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

[RWVBWL]

Setember 30 it is...

I hadn't read of this until I had a look at Fulcanelli's .Net site:

A new appeals trial into the 2007 murder in Perugia of British exchange student Meredith Kercher will start in Florence on September 30, the high Court of Cassation said Tuesday. US student Amanda Knox and Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were convicted but acquitted on appeal, only for the top court to send the case back to the appeals stage.

Link:
http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubr...eals-trial-start-Sep-30-Florence_8997504.html

 

[Mary_H]

That doesn't follow. First of all as Anglo pointed out it is one specific argument not arguments. This is the same thing that the PGP do, throwing one after the other on the wall and it makes them look stupid. noise ticket (riot), rape prank (Slog comment) and lately unsolved murder cases in Seattle.

In the past, Anglo has called other PIP arguments weak, too, not just this one. And look, in the time it took for this day to elapse, he has reconsidered his opinion, on the very next page!

The PGP and the PIP play completely different roles and have completely different duties, thus their techniques are not comparable. PGP have the burden of proof, PIP need only raise reasonable doubt.

Nothing of the sort. The defense need not say anything about the knife beyond it doesn't fit the outline, the DNA is faulty and a knife that size couldn't make most all of the wounds. In addition Amanda's DNA on it is meaningless because she admits using it in the flat.

Didn't you read what I said about the science going right over their heads? If they haven't accepted those arguments over the course of five years, they never will. All I was suggesting was that since reality has not worked, the defense might have tried sinking to the level of the medieval minds they oppose.

It wouldn't be because of the DNA work, not because of how it was discovered.

And yet, that has not occurred. They will always have a hack like Leila raising dead-end questions for them, and enough stupid suckers to lend her opinions validity.

 

[Mary_H]

the never ending Rudy Guede "liars game".......

who knows if he dumped them in Perugia or Germany or Sweden or Bangkok ?
we assume Rudy is telling the truth he left them in Germany?
He admitted to this, so we give him some benefit of the doubt.

The police didn't know about Rudy until like nine days after the murder. He could have put his clothes in his household garbage for all we know, and the trash would have been long gone by the time they searched his apartment (assuming they collect trash in Perugia once a week). Would it ever have occurred to them to search the landfill? Surely we jest.

A typical liar, who then tells the truth AFTER he is busted. Did his lawyer encourage Rudy to own up on the shoes? or was it another Rudy partial-truth?

I don't know how the police and courts get through the investigations at times, we assume someone like Rudy is credible sometimes and not other times!
How do you deal with someone like Rudy Guede?

Well, for one thing, you can have higher standards about the truth, by not making it the Law of the Land that suspects are expected to lie. If you're not going to do that, then you're just playing yet another game in which you persuade yourself that liars are a problem that can't be solved.

The police and courts DON'T get through investigations much of the time. The Italian judicial system has a backlog of nine million cases.

 

[acbytesla]

1 of my sisters has a huge, I mean huge DVD collection. She+her old man work for 1 of The Studies here in town,
they get 'em cheaper it seems...

Anyways, as I spend many hours at the beach trying to observe the local wildlife,
I get burnt out often and will take a few hour break+pop in a DVD.
I've been going thru their "B"s collection, grab a few without readin' the story line and plop 'em in+play.

I recently watched a movie called "Boys Don't Cry". Saw another 1 called "The Black Dahlia". Kinda suprised me to find out the chick starrin' in both was the same, this chick is some actress. I'm impressed abit, even though I don't really care to follow "Hollywood".(*)I noticed she went out surfin' a few days ago, so I got to shoot some surfpix of this dame in the waters of L.A.
with a big smile on her face as she caught a couple, cool...


I kinda dig the older flicks,
the cars, clothes, etc. are the real deal, not some newer version of what it was supposed to be like back then.

...

Hey Dude, I know this off topic, but this post cracked me up. Yea the chick is some actress. The chick is Hillary Swank. Won the Best Actress Oscar for that role in "Boys Don't Cry" She is also one of very rare actors to win 2 Best Actor/Actress Oscars. The other, she won for her role in Clint Eastwood's movie "Million Dollar Baby".

