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

[Katody Matrass]

Perhaps neither Knox nor Potter is guilty of stabbing Kercher. Evidence certainly suggests that. I disagree that you can state as fact that they are innocent in this crime.

Evidence shows Guede raped and murdered Meredith on his own, during a botched burglary. No one came forward with an alternative hypothesis that makes sense and fits the evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "state as a fact". I'd say a proposition that they are not innocent probabilistically occupies the realm of miracles.

 

[Supernaut]

That would be twice too many times.

Of ALL THE THINGS she could talk about...

I only saw her talk about it with Diane Sawyer. The Guardian said she talked about it in "a string of interviews" and I took their word for it.

People like me? You know nothing about me. I only want to see her acquitted. I hate seeing her shoot herself in the foot.

Although... one day into the trial, I already see the writing on the wall. So I guess it doesn't matter what she does.

Basically, you're allowing your perception to be influenced and slanted by the media, by the TONE of the "reporting", despite your belief in AK's and RS's innocence.

Did you not stop to think about what you were admitting when you said I only saw her talk about it with Diane Sawyer....?.

Amanda Knox isn't "shooting herself in the foot", she's being skewered, STILL, by the chattering classes, which includes (unfortunately) people who pass themselves off as "journalists and reporters" (some MUCH worse than others, but that's the size of it)..

The same as ever - she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

 

[RoseMontague]

For the first time in an appeal the defence (Bongiorno) requested the DNA raw data.
Bongiorno had asked for the raw data only once, at the end of the 2009 trial; Massei refused saying they were irrelevant. The defence never asked for the raw data again. They did not request them in the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal.
It's the first time they make such request at the appeal. She explained the defence may need them because "they may allow us to prove the contamination process" (one among their 15 requests).
Nencini rejected, agreeing with PG Crini that they appear to be useles for the purpose of proving the contamination process.

It was September 2009, IIRC which I don't consider the "end of the 2009 trial". So it has now been specifically requested in the main trial as well as in an appeal and has been denied both times. There is no reason to deny these requests unless you want to hide something. How exactly would the judge and the prosecutor know they are useless for proving contamination? Are they DNA experts? Have they examined the data?

Italy's system of justice is corrupt. This is a railroad job.

 

[Supernaut]

Perhaps neither Knox nor Potter is guilty of stabbing Kercher. Evidence certainly suggests that. I disagree that you can state as fact that they are innocent in this crime.

If they can even be suspected, let alone convicted, on the basis of what's been palmed off as "evidence", then we might as well not bother with criminal trials at all.

How many more times do people have to be reminded where "the burden of proof" lies when accusing someone of anything?

 

[Supernaut]

.....

Although... one day into the trial, I already see the writing on the wall. So I guess it doesn't matter what she does.

I get the same feeling. And depending on my mood, I'm either incensed or depressed.

I think the custard may hit the fan AFTER a guilty verdict is handed down - for the moment it's all just good, clean entertainment for most "interested" observers.

 

[acbytesla]

That's true if you know she's innocent. But you don't.

With all due respect Tofu, Many of us ABSOLUTELY KNOW THAT Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with Meredith's murder.

It is not a matter of opinion. It is the result of empirical study of the case and evidence that has been presented.

Just as I know global warming is a fact, that evolution is a fact, that gravity is a fact, that the earth revolves around the sun. I know that Amanda is innocent. Whether a conviction of hers is a conspiracy is another question.

Innocent people are convicted, it happens all the time. It happens in the UK, it happens in the US and it happens in Italy. (BTW*, I think the opinion in the UK that Amanda killed Meredith is probably not the majority opinion there. Also, if you read through this JREF thread, you will note that many of the PIP posters are in fact from the UK. London John and Anglo lawyer for example.)

What I know about this case is that the prosecution has no evidence that points to Amanda and Raffaele except one. The bra clasp which is a very suspect piece of evidence. I know that there is no motive for Amanda or Raffaele to have committed this murder. I know there is no evidence of a "staged burglary", I know there is no DNA of Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's bedroom or fingerprints for that matter. While at the same time Rudy left at least 4 DNA samples and his palm print in Meredith's blood. I know that the wounds don't match the cooking knife seized by the police from Raffaele's apartment. I know that this knife also doesn't match the bloody imprint of the knife from Meredith's bed.

I also know that Rudy needed money and had a history of burglary..no convictions but a definite provable history. Other than on two very brief occasion Rudy had no known association or communications to Amanda
He had none with Raffaele. Not a single email, not a single text, not a single phone call ever between Rudy and either Amanda and/or Raffaele. Rudy's claim that he had a date with Meredith is also unsubstantiated.

I know that Raffaele had known Amanda all of 7 days. I know both of them come from fine upstanding families and neither have any history of violent behavior. I know after searching for 5 years through the annals of criminal history, that there doesn't seem to be any parallel to this crime.

