• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

That's fair enough in cases where the evidence of guilt is clear-cut. In this case, there is no genuine evidence, and in addition, Amanda and Raff are not plausible culprits - particularly with a lack of motive.

So the "strategy" of the PGP is 3-fold:

  1. to manufacture evidence;
  2. to destroy the defendants' characters;
  3. to make up a plausible motive for the crime.

That's when they're not ascribing dishonourable motives to Knox supporters, of course. The point is that each plank of their case is so feeble that they need to be able to switch the point of attack when they can't sustain an argument - if anything, to convince themselves that they have justification for the accusations.
 
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.
Maybe it's just me. If I were in a jury room it would be important, esp. if there wasn't a lot of anything else.

But maybe it's not just me. The ISC seems to think highly as to #2 of the 4 which were offered up. Seems important enough to them!
 
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.

See, I'm not toally clueless. Almost but not totally.... I'm about "Owe for 100" in predicting things, a perfect record, but without a motive for AK and RS to have done this, what is there?

Briars certainly thinks there's a motive. And his/her version is different than Massei's motiveless AK and RS, as well as slightly different than the latest ISC which seems to be saying it's sex-game-gone-wrong or nothing.

Me, I've been reading through Massei a lot lately. Skimming really. And I'll be hornswoggled if I can see a motive in there for AK or RS to have been involved.

Remove Qunitavalle, remove the DNA, remove Curatolo and what is there?

The operative comprehensive scenario of the crime the ISC seems to be imagining is pure Mignini.... not even Massei. late T.O.D, the scream is the predictor here not the autopsy. That was if Curatolo doesn't actually given them an alibi.

But what they are risking, if indeed this is an attempt to use manufactured evidence to return to sex-game-gone-wrong is alienating the Kerchers. I still cannot get that look of disgust from Piers Morgan out of my mind, just before he admitted to being John Kercher's friend. Mignini once may have used this motive against AK and RS, but it also casts aspersions against Meredith does it not?

Even Piers looked like he was thinking, "What the hell is wrong with this case in Italy?" That's a great question for all to be asking.
 
Last edited:
Bill is right to stress motive.

No he's not.

I was going to leave at that but just couldn't. Sometime recently you said that if a certain thing proved to be true it would change your opinion on the case. I can't remember exactly what and will search if you demand. I doubt that it had anything to do with motive, which proves my case.

If we discovered Amanda's lost journal pages (no idea if they are lost) or a back and forth on AK's and Meredith's commuters showing that they were fighting that wouldn't change my opinion one iota.

If on the other hand there was new evidence that was believable and proved that the kids were out and about at 9:45 with a knife sized bag, that would change my opinion in a heartbeat.

It is interesting that you use Colombo as he is a Giobbi type detective. Of course if we find a life insurance policy or such that should be looked into.

Motive is not necessary in the common thinking of motive and evidence is. I would hate to see someone convicted on motive alone and would have no problem of convicting on evidence alone. I think going off on look at all the silly motives minimizes the lack of hard evidence. To me it is equivalent to the PGP's discussions of "statement analysis", her head moving when answering, the changing stories such as the purse through the keyhole, etc.

Is motive really circumstantial evidence? If so, we need a new division of hard circumstantial and soft. Hard being fingerprints, DNA, video etc.

Under Wiki's circumstantial evidence page motive is not found which clearly isn't definitive. I have found motive listed under another CE definition.
 
That's fair enough in cases where the evidence of guilt is clear-cut. In this case, there is no genuine evidence, and in addition, Amanda and Raff are not plausible culprits - particularly with a lack of motive.

Just a test. If there was a motive proven tomorrow would you change your opinion of guilt or innocence.

I'll bet you wouldn't and neither would I.

Just because the PGP does something doesn't mean we have to.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's just me. If I were in a jury room it would be important, esp. if there wasn't a lot of anything else.

But maybe it's not just me. The ISC seems to think highly as to #2 of the 4 which were offered up. Seems important enough to them!