And just to bring this back to topic. She was also awesome playing the role of Betty Anne Waters in Conviction. The true story of a woman that went to law school for the sole purpose of getting her brother's wrongful murder conviction overturned.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, I agree with Randy on this one, too. I guess it's because the Italians are just beginning to get their feet wet in the adversarial system, but their cross-examinations stink.

I might agree with you if I could read more of it. I would like to see the evidence of the police who interrogated the two of them, for instance.

On hiding stuff, sure you can drop a knife in a lake but you have to drive to the lake and not be noticed going there or coming back. Is there a lake at Gubbio?

 

[anglolawyer]

In the past, Anglo has called other PIP arguments weak, too, not just this one. And look, in the time it took for this day to elapse, he has reconsidered his opinion, on the very next page!

I still say it's weak, but also that it's not actually bad

 

[anglolawyer]

This has fallen into my hands. Bob Graham turns out to be a Daily Mail journalist. I am told the article was written in 2010. Some randomly chosen quotes:

Lawyers planning an appeal for Amanda Knox and her ex-lover will not be allowed to introduce shocking new evidence revealing the third person convicted of murdering British student Meredith Kercher was on a one-man crime spree in the weeks before the killing.

'I cannot say if Guede was an informer for the police but it would not be a surprise, this would not be unusual for a man of his background' admitted Giuliano Mignini, the controversial lead prosecutor prosecutor in the trial that four months ago convicted Knox and Sollecito of murder.

Re: the fire in the old lady's apartment:

The woman, who pleaded not to be identified admitted 'I complained that it was Rudy Guede who burned my home because I had seen him always staring at it in the days before it happened. The police never did anything'

The Milan arrest:

In the Milan incident Guede was taken to the local Venezia-Garibaldi police station where two arresting officers expected to charge him with a number of offences and to detain him in custody.
But a spokesman for prosecutor Maria Vulpio, who was assigned the case, admitted. 'we had a communication from police in Perugia to put him on the train and return him home without charge'.

Etc.

 

[Mary_H]

I might agree with you if I could read more of it. I would like to see the evidence of the police who interrogated the two of them, for instance.

Who wouldn't.

On hiding stuff, sure you can drop a knife in a lake but you have to drive to the lake and not be noticed going there or coming back. Is there a lake at Gubbio?

I wouldn't throw the knife in the lake; that's what Randy would do. I would put it in the garbage in another part of town, which is probably what Rudy did. Or he might just have flung it into a ravine, as he did with the phones.

 

[anglolawyer]

Who wouldn't.



I wouldn't throw the knife in the lake; that's what Randy would do. I would put it in the garbage in another part of town, which is probably what Rudy did. Or he might just have flung it into a ravine, as he did with the phones.

But you might be seen going to or returning from that other part of town. It's likely they were under surveillance in the days after the murder (she was seen running to Lumumba the morning of the 5th, phones tapped etc) so the cops could just follow them and dig the knife out of the trash the moment they tossed it. Caso chiuso.

 

[Mary_H]

But you might be seen going to or returning from that other part of town. It's likely they were under surveillance in the days after the murder (she was seen running to Lumumba the morning of the 5th, phones tapped etc) so the cops could just follow them and dig the knife out of the trash the moment they tossed it. Caso chiuso.

Oh, I thought we were talking about what Rudi did with the knife. We're talking about what Amanda and Raffaele might have done with it if they had committed the murder? Okay, I get it, instead of taking it home to Raffaele's kitchen. Sorry, I'm a little slow.

Don't you think they would have disposed of the knife the same night as the murder, before they were under surveillance?

It's so easy to get rid of stuff, especially in an old town. There are all sorts of cracks where sidewalks meet foundations. Throw it up on a roof, drop it in the sewer, stick it under some shrubbery. The cops don't seem to have bothered to look for it anywhere but the yard of the cottage, as if the murderer would have left it there. I mean that's one of the things that's so ridiculous about going to Raffaele's kitchen -- it's the height of laziness.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh, I thought we were talking about what Rudi did with the knife. We're talking about what Amanda and Raffaele might have done with it if they had committed the murder? Okay, I get it, instead of taking it home to Raffaele's kitchen. Sorry, I'm a little slow.