There really is nothing that could convince me of either of these two young kids having committed this crime outside of a detailed video confession from Amanda or Raffaele.

So yes I know them to be innocent.

 

[TofuFighter]

TofuFighter,

Suppose that there were a JREF forum circa 1982 and that we were debating the Lindy Chamberlain case (there are a couple of threads here on the case). Would a guilty verdict against her be taken as proof that she murdered Azaria at a forum for skeptics? Would her defenders be conspiracy theorists?

The short answer to your question is that there was simply not enough time for A and R to commit this crime once one uses a reasonable estimate for TOD. A slightly longer answer is that there is a mountain of missing evidence that should be there but is not (such as CCTV footage and bloody clothes). Try constructing a narrative and timeline of the case assuming guilt, and see how problematic the case becomes.

Thanks for the rational response, Halides.

I don't really think that either a guilty or not guilty verdict is proof of anything since there are just so many variables in justice systems today (the performance of legal representation, aspects that are admissible or not on technical grounds).

Whatever the eventual verdict, which apparently could bounce endless back and forth given the Italian appeal process, there will be those from both sides who believe it to be incorrect. My argument is only that, particularly here, it is silly to declare her innocence or guilt of the murder as a fact. At this stage, Diocletus is my number one suspect as the killer, since he knows Knox didn't do it.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are problems with this (Kercher) case. Motive is still a problem for me, as is the timeline, as you said. That doesn't mean it's impossible for the two lovers to have been involved.

If this forum fills up with people declaring facts that they can't possibly know, i might as well be reading the huffpost comments section.

 

[TofuFighter]

With all due respect Tofu, Many of us ABSOLUTELY KNOW THAT Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with Meredith's murder.

It is not a matter of opinion. It is the result of empirical study of the case and evidence that has been presented.

Just as I know global warming is a fact, that evolution is a fact, that gravity is a fact, that the earth revolves around the sun. I know that Amanda is innocent. Whether a conviction of hers is a conspiracy is another question.

Innocent people are convicted, it happens all the time. It happens in the UK, it happens in the US and it happens in Italy. (BTW*, I think the opinion in the UK that Amanda killed Meredith is probably not the majority opinion there. Also, if you read through this JREF thread, you will note that many of the PIP posters are in fact from the UK. London John and Anglo lawyer for example.)

What I know about this case is that the prosecution has no evidence that points to Amanda and Raffaele except one. The bra clasp which is a very suspect piece of evidence. I know that there is no motive for Amanda or Raffaele to have committed this murder. I know there is no evidence of a "staged burglary", I know there is no DNA of Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's bedroom or fingerprints for that matter. While at the same time Rudy left at least 4 DNA samples and his palm print in Meredith's blood. I know that the wounds don't match the cooking knife seized by the police from Raffaele's apartment. I know that this knife also doesn't match the bloody imprint of the knife from Meredith's bed.

I also know that Rudy needed money and had a history of burglary..no convictions but a definite provable history. Other than on two very brief occasion Rudy had no known association or communications to Amanda
He had none with Raffaele. Not a single email, not a single text, not a single phone call ever between Rudy and either Amanda and/or Raffaele. Rudy's claim that he had a date with Meredith is also unsubstantiated.

I know that Raffaele had known Amanda all of 7 days. I know both of them come from fine upstanding families and neither have any history of violent behavior. I know after searching for 5 years through the annals of criminal history, that there doesn't seem to be any parallel to this crime.

There really is nothing that could convince me of either of these two young kids having committed this crime outside of a detailed video confession from Amanda or Raffaele.

So yes I know them to be innocent.

Thanks for the lengthy response Tesla.
I'll come back to you shortly. (i am currently working 'diligently')

 

[snook1]

Thanks for the rational response, Halides.

I don't really think that either a guilty or not guilty verdict is proof of anything since there are just so many variables in justice systems today (the performance of legal representation, aspects that are admissible or not on technical grounds).

Whatever the eventual verdict, which apparently could bounce endless back and forth given the Italian appeal process, there will be those from both sides who believe it to be incorrect. My argument is only that, particularly here, it is silly to declare her innocence or guilt of the murder as a fact. At this stage, Diocletus is my number one suspect as the killer, since he knows Knox didn't do it.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are problems with this (Kercher) case. Motive is still a problem for me, as is the timeline, as you said. That doesn't mean it's impossible for the two lovers to have been involved.

If this forum fills up with people declaring facts that they can't possibly know, i might as well be reading the huffpost comments section.

But it is impossible for them to be involved.

 

[Supernaut]

With all due respect Tofu, Many of us ABSOLUTELY KNOW THAT Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with Meredith's murder.

It is not a matter of opinion. It is the result of empirical study of the case and evidence that has been presented.