Yes you've made that clear. Frankly I don't give a rat's *** what those people think because they have proven to me that they are uniformed and less than stellar of mind. What else do you agree with them on?

They say Q is good because he said she had blue eyes which I have demonstrated was in the papers early on and he admitted to seeing her with Raf before that morning anyway. I'm still hoping this 74 pages is a parody.

I would give the same part of the rat if I was on a jury and the evidence was clear that the defendant had committed the crime and the defense attorney said "but, but there's no motive but plain evil" (made up quote :p)

ETA - Bill Massei says that Rudi started it and that the kids joined with no motive as you wish to have. Mob violence occurs and people involved just go along. Since I don't believe they did it, I don't believe Massei by definition. People do strange things that make no sense. One of my biggest issues in the study of economics was the premise that man always makes rational decisions.

Rational Choice Theory, also known as Choice Theory or Rational Action Theory, is a framework for understanding and often formally modeling social and economic behavior.[1] Rationality, interpreted as "wanting more rather than less of a good", is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analysis and appears in almost all economics textbook treatments of human decision-making.

ETA2 - Bill - I've been making the point about how this sex game will play out for the Kerchers since the translations came out. I cited an early article that said she may have been having consensual sex with someone she had met the night before. The early reports stressed she wasn't raped. The process of trying to prove this sex game will be painful to all and I don't see that any proof exists. Will they bring Rudi in to help describe how the "game" was played? We agree that the sex game gone bad is a lousy path and by the way it's not a motive either.
 
Last edited:
Just a test. If there was a motive proven tomorrow would you change your opinion of guilt or innocence.

I'll bet you wouldn't and neither would I.

Just because the PGP does something doesn't mean we have to.

No I wouldn't, and that's why the PIP focus on the lack of genuine evidence of the crime.

My point was just that the PGP feel they have to construct a motive in order to make the accusations plausible. The fact that the various motives put forward are just as bogus as the DNA "evidence" is another indication of the malicious nature of the guilt campaign.
 
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?

Call them inclinations, then. All other things being equal, that is what I think. I am speaking solely of the investigative phase here.

I have these inclinations because that is my life experience. Here is what I think.

Individual Malice is Unlikely.

I am inclined to believe in good faith because my experience tells me that most people try to do their jobs and their duty as they see it. Some are lazy, and some are bad at their jobs, but rarely are they just out and out malicious. Are their bad cops? Sure. Do they outnumber good cops? Not close. Even if you had a bad actor here, individual malice would be hard to conceive and execute in the time available. Again, I am speaking of the initial investigation. This point changes afterward. You would have to believe that a bad cop quickly thought up a plan to frame Knox and Sollecito, figured out how to do it, and pulled it off without getting caught. That seems farfetched to me. I don't think that individual had time or opportunity, and it would have to be one wickedly smart and clever individual. Those are rare too.

Group Malice is Even More Unlikely.

It is a common fallacy that organizations are unitary. In this case we speak of "the Police." Organizations are lumpy combinations of personalities and the messy dynamics that follow. Ever try to organize an office party or picnic, particularly when office politics are at play? Not easy. Organizations are even less unitary when you move them into a non-recurring task. Creating evidence and framing individuals is not the stated purpose or repeating task of police organizations. To get the "police"to do it here would require a discipline I just do not see in the videos I have viewed.

Group Malice Across the Multiple Teams is Less Likely Still.

Multi-team efforts are EXTREMELY difficult to coordinate, even when lines of authority and responsibility are clear, which they were not here. You had at least three groups of police stepping all over each other, with no person clearly in charge of all of them.

I do a lot of oil and gas work, which always involves multi-team efforts. When you drill a well, you will have a dozen or so contractors from a dozen or so different companies on site, each providing a different service, each bringing in their own equipment, each with its own corporate culture, and each setting up in their own way. It has to happen in very limited space. To make it work, there is a "toolpusher" and "company man" on site. These are men with a command presence that makes General George Patton look like Jimmy Carter fighting a rabbit. Almost always, they are barrel chested men in coveralls and steel toes. Using a devastatingly effective mix of profanity, foghorn-loud voices, and sheer menace, they make it happen exactly as it is supposed to happen. They have almost absolute authority. If you cross them, they will run your ass off before you can say "turning to the right." It takes that kind of no-nonsense supervision, that kind of command presence and authority, to make a big project with multiple teams work.

