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

[Machiavelli]

So, Machiavelli, is THIS the strategy from here on in.... everyone EXCEPT Mignini gets a small share of the blame?

Blame for what?
You need to find something, first.

 

[Machiavelli]

I find Bill's intellectual method rather incredible. The fact is, I pointed out is that there is no source, and the trial documentation is against his theory; Bill dodges the point completely, is unable to find any point in favor of his theory but instead he puts out a new question about "sharing the blame" (that the prosecution allegedly put forward a ritual-murder scenario, that is: of Bill's theory, exactly what appears to be non-existent so far).

 

[Bill Williams]

I find Bill's intellectual method rather incredible. The fact is, I pointed out is that there is no source, and the trial documentation is against his theory; Bill dodges the point completely, is unable to find any point in favor of his theory but instead he puts out a new question about "sharing the blame" (that the prosecution allegedly put forward a ritual-murder scenario, that is: of Bill's theory, exactly what appears to be non-existent so far).

How could you say that Micheli claimed that the prosecutor had dropped all these themes if they hadn't been brought up to begin with?

You've hinted at the source yourself! And your last post assigns a wee bit of blame to everyone except Mignini, who you'll protect no matter what.

I'm close, aren't I?

 

[Diocletus]

I’ve decided to open up a new law school in Italy. What do you think of my course selections:

Evidence Disclosure for Prosecutors 101: How to taint the jury pool by leaking phony evidence, while keeping the real and exculpatory evidence out of the defendant’s hands.

Unfair Criminal Procedure 201: The secrets to getting a conviction of your defendant in a different defendant’s trial—save time, while avoiding the needless bother of cross-examination, jury trial and appeal!

Witchcraft, Masons and the Occult: What you need to know about these powerful social forces that threaten the very foundations of modern Italy.

Trial Preparation: How to prepare for an 8-year trial.

Right to Counsel 101: This is a rather short course.

Right to Counsel 201: This lengthy course examines all of the exceptions to the Right to Counsel, such as when you falsely call the suspect a witness, when you lie to the suspect, when you make the suspect say spontaneous things, and when you just don’t feel like the suspect should have a lawyer because that might help the suspect (unfairly, of course).

Admission of Inadmissible Evidence: How to use statements extracted in violation of the defendant’s right to counsel. No need to throw away a perfectly good statement just because you violated the defendant's rights.

Alibis: How to make them disappear, and then use the disappearance to incriminate the defendant.

Forensics for Dummies 401: This is Italy’s highest-level legal-scientific class focusing on the fabrication and destruction of forensic evidence of all kinds.

Appealing to Perverts: Our best appellate practice class, taught by a real live Italian supreme court judge!

The Osmosis of Logic: How to think like an Italian judge. Taught by a plant.

I've thought of another class that I should add:

Investigation of Sexual Assaults 101: You will learn that the tightness of the victim's pants is more important than the semen. In fact, forget the semen. It's not about the semen.

 

[RoseMontague]

How could you say that Micheli claimed that the prosecutor had dropped all these themes if they hadn't been brought up to begin with?

Too funny. Good point.

 

[Mary_H]

I've thought of another class that I should add:

Investigation of Sexual Assaults 101: You will learn that the tightness of the victim's pants is more important than the semen. In fact, forget the semen. It's not about the semen.

On one of the groundreport articles, Michelle Moore made a comment that I thought would make a great name for a punk band: "Test the dang semen!"

 

[acbytesla]

How could you say that Micheli claimed that the prosecutor had dropped all these themes if they hadn't been brought up to begin with?

You've hinted at the source yourself! And your last post assigns a wee bit of blame to everyone except Mignini, who you'll protect no matter what.

I'm close, aren't I?

Excellent analysis Bill. It truly is hilarious watching Machiavelli do this dance. I can't believe he can't see how absurd his logic is on this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Too funny. Good point.

Machiavelli says I never make my points. It's because he's too busy making them for me.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Exactly, that sort of depravity is rare. Charlie mentioned a couple of cases to me over on IIP a while ago, but when I looked into them they were quite different to this one: both involved men who set out deliberately to kill, for one thing (one of them said he did it because he "wanted to kill a woman"). If I thought Rudy entered the house because he "wanted to kill a woman", I'd have far less difficulty believing he acted in such a sadistic, cold and calculating way after doing so.