Just as I know global warming is a fact, that evolution is a fact, that gravity is a fact, that the earth revolves around the sun. I know that Amanda is innocent. Whether a conviction of hers is a conspiracy is another question.

Innocent people are convicted, it happens all the time. It happens in the UK, it happens in the US and it happens in Italy. (BTW*, I think the opinion in the UK that Amanda killed Meredith is probably not the majority opinion there. Also, if you read through this JREF thread, you will note that many of the PIP posters are in fact from the UK. London John and Anglo lawyer for example.)

What I know about this case is that the prosecution has no evidence that points to Amanda and Raffaele except one. The bra clasp which is a very suspect piece of evidence. I know that there is no motive for Amanda or Raffaele to have committed this murder. I know there is no evidence of a "staged burglary", I know there is no DNA of Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith's bedroom or fingerprints for that matter. While at the same time Rudy left at least 4 DNA samples and his palm print in Meredith's blood. I know that the wounds don't match the cooking knife seized by the police from Raffaele's apartment. I know that this knife also doesn't match the bloody imprint of the knife from Meredith's bed.

I also know that Rudy needed money and had a history of burglary..no convictions but a definite provable history. Other than on two very brief occasion Rudy had no known association or communications to Amanda
He had none with Raffaele. Not a single email, not a single text, not a single phone call ever between Rudy and either Amanda and/or Raffaele. Rudy's claim that he had a date with Meredith is also unsubstantiated.

I know that Raffaele had known Amanda all of 7 days. I know both of them come from fine upstanding families and neither have any history of violent behavior. I know after searching for 5 years through the annals of criminal history, that there doesn't seem to be any parallel to this crime.

There really is nothing that could convince me of either of these two young kids having committed this crime outside of a detailed video confession from Amanda or Raffaele.

So yes I know them to be innocent.

Trouble is, this can end up becoming a philiosophical debate.

How does anyone "know" anything? We can only say that "we believe with certainty".

Climate change is an observable effect, AGW is a hypothesis for its cause. Gravity is an obervable effect, but no-one actually knows what causes it ('curved space-time' is a theory, not proven fact).

But ultimately, 'truth' is not a matter of belief or opinion, let alone 'consensus', and I'm with you in "believing with certainty" (IOW, knowing, as far as I can know anything), based on all you list here (and more) that Amanda and Raff had nothing to do with Meredith's death.

Except in as much as Amanda wasn't at home on Nov 1st 2007 and thus Meredith was alone in the cottage that night (which why, consciously or not, the Kerchers hold her to be "culpable", and hate her).

 

[TofuFighter]

Evidence shows Guede raped and murdered Meredith on his own, during a botched burglary. No one came forward with an alternative hypothesis that makes sense and fits the evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "state as a fact". I'd say a proposition that they are not innocent probabilistically occupies the realm of miracles.

I'm still trying to pronounce probabilistically without making a mistake.
Your sentence is poetic, but arguable, and also suggests that you know exactly what i meant by "state as fact".

 

[Diocletus]

It was September 2009, IIRC which I don't consider the "end of the 2009 trial". So it has now been specifically requested in the main trial as well as in an appeal and has been denied both times. There is no reason to deny these requests unless you want to hide something. How exactly would the judge and the prosecutor know they are useless for proving contamination? Are they DNA experts? Have they examined the data?

Italy's system of justice is corrupt. This is a railroad job.

"Useless for proving contamination"? Is this a lie or sheer idiocy?

This system wants to put the burden on the defendant to "prove" contamination (even after showing that the lab procedures were defective), and at the same time wants to prevent the defendant from having access to the underlying lab records? This is just so silly.

It's so silly, in fact, that it makes me think that this judge doesn't give a fig about 36b. The case is now all about 36i: if it has DNA from someone other than Kercher, then the knife is toast.

 

[Diocletus]

If you say so, it must be true. Much like Diocletus.
Don't you think that, on a skeptic's forum, you might admit that you can't state that as fact?

I'm skeptical of people who say that they're guilty. In fact, they're wrong. And since they're either innocent or guilty, that makes me right. Yay!

 

[Supernaut]

I'm skeptical of people who say that they're guilty. In fact, they're wrong. And since they're either innocent or guilty, that makes me right. Yay!

That's very philosophical!

 

[TofuFighter]

I'm skeptical of people who say that they're guilty. In fact, they're wrong. And since they're either innocent or guilty, that makes me right. Yay!

lol.
QED.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I'm still trying to pronounce probabilistically without making a mistake.
Your sentence is poetic, but arguable, and also suggests that you know exactly what i meant by "state as fact".

Argue then. That's the purpose of the forum. Read up on the evidence and let's see your take on it. If you manage to give a comprehensive hypothesis that agrees with the evidence and don't involve miracles I'm first to change my view.