I see nothing resembling that here. I see teams doing their own thing, stepping on each other in a small space, and just overall lacking centralized coordination. That undergirds my inclination that mistakes resulted from disorganization, not malice.

This changes after charges are laid.

Once the charges were made, the organizations all had incentives in prestige and pride to be right. The inclination to give the benefit of the doubt lessens after that. That said, I do have good reason to believe that Magistrato Mignini strongly believes he did his duty and did it well in this case.

You can accept this or not. I am open to challenge. But these are my inclinations based on my experience. If the evidence goes in a different direction so will I.
 
Last edited:
No he's not.

I was going to leave at that but just couldn't. Sometime recently you said that if a certain thing proved to be true it would change your opinion on the case. I can't remember exactly what and will search if you demand. I doubt that it had anything to do with motive, which proves my case.

If we discovered Amanda's lost journal pages (no idea if they are lost) or a back and forth on AK's and Meredith's commuters showing that they were fighting that wouldn't change my opinion one iota.

If on the other hand there was new evidence that was believable and proved that the kids were out and about at 9:45 with a knife sized bag, that would change my opinion in a heartbeat.

It is interesting that you use Colombo as he is a Giobbi type detective. Of course if we find a life insurance policy or such that should be looked into.

Motive is not necessary in the common thinking of motive and evidence is. I would hate to see someone convicted on motive alone and would have no problem of convicting on evidence alone. I think going off on look at all the silly motives minimizes the lack of hard evidence. To me it is equivalent to the PGP's discussions of "statement analysis", her head moving when answering, the changing stories such as the purse through the keyhole, etc.

Is motive really circumstantial evidence? If so, we need a new division of hard circumstantial and soft. Hard being fingerprints, DNA, video etc.

Under Wiki's circumstantial evidence page motive is not found which clearly isn't definitive. I have found motive listed under another CE definition.

You are all over the place. Why do people kill people? They have reasons. Always. Why are their reasons (or lack of them) not useful? It doesn't matter what Wiki says. Motive is CE. Why wouldn't it be?

I said I would change my theory radically if there were different sized attackers' hands revealed by bruises.
 
Last edited:
This changes after charges are laid.

Once the charges were made, the organizations all had incentives in prestige and pride to be right. The inclination to give the benefit of the doubt lessens after that.
I'm not sure what we're talking about here. The interrogation was the night of the 5th and they were declared suspects and arrested right afterwards. Then, it was "caso chiuso" and arraignment. So, it was basically 11/2 to 11/5 that they were still considered innocent, although even by the 5th there are indications that they were going after Knox and Sollecito.

If you're just saying that any police issues during the period 11/2 to 11/5 were screw-ups, then I doubt that many people will disagree. I think even the interrogation may have been a kind of screw-up.

ETA: Most of the bad stuff in this case flows through the Perugia Flying Squad. For example, after they finished up the all-nighter with Knox and Sollecito, it appears that Napoleoni and a colleague went right to the murder room and spent two days (11/6 and 11/7) processing it. After those two days, they didn't come up with the clasp, but we know the rest of the story.
 
Last edited:
You are all over the place. Why do people kill people? They have reasons. Always. Why are their reasons (or lack of them) not useful? It doesn't matter what Wiki says. Motive is CE. Why wouldn't it be?

I said I would change my theory radically if there were different sized attackers' hands revealed by bruises.

You also said that I was right to stress motive. I said that if I was on the jury, motive would be important, and I'll add here, especially in this case where there is little else.

Grinder seems to be promoting our comments to saying that all depends on it. I find myself agreeing with most of what he says, and wondering why he's so forceful in opposition to what I say?