Rudy had no history of violence or sadism; no one's even come forward to say he used to kick their puppy as a kid or fried insects with a magnifying glass. What is true is that he was increasingly involved in criminal activity, and was becoming willing to put himself in situations where he might have to use violence and was prepared to use it, as his carrying a knife showed. All the same, it's a step from carrying a knife during a burglary to actually using it to kill someone (though clearly not as big a step as it would be for Amanda and Raffaele) and a further big step from there to the sort of depravity it's alleged happened here. So if there are two scenarios, one involving Rudy behaving like a cornered burglar in a situation of escalating violence, the other likening him to Jeffrey Dahmer, I'm inclined to go with the first unless there's convincing evidence for the second.

She was found mostly naked with her legs spread and a pillow under her buttocks. We can tell from the bloodstain evidence that her bra was torn off after her throat was cut. She may have taken her jeans off before she was ever attacked, I don't know, but I don't think there's much doubt Guede abused her sexually after he inflicted the fatal stab wound.

I'm not sure what cases I mentioned. Sexual homicide is rare to begin with. But in the context of sexual homicide, no perversion is all that uncommon. Killing and then raping, or masturbating at the crime scene, are all within the realm of what these guys sometimes do.

It's helpful to look at the forensic textbooks used to train police. Many have photos showing bizarre details of sexual homicides that are not usually described in the media, because they are so macabre. At least Guede skipped the post-mortem desecration and the foreign object insertions that seem to be typical of sex killers.

 

[Bill Williams]

How could you say that Micheli claimed that the prosecutor had dropped all these themes if they hadn't been brought up to begin with?

You've hinted at the source yourself! And your last post assigns a wee bit of blame to everyone except Mignini, who you'll protect no matter what.

I'm close, aren't I?

Excellent analysis Bill. It truly is hilarious watching Machiavelli do this dance. I can't believe he can't see how absurd his logic is on this.

It's the knot someone has to tie themselves into, if there is some place they're unwilling to go.

Mignini is guilty.

And the reason for Mignini writing a letter in Oct 2013 disvowing the Satanic rite theory, repeat: in Oct 2013, is because Mignini fears he, himself, is about to be led to the place he fears. The place Spezi warned the world about.

And Machiavelli, 1 or 2, simply cannot give ground on that point - even as they make the point! Reread Machiavelli's post upthread!

A liitle bit of blame belongs to everyone except for Mignini. Even a little bit of blame for Micheli, not a lot, but just enough hoping also Micheli won't notice - or confident that Micheli does not read here at JREF.

Does Mach 1 or 2 ever contemplate that there will come a time when THEY are thrown under the bus?

 

[Bill Williams]

With all this said, Machiavelli, I still offer a dinner at a restaurant of your choosing. I'm serious. You choose the wine, and I trust you implicitly on issues of wine... and because the cost of wine can go through the roof, I reserve the right to limit how much I pick up on the tab for wine.

I won't pay for Mach 2, though. And it can't be in Italy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Re: Andrea Vogt's latest blog entry....

...... could it be any more plain that Andrea Vogt is a PR agent for the prosecution in this case?

 

[christianahannah]

Re: Andrea Vogt's latest blog entry....

...... could it be any more plain that Andrea Vogt is a PR agent for the prosecution in this case?

Why do you think that?

 

[Supernaut]

Charlie, you won't win any friends or gain any credibility by trying to represent this as a left-wing/right-wing confrontation. "Left" and "right" in this context are in any case labels, and your apparent understanding of them seems incongruous to me, at least. Far from the Italian judiciary being "a force against right-wing thuggery", it looks to me to be a classic manifestation of the right-wing authoritarian establishment.

As for linking Machiavelli to supporters of the Sandinistas, I really don't think that's one that stands up. Let's not open that particular de-rail.

Actually, I agree - "left" and "right" are entirely artificial "thesis" and "antithesis".

By "artificial", I mean deliberately and artfully promulgated 'ideologies', each fashioned to create an "us and them" mind-set - divide and rule.

The power to do this is lent by almost unlimited financial resources, i.e. money-power.

It's most visible success, to date, was in the financing into power of both the Nazis (nee "national socialists") in Western Europe and the Bolsheviks (nee "communists") in Eastern Europe.

It set up a fratricidal genocide on a scale never seen in history.

The best is yet to come.

"Do you want to know more?" Check out Anthony Sutton.

 

[Skind]

There is no "story", there are reasonings and they are straight, the only problem is that you need to read them all. Without to cutting bits away. You decided to not believe the first very obvious argument concerning the choice to not sleep, for some reason people decided to not "see" Knox's behavior. I did not carry the discussion further from the viewpoint of that particular argument because you don't see it, that point to me was over. Then I argued quite on other reasons why speaking about sleep deprivation would be groundless; but because of your selective reading, those arguments magically "disappear".