Don't you think they would have disposed of the knife the same night as the murder, before they were under surveillance?

It's so easy to get rid of stuff, especially in an old town. There are all sorts of cracks where sidewalks meet foundations. Throw it up on a roof, drop it in the sewer, stick it under some shrubbery. The cops don't seem to have bothered to look for it anywhere but the yard of the cottage, as if the murderer would have left it there. I mean that's one of the things that's so ridiculous about going to Raffaele's kitchen -- it's the height of laziness.

What we are really talking about is the reasonableness or otherwise of taking the knife home and cleaning it. Arguments against this idea are:

1) they would have to be psychotic, cannibalistic nuts to do such a thing
2) preservation of deadly weapons is unknown in the annals of crime
3) they had a much easier and more attractive alternative in simply tossing the knife somewhere

and the respective counter arguments are:

1) they already pre-qualified by committing the murder (the given assumption)
2) (a) is it? and (b) so what?
3) whatever method of disposal is chosen there is a risk of being seen or that by police diligence (oxymoron alert) or sheer bad luck the discarded item will be found - check out Rudy's attempt to get rid of the phones.

All things considered, it is not far-fetched to suppose the plan of returning the knife, duly cleaned (they were not forensic scientists) to the kitchen drawer could have had its attractions.

 

[acbytesla]

But you might be seen going to or returning from that other part of town. It's likely they were under surveillance in the days after the murder (she was seen running to Lumumba the morning of the 5th, phones tapped etc) so the cops could just follow them and dig the knife out of the trash the moment they tossed it. Caso chiuso.

They weren't under surveillance until at least November 2nd. You go to Gubbio or wherever, dump the items and then come right back when Meredith is discovered. As I've pointed out, the actual murder weapon was never discovered nor any of the clothes the suspect wore during them.

Disposing of the items wasn't a problem for Rudy. If Amanda and Raffaele had been involved, it really wouldn't have been that hard for them either.

 

[Mary_H]

What we are really talking about is the reasonableness or otherwise of taking the knife home and cleaning it. Arguments against this idea are:

1) they would have to be psychotic, cannibalistic nuts to do such a thing
2) preservation of deadly weapons is unknown in the annals of crime
3) they had a much easier and more attractive alternative in simply tossing the knife somewhere

and the respective counter arguments are:

1) they already pre-qualified by committing the murder (the given assumption)
2) (a) is it? and (b) so what?
3) whatever method of disposal is chosen there is a risk of being seen or that by police diligence (oxymoron alert) or sheer bad luck the discarded item will be found - check out Rudy's attempt to get rid of the phones.

All things considered, it is not far-fetched to suppose the plan of returning the knife, duly cleaned (they were not forensic scientists) to the kitchen drawer could have had its attractions.

We shall have to agree to disagree. This question, though, once you start thinking about the possibilities, is one that exclusively leads back to the inevitable conclusion that their participation in the crime was impossible. IMO.

 

[anglolawyer]

They weren't under surveillance until at least November 2nd. You go to Gubbio or wherever, dump the items and then come right back when Meredith is discovered. As I've pointed out, the actual murder weapon was never discovered nor any of the clothes the suspect wore during them.

Disposing of the items wasn't a problem for Rudy. If Amanda and Raffaele had been involved, it really wouldn't have been that hard for them either.

In WTBH we learn (for the first time in my case) a key fact: Amanda did not know the movements of her flat mates that weekend. Thus, for all she knew, F or L could return at any time, at 2 in the morning, or 9 a.m. or any time. I'm afraid this rules out the go to Gubbio plan unless all at the crime scene was in perfect order.

We need RW to make the next point (he does it so well) but I will just have to do it for him. These days, if I stay up really late (as in all night) it takes me about two days to recover but when I was a student I did it all the time with no ill effects. Given that Amanda did not know their plans and assuming she and Raffaele participated in the crime, why leave the clean up until the morning? Surely, desperate measures were called for including, if needs be, staying up the whole night and scrubbing. There would be time to run the bathmat through the washer and maybe even dry it. The bathroom could be properly cleaned, leaving no blood at all. If for some insane reason they wanted to wipe all their prints from the entire apartment they had plenty of time to do it and more besides that to fix their story. What the heck were they doing leaving everything until the morning?