And especially in this case where one of the motives advanced was that Amanda and Meredith were fighting, and Amanda wanted to teach Meredith a lesson - which was #3 of 4 Mignini offered, three of them somewhat formally.

And as for "sex-game-gone-worng" not being a motive, I somewhat agree. The motive as advanced, it seems, is that when one of them wants to stop mid-game, someone else seems obliged to pull out a kitchen knife from another kitchen at a distance from this game, so as to force the game. (That leaves premeditation somewhat ambiguous, I would think, because did the perps anticipate that the victim would not participate, this brought the knife as a back-up for persuasion? And where's the evidence that all this went down like this? It's a little like saying that the staged break-in had been proven.... where are the forensics from Filomena's room and on the ground below, the 8x10 glossies, and comparisons with the known body of research on staged-break-ins? Oh, I guess they lost that file when they trashed the computers of just about everyone else involved in this, Filomena included!)

But Grinder asks a good question... would someone like me change my opinion if it could be shown, for instance, that Amanda and Meredith had declared war over each other... an e-mail where Amanda was demanding the rent money for drugs, and Meredith hits reply with, "No, it's for rent you spoiled brat!' (Imaginary conversation alert!)

For me it would change it "somewhat". I'm not even sure why.

I'm a sucker, and always have been for the guilters who claim, "all the other evidence". It's why my very first in depth search was "sex on a train" allegation .... I thought, "Well, if this is part of "all the other evidence, showing a proclivity for being involved in sex games... maybe they have a point?" (Again, imaginary transcript alert, I actually did not think those exact words!)

Then it was "all the lies Knox told." In all cases, each item listed in the "all the other evidence" category simply vanished.

But if there could be demonstrated some motive... I don't know, it sure seems important for someone accused with flaky evidence against them to actually even seem to have had a motive!

Maybe I'm just dumb that way. Please don't answer that!
 
Last edited:
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.

And there was this, from the same ISC ruling:

The court said, ''It should be noted that it is instinctive, especially for a young woman, to oppose with all her strength the person who wants to rape her. And it is illogical to say that a young woman would passively submit to a rape, which is a grave violence, for fear of undergoing other hypothetical and no more serious offenses to her physical safety.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/16/w...ape-sets-off-anger-in-italy.html?pagewanted=2
 
You are all over the place. Why do people kill people? They have reasons. Always. Why are their reasons (or lack of them) not useful? It doesn't matter what Wiki says. Motive is CE. Why wouldn't it be?

I said I would change my theory radically if there were different sized attackers' hands revealed by bruises.

No I'm not. No people don't always have reasons and when they do it is not always clear.

As I said and I appreciate your helping my memory you have said that your theory would change radically with hand sizes. Of course, you old clever one, you didn't say how it would change leaving that hole open for ole Grinder to step in. :p

Motive may thought of by an old and tired profession as circumstantial but it should only be a cherry on top. One can easily imagine someone hating someone else with every cell in his body and not being the killer. One has a much harder time imagining someone's bloody prints on the murder weapon, DNA on and in the victim and no alibi or believable story to cover those facts, being innocent.

Motive need not be connected positively or negatively for guilt or innocence.
 
I'm not sure what we're talking about here. The interrogation was the night of the 5th and they were declared suspects and arrested right afterwards. Then, it was "caso chiuso" and arraignment. So, it was basically 11/2 to 11/5 that they were still considered innocent, although even by the 5th there are indications that they were going after Knox and Sollecito.

Sure. I would say that any fixing wouldn't have started until the evidence they were counting on didn't materialize.

If you're just saying that any police issues during the period 11/2 to 11/5 were screw-ups, then I doubt that many people will disagree. I think even the interrogation may have been a kind of screw-up.

A screw up with an edge in that they really poured it on.

ETA: Most of the bad stuff in this case flows through the Perugia Flying Squad. For example, after they finished up the all-nighter with Knox and Sollecito, it appears that Napoleoni and a colleague went right to the murder room and spent two days (11/6 and 11/7) processing it. After those two days, they didn't come up with the clasp, but we know the rest of the story.