That I do not agree with your arguement does not mean I do not see it.

As I have explained - as have other people - Knox's 'choice' not to sleep is not proof negative of sleep deprivation. You willfully chose to describe sleep deprived behaviour of a few people you knew who were chronically sleep deprived (based on your description, you were describing people with a sleep disorder), and willfully chose to ignore that sleep seeking behaviours of people with sleep deprivation can also be disturbed - whether by stress, medication, noise, or ill health.

You totally ignored the possibility that Knox may have been sleep deprived precisely because she 'chose' not to sleep very well, as had several of Merediths friends.

There was no selective reading, I simply looked at the grounds for your arguement and found they didn't exist.

You simply aren't displaying adequate conditional knowledge of sleep deprivation.

 

[billyryan]

It's the knot someone has to tie themselves into, if there is some place they're unwilling to go.

Mignini is guilty.

And the reason for Mignini writing a letter in Oct 2013 disvowing the Satanic rite theory, repeat: in Oct 2013, is because Mignini fears he, himself, is about to be led to the place he fears. The place Spezi warned the world about.

And Machiavelli, 1 or 2, simply cannot give ground on that point - even as they make the point! Reread Machiavelli's post upthread!

A liitle bit of blame belongs to everyone except for Mignini. Even a little bit of blame for Micheli, not a lot, but just enough hoping also Micheli won't notice - or confident that Micheli does not read here at JREF.

Does Mach 1 or 2 ever contemplate that there will come a time when THEY are thrown under the bus?

Matteini,Micheli,Comodi and Costagliola these are the people who might just have hatched a plan to make sure all of the blame lands on Mignini's doorstep if this appeal turns south

 

[katy_did]

She was found mostly naked with her legs spread and a pillow under her buttocks. We can tell from the bloodstain evidence that her bra was torn off after her throat was cut. She may have taken her jeans off before she was ever attacked, I don't know, but I don't think there's much doubt Guede abused her sexually after he inflicted the fatal stab wound.

I'm not sure what cases I mentioned. Sexual homicide is rare to begin with. But in the context of sexual homicide, no perversion is all that uncommon. Killing and then raping, or masturbating at the crime scene, are all within the realm of what these guys sometimes do.

It's helpful to look at the forensic textbooks used to train police. Many have photos showing bizarre details of sexual homicides that are not usually described in the media, because they are so macabre. At least Guede skipped the post-mortem desecration and the foreign object insertions that seem to be typical of sex killers.

When you say there isn't much doubt that "Guede abused her sexually after he inflicted the fatal stab wound", Charlie, the sole piece of evidence you're relying on is the pillow - there is nothing else to suggest it. That was a theory put forward by Massei (that the pillow was placed to 'facilitate' a sexual assault - not quite sure it would make things so much easier, but OK) based on the position it was found in. And he could be right, but I think the context has to be taken into account: firstly, that the pillow was already on the floor by this point - we know that from the shoe prints all over it - most likely having fallen there earlier during the attack; and that Meredith was lying on a bunch of other things which presumably had no sexual purpose, like a pair of tennis shoes IIRC. She wasn't placed carefully on the pillow, but was lying diagonally across one corner of it. And lastly, given that there was no 'rape' in the sense of intercourse, Rudy must have gone to the trouble of positioning Meredith just so that he could manually assault her (and if you're right, placed towels carefully around her for the purpose), all the while keeping an eye out in case any of the other flatmates came home.

And you may be right, but the whole theory is based on one piece of evidence only, evidence which is certainly not unambiguous when seen in context. I think we need to be careful to avoid reading too much into aspects of a chaotic crime scene which may be less meaningful than they appear, and which may even be purely random.

As to your last paragraph, isn't your argument simply that people do some weird stuff so we shouldn't apply any sort of logic as to what might have happened in this particular crime, based on what we know of an individual's background and the circumstances surrounding the crime itself?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's the knot someone has to tie themselves into, if there is some place they're unwilling to go.

Mignini is guilty.

And the reason for Mignini writing a letter in Oct 2013 disvowing the Satanic rite theory, repeat: in Oct 2013, is because Mignini fears he, himself, is about to be led to the place he fears. The place Spezi warned the world about.

And Machiavelli, 1 or 2, simply cannot give ground on that point - even as they make the point! Reread Machiavelli's post upthread!