 

[acbytesla]

Trouble is, this can end up becoming a philiosophical debate.

How does anyone "know" anything? We can only say that "we believe with certainty".

Climate change is an observable effect, AGW is a hypothesis for its cause. Gravity is an obervable effect, but no-one actually knows what causes it ('curved space-time' is a theory, not proven fact).

But ultimately, 'truth' is not a matter of belief or opinion, let alone 'consensus', and I'm with you in "believing with certainty" (IOW, knowing, as far as I can know anything), based on all you list here (and more) that Amanda and Raff had nothing to do with Meredith's death.

Except in as much as Amanda wasn't at home on Nov 1st 2007 and thus Meredith was alone in the cottage that night (which why, consciously or not, the Kerchers hold her to be "culpable", and hate her).

From that perspective, I agree with you Supernaut. Tomorrow, gravity might stop working and we all will float off into space. The Earth could stop rotating around the Sun, and we could slip into an ice age. A friend of mine is a Doctor, and he says that man hasn't cured a single disease. Only that we have found therapies that seem to stop certain diseases.

As you said, that is a philosophical or existential argument, which I tend to avoid like the plague. I believe in Science and when I say that, I'm not talking about a religious belief. It is a belief in the scientific method. Which frankly is about doubting everything and putting those doubts to the test.

I am open to any one actually disproving gravity, global warming, evolution and even Amanda and Raffaele's innocence. That said, the evidence of all of these things is so significant, that I am comfortable saying that I KNOW all of these things to be true.

 

[Machiavelli]

Please provide evidence that Guede is a co-defendant of AK and RS...I think this argument is crazy!

I wrote "former co-defendant".

The truth is Mignini DID READ a letter supposedly written by Guede but which the judge Zanetti found odd and questioned Guede about himself since apparently Guede could not read his own handwriting or even understand some of the words...or at least that was the conclusion after Zanetti questioned Guede.

The higlighted part is completely false. You are making wild claims again.

Guede made allegations in "his" letter that AK and RS were involved in this murder. A fair and non corrupt system would require that the defendants and co-accused be allowed to question Guede about his written claims.

A fair and non-corrupt system follow the laws. And the law provides Guede a right to remain silent.

The lawyers demanded to be allowed to cross examine Guede but the judge (Hellmann) failed to grant this request.

Hellmann cannot grant manifestly illegal procedures.

This was actually a point of law the SC should have ruled on but failed to do so. That is illogical and illegal. But not in Italy I suppose.

The SC actually did rule on Hellmann's motivations, on a point related to this, pointing out that it was Guede's right to remain silent.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm skeptical of people who say that they're guilty. In fact, they're wrong. And since they're either innocent or guilty, that makes me right. Yay!

Question for you Diocletus. Since 36I is not listed as a part of the DNA report that I have.

I'm assuming that 36I is not actually a sample as of yet...right? This is what might be inside the handle of the knife after the clamshell of the handle is broken apart. Correct?

 

[acbytesla]

When I read you guys criticizing Amanda like this, it raises questions in my mind. For example, I wonder whether you actually have your fingers to the pulse of public opinion. Do you know for a fact that other people are offended by the same things you are offended by, and that what you don't like about Amanda's behavior is actually harmful to her situation?

Second, when you imagine the group of people Amanda is not impressing, or may even be alienating, what kind of people are you imagining? Obviously, she is alienating you, but have you checked to see whether there are enough other people just like you out there that their influence is a factor in Amanda's situation? Have you ascertained whether you have the moral authority to be giving her advice versus whether you are just armchair quarterbacking?

Third, your primary concern seems to be public relations, which is great. How do you think it looks to the public, though, when some of Amanda's supporters criticize her, and for essentially the same reasons the Perugians criticized her? In my opinion, a strong united front should be one without cracks, even if you have to bite your keyboards to prevent yourselves from venting.

I know you don't see it this way, but to me, there is a very short distance between, "I wish someone would tell her to knock it off"/"She is a lousy spokesperson" and, "Her situation is nobody's fault but her own." Or worse.

I'm in full agreement with you Mary. Grinder goes on and on about how Amanda is not the best spokesman and I think to a certain degree he is right. Amanda definitely is suffering from PTSD and it seems to have gotten worse in the last 4 months as this latest trial has approached.

That said, I think Amanda has been expressing genuine emotions. (so much for the so called "ice queen") Amanda is afraid, and who can really blame her? I'd be afraid as well. Right now, I think Amanda is caught between being viewed as calculating and manipulative, and an emotional basket case.

I have no idea Mary how Amanda is being perceived by the General public as opposed to those of heavily vested and frankly, neither does Wild Horses or Grinder. Opinions are like anuses, we all have them, not that the world wants to see them.