Could you provide a little more detail on the 6th and 7th as I don't recall it but it wouldn't have made the papers at that time. Please tell me you have another source besides Follain :p

Found it :D

Massei - The activity of the Scientific Police of Rome was completed on November 5th, and the police search took place on the following two days (November 6th and 7th), performed by Profazio, the director of the [293] Flying Squad, Deputy Commissioner Monica Napoleoni, and the inspectors and superintendents Bigini, Gubbiotti, Zugarini and Barbadori

These are the same characters that help Napoleoni with her divorce issues that led to suspensions etc. Hope they will be able to bring that up in the trial.
 
Massei - The activity of the Scientific Police of Rome was completed on November 5th, and the police search took place on the following two days (November 6th and 7th), performed by Profazio, the director of the [293] Flying Squad, Deputy Commissioner Monica Napoleoni, and the inspectors and superintendents Bigini, Gubbiotti, Zugarini and Barbadori

These are the same characters that help Napoleoni with her divorce issues that led to suspensions etc. Hope they will be able to bring that up in the trial.
I think that this 11/6-11/7 "search" of the cottage is key. There could easily have been inadvertent contamination when the cops involved went from interrogation to the murder room. Further, sabotage would have been easy and can never be proved.
 
I think that this 11/6-11/7 "search" of the cottage is key. There could easily have been inadvertent contamination when the cops involved went from interrogation to the murder room. Further, sabotage would have been easy and can never be proved.

Planting of DNA could have happened then but at that time they thought they had the shoes and more coming. Clearly, they could have contaminated things and almost certainly did some accidental moving of DNA. They must have been the ones that put the clasp under the rug unless it was not in the cottage at all.

The extra DNA does make one wonder if someone salted the clasp and I would like to see the DNAs of all the cops involved compared to those found.

PGP are speculating as to whether Amanda and Raf really were that tight and whether she was sleeping around after they met. What they are not speculating about is whether Raf was also out and about.

They think it is odd that the six day old affair didn't have buddy couples, god they're weird. they also don't acknowledge that Meredith's affair was also not public.
 
Planting of DNA could have happened then but at that time they thought they had the shoes and more coming. Clearly, they could have contaminated things and almost certainly did some accidental moving of DNA. They must have been the ones that put the clasp under the rug unless it was not in the cottage at all.

The extra DNA does make one wonder if someone salted the clasp and I would like to see the DNAs of all the cops involved compared to those found.

PGP are speculating as to whether Amanda and Raf really were that tight and whether she was sleeping around after they met. What they are not speculating about is whether Raf was also out and about.

They think it is odd that the six day old affair didn't have buddy couples, god they're weird. they also don't acknowledge that Meredith's affair was also not public.

The reasons I don't go with a purposeful framing early on is that there was every expectation that one or both would turn on the other. It's remarkable that they stuck to each other as alibis - considering they'd only really known each other a couple of days. Also if it was a framing it was s pathetic attempt, relying more on a tabloid PR effort than actual evidence.
 
I'm not sure what we're talking about here. The interrogation was the night of the 5th and they were declared suspects and arrested right afterwards. Then, it was "caso chiuso" and arraignment. So, it was basically 11/2 to 11/5 that they were still considered innocent, although even by the 5th there are indications that they were going after Knox and Sollecito.

If you're just saying that any police issues during the period 11/2 to 11/5 were screw-ups, then I doubt that many people will disagree. I think even the interrogation may have been a kind of screw-up.

ETA: Most of the bad stuff in this case flows through the Perugia Flying Squad. For example, after they finished up the all-nighter with Knox and Sollecito, it appears that Napoleoni and a colleague went right to the murder room and spent two days (11/6 and 11/7) processing it. After those two days, they didn't come up with the clasp, but we know the rest of the story.


Ok. What do we know about this squad? Any video/photos?
 
Call them inclinations, then. All other things being equal, that is what I think. I am speaking solely of the investigative phase here.

I have these inclinations because that is my life experience. Here is what I think.