A liitle bit of blame belongs to everyone except for Mignini. Even a little bit of blame for Micheli, not a lot, but just enough hoping also Micheli won't notice - or confident that Micheli does not read here at JREF.

Does Mach 1 or 2 ever contemplate that there will come a time when THEY are thrown under the bus?

Matteini,Micheli,Comodi and Costagliola these are the people who might just have hatched a plan to make sure all of the blame lands on Mignini's doorstep if this appeal turns south

If things start to unravel for the prosecution(s) in the Kercher murder trial(s), the goal will be to avoid being the last person standing with Mr. Mignini.

Me, I'm still trying to figure out why Machiavelli acts as if this "Satanic Ritual" thing Mr. Mignini once advanced is, now in Oct 2013, the line in the sand?

I am almost sure that Machiavelli does not feel exposed the way that Comodi, Napoleoni, Micheli, et al., might feel.... I just wonder if there is something with Machiavelli which makes it worth the wonder, "What if Mignini turns on me?"

I mean, Machiavelli has been a loyal servant....

 

[katy_did]

I would have said this too as it would help explain the shift to a sexual attack. But the blood on the pants indicate that they were removed by somebody with bloody hands. The shoes are not as conclusive and could have come off before or after the assault.

With both, it would have been useful to have high resolution photos of all sides to help determine how events unfolded but with the budget constraints this just cannot be done.

Dan, from what I remember there was just a small amount of blood on the back of the waistband of her jeans. Not an obvious place to hold if he was removing them, but certainly a likely place to grasp if he was going through the pockets looking for the keys (that may have been when he found the cell phone her friends said she kept in her jeans pocket).

 

[Machiavelli]

How could you say that Micheli claimed that the prosecutor had dropped all these themes if they hadn't been brought up to begin with?

No no no, again it's your strain. You know Micheli mentioned a number of "themes"; this is a fact, something that belongs to Micheli's statment. It is also a fact that Micheli stated that the prosecution did not repeat these themes any more. This is a second fact (the fact is that this is stated by Micheli too).
A third fact, is that these themes are present in Mignini's speech, but they are not a description of a ritual murder. Moreover, the word "rito" is actually missing in Mignini's speech (maybe Micheli says "riti" meaning the ritual holidays - Halloween, Celtic day, Day of Seints, Day of the Deads - enlisted in Mighini's paragraph). It is a fact that despite "themes" are mentioned, Mignini's speech does not describe any ritual murder, but describes instead just a drug-fueled party between young students in which a sex-game-gone-awry scenario took place, and these themes (linked to manga comics, possible cultural suggestions, strange individual charachters, Halloween as an "occasion" to have Meredith alone) are merely secondary, contextual elements "attached" to this scenario. They do not turn the murder into a ritual murder, they are only speculation on what "style" the drug-fueled party and sex-hazing might have had, a totally secondary aspect. This is the third fact.

So the point is: these themes are like a "decoration" of the sex-game scenario, they are not a ritual murder scenario. They have nothing to do with it.

You've hinted at the source yourself! And your last post assigns a wee bit of blame to everyone except Mignini, who you'll protect no matter what.

I'm close, aren't I?

Quite the contrary, you are purposely doging it. The core is that there is no ritual murder scenario in Mignini's argument.
This is a matter of fact. There isn't even the word "ritual" or "rite". Nor "sect". There is only a description of a sexual context carried on under the effect of drugs (also mentions a possible motive to get Merediths' money) and speaks about strange personalities that write and read stories about sex-and-violence and collect knifes. So, strange folks that may have strange sexual ideas during drug fueled parties: this is the only scenario in the prosecution's argument.

The "source" I point out - I thought that was clear - is one journalist who reports a definition that includes the word "rito" (anyway in an ironic context etc.) that he did not hear, only claiming he is reporting something another journalist said. But - the most important point - there is NO corroboration of such word in trial documents. Hence, there is NO source. (because the only "source" is indirect and conflicts with the trial papers).

And finally, NO, I do not assign any blame to anyone. I am only sure that the prosecutor did not say this because I have read the transcript of prosecution speech and it is not in the document.
I have not red the speeches of Maresca or Pacelli so I simply cannot "clear" them with certainty (which is totally different from "blaming" them).
But whatever Pacelli or Maresca or others said, one thing is absolutely certain: that NO "ritual murder scenario" was ever put forward, and that all those who repeat there was a ritual motive, or sect-like motive, or a ritual murder scenario, are just disseminating a plain falsehood.