclusion from a prosecution who cant even prove one theory, let alone ten other theorys.

if Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty, the decisive conclusion will be "there isnt one!"

Like the motive became to be "there isnt one!"

hey I'm starting to get this Italian Legal system!

Isn't it something? However I never thought of this as a reason why PGP tend not to try comprehensive theories of the crime, so thanks for drawing the connection. It might lead to criticism form other PGP.

The hope is that with the presumed statement from the ISC that the new court in Florence is to fully test out the sex-game-gone-wrong theory, that this means that if not proven the prosecution will not be allowed to slip into other motives by the time trial ends. It's either SGGW or innocent.

Hopefully.

 

[Grinder]

just an observation of the slang..PGP....pro guilt party....

this makes no sense because within the "party" is severely divided beliefs.

It was meant to be pro guilt people. You are of course correct that there is no unifying theory for the PGP.

I suggested the use of PG and PGP as well as PIP to replace what was commonly used back then - guilters and haters for one side and groupies of FOAKERs for the other which both seemed pejorative.

 

[Grinder]

Briars seems to "get" what's at stake here. If Curatolo is discredited for what many regard as obvious reasons, this almost surely means that Mignini was corrupt, in the sense of bringing evidence he almost certainly knew to be manufactured into court. That's why Briars has to change the subject to consider bloggers instead....

Same with Quintavalle. I mean, without him saying Knox bought anything, what, really, is the worth of Quintavalle's testimony? The implication perhaps is that they'd run out of bleach, or a mop, but mostly that Knox had lied about her own version of her movements.

Bill as I mentioned up-thread, it is my recollection that in Italy the judges make the decision as to whom to bring in to be a witness. Christian was presented to the court but was not allowed to testify because he hadn't filled out a police report or only thought he could ID Rudy (apparently he was held to a higher, pun intended, standard than Curatolo).

Mignini didn't find these witnesses. The cub reporter found them. I have read absolutely nothing that implies or outright states that Mignini found these witnesses. We have not been shown evidence that Mignini used Curatolo in two other murder trials.

It is much more likely that Napoleoni and her gang of cops would have "found" these witnesses and given Mignini credible deniability.

If Quintavalle is bogus.... then again, my bias is that Mignini almost certainly brought an obvious whopper into court.

Judges believed him in the first instance.

Then there are the motives Mignini considered. Statnic ritual? Sex-game gone wrong? Sour/ugly/revenge relations between Meredith and Knox? And then absolutely no motive at all?

Let's say you are spot on in reporting. You apparently believe that the correct motive is important. Why? If OJ or Anthony or ? killed, I don't really need to know a motive to convict.

Why did Scott Peterson kill his wife? Did he want a new girlfriend? Did he freak out about being a dad? Did he just want to be free without child support payments? We don't know and I don't care.

 

[anglolawyer]

snip
Let's say you are spot on in reporting. You apparently believe that the correct motive is important. Why? If OJ or Anthony or ? killed, I don't really need to know a motive to convict.

Why did Scott Peterson kill his wife? Did he want a new girlfriend? Did he freak out about being a dad? Did he just want to be free without child support payments? We don't know and I don't care.

This reminds me of a strawman argument lobbed at me somewhere along the line: where does the law say you have to prove a motive? It doesn't. It says you have to prove the crime (murder, robbery, whatever). But there always is a motive (even in the 'motiveless' cases) and that fact allows us to make deductions because the motive is essentially human and comprehensible to the rest of us earthlings. Motive is circumstantial evidence (watch Columbo - the motive almost invariably allows him to get to the heart of the case straightaway). It is not essential to know it but useful. We can relate to it. Sometimes it's a key element and sometimes the other evidence is so overwhelming we don't need to know.

Why would Amanda and Raffaele want to kill Meredith? Lots of ink has been spilled on that, with rock throwing parties and toilet paper fancy dress analysed in minute detail for clues. It is a problem. The PGPs solved it long ago. They looked into her eyes and saw Beelzebub. All was revealed. Bill is right to stress motive.