 

[anglolawyer]

We shall have to agree to disagree. This question, though, once you start thinking about the possibilities, is one that exclusively leads back to the inevitable conclusion that their participation in the crime was impossible. IMO.

How?

 

[Mary_H]

They weren't under surveillance until at least November 2nd. You go to Gubbio or wherever, dump the items and then come right back when Meredith is discovered. As I've pointed out, the actual murder weapon was never discovered nor any of the clothes the suspect wore during them.

Disposing of the items wasn't a problem for Rudy. If Amanda and Raffaele had been involved, it really wouldn't have been that hard for them either.

Good point, especially since they were dealing with an investigation team whose alma mater is Klown Kollege.

 

[Mary_H]

In WTBH we learn (for the first time in my case) a key fact: Amanda did not know the movements of her flat mates that weekend. Thus, for all she knew, F or L could return at any time, at 2 in the morning, or 9 a.m. or any time. I'm afraid this rules out the go to Gubbio plan unless all at the crime scene was in perfect order.

We need RW to make the next point (he does it so well) but I will just have to do it for him. These days, if I stay up really late (as in all night) it takes me about two days to recover but when I was a student I did it all the time with no ill effects. Given that Amanda did not know their plans and assuming she and Raffaele participated in the crime, why leave the clean up until the morning? Surely, desperate measures were called for including, if needs be, staying up the whole night and scrubbing. There would be time to run the bathmat through the washer and maybe even dry it. The bathroom could be properly cleaned, leaving no blood at all. If for some insane reason they wanted to wipe all their prints from the entire apartment they had plenty of time to do it and more besides that to fix their story. What the heck were they doing leaving everything until the morning?

And why leave a few drops of blood on the sink and then lead the police right to them?

 

[anglolawyer]

And why leave a few drops of blood on the sink and then lead the police right to them?

The PGPs would say, I assume, they didn't have time to do everything. But they did. They had plenty of time. And since they could not know how much time they had it is unlikely they would have lounged around all night not using it.

In his excellent article The Unbearable Thoughtlessness of Guilt Luca Cheli majors on the theme of Amanda being entrusted with the clean up and carelessly leaving Raffaele's foot print on the mat (we are required to assume it is his in this thought experiment). A good read for this and other reasons.

 

[acbytesla]

In WTBH we learn (for the first time in my case) a key fact: Amanda did not know the movements of her flat mates that weekend. Thus, for all she knew, F or L could return at any time, at 2 in the morning, or 9 a.m. or any time. I'm afraid this rules out the go to Gubbio plan unless all at the crime scene was in perfect order.

We need RW to make the next point (he does it so well) but I will just have to do it for him. These days, if I stay up really late (as in all night) it takes me about two days to recover but when I was a student I did it all the time with no ill effects. Given that Amanda did not know their plans and assuming she and Raffaele participated in the crime, why leave the clean up until the morning? Surely, desperate measures were called for including, if needs be, staying up the whole night and scrubbing. There would be time to run the bathmat through the washer and maybe even dry it. The bathroom could be properly cleaned, leaving no blood at all. If for some insane reason they wanted to wipe all their prints from the entire apartment they had plenty of time to do it and more besides that to fix their story. What the heck were they doing leaving everything until the morning?

This also makes a cleanup ridiculous. What do you do when one of your other roommates catch in your skivvies cleaning the bloody murder scene? Invite them in to help or kill them too? Does this turn into a real life version of the movie "Very Bad Things"??

I agree with your post.

 

[Mary_H]

How?

Because they weren't (aren't) psychotic, cannibalistic nuts. With who they were (are) as people, you just can't get as far as the knife in the kitchen. To do so, you have to presuppose they have committed the murder and decided the kitchen drawer is a good place to hide the knife. To get to the point of them devising strategic plans like that to deal with the evidence, such as staging a burglary and keeping the knife, you have to turn them into something they were (are) not.

In the extremely unlikely event they somehow ended up being part of a scene that ended in Meredith's death, there is no way they, being who they are, would not fall apart immediately.

I know this isn't a very good explanation, but the thing is, it is not valid to start from Point B or C in this case, without addressing Point A.