Individual Malice is Unlikely.

I am inclined to believe in good faith because my experience tells me that most people try to do their jobs and their duty as they see it. Some are lazy, and some are bad at their jobs, but rarely are they just out and out malicious. Are their bad cops? Sure. Do they outnumber good cops? Not close. Even if you had a bad actor here, individual malice would be hard to conceive and execute in the time available. Again, I am speaking of the initial investigation. This point changes afterward. You would have to believe that a bad cop quickly thought up a plan to frame Knox and Sollecito, figured out how to do it, and pulled it off without getting caught. That seems farfetched to me. I don't think that individual had time or opportunity, and it would have to be one wickedly smart and clever individual. Those are rare too.

Group Malice is Even More Unlikely.

It is a common fallacy that organizations are unitary. In this case we speak of "the Police." Organizations are lumpy combinations of personalities and the messy dynamics that follow. Ever try to organize an office party or picnic, particularly when office politics are at play? Not easy. Organizations are even less unitary when you move them into a non-recurring task. Creating evidence and framing individuals is not the stated purpose or repeating task of police organizations. To get the "police"to do it here would require a discipline I just do not see in the videos I have viewed.

Group Malice Across the Multiple Teams is Less Likely Still.

Multi-team efforts are EXTREMELY difficult to coordinate, even when lines of authority and responsibility are clear, which they were not here. You had at least three groups of police stepping all over each other, with no person clearly in charge of all of them.

I do a lot of oil and gas work, which always involves multi-team efforts. When you drill a well, you will have a dozen or so contractors from a dozen or so different companies on site, each providing a different service, each bringing in their own equipment, each with its own corporate culture, and each setting up in their own way. It has to happen in very limited space. To make it work, there is a "toolpusher" and "company man" on site. These are men with a command presence that makes General George Patton look like Jimmy Carter fighting a rabbit. Almost always, they are barrel chested men in coveralls and steel toes. Using a devastatingly effective mix of profanity, foghorn-loud voices, and sheer menace, they make it happen exactly as it is supposed to happen. They have almost absolute authority. If you cross them, they will run your ass off before you can say "turning to the right." It takes that kind of no-nonsense supervision, that kind of command presence and authority, to make a big project with multiple teams work.

I see nothing resembling that here. I see teams doing their own thing, stepping on each other in a small space, and just overall lacking centralized coordination. That undergirds my inclination that mistakes resulted from disorganization, not malice.

This changes after charges are laid.

Once the charges were made, the organizations all had incentives in prestige and pride to be right. The inclination to give the benefit of the doubt lessens after that. That said, I do have good reason to believe that Magistrato Mignini strongly believes he did his duty and did it well in this case.

You can accept this or not. I am open to challenge. But these are my inclinations based on my experience. If the evidence goes in a different direction so will I.

There's nothing there to challenge. If I want to persuade you or anybody there was a multi- team effort I already know I need facts and arguments rather than resorting to some generalised slur. The knife is funny though.
 
No I'm not. No people don't always have reasons and when they do it is not always clear.

As I said and I appreciate your helping my memory you have said that your theory would change radically with hand sizes. Of course, you old clever one, you didn't say how it would change leaving that hole open for ole Grinder to step in. :p

Motive may thought of by an old and tired profession as circumstantial but it should only be a cherry on top. One can easily imagine someone hating someone else with every cell in his body and not being the killer. One has a much harder time imagining someone's bloody prints on the murder weapon, DNA on and in the victim and no alibi or believable story to cover those facts, being innocent.

Motive need not be connected positively or negatively for guilt or innocence.
I said expressly, or if I didn't I am saying now, you don't have to prove motive but it's handy if you have one, just like a fingerprint or a piece of DNA. And when Bill says 'no motive' it's the same as 'no prints'. In any given case it might matter or it might not. In this one it matters. Because of it the case fails the BS test, so the other evidence has to be good.

And if you think there isn't always a motive for murder find me a case without one and be prepared when I assert that merely getting kicks counts (in fact, that's one of the suggested motives here).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom