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

[xinonix]

"Appropriately, Popham feels sorry for the reporters which have to sit through this trial.... who will all be scratching their heads, "They annulled the acquitals for this!?" "
They Anulled the aquitals to retaliate for the books AK+RS wrote.
When Amanda went home, the Italians were hoping the world would forget about this case, and they left her alone.
About the time that those 2 books that AK+RS wrote came out and they appeared on TV to promote their books, Italy got mad and took back the acquittal they were given. I suppose they would have liked to find some new evidence, but they couldn't.
We also have to consider that it is quite possible, that while AK+RS were in jail they were offered a deal. If you don't write a book about your ordeal there will be nothing done to stop the appeal process and you will probably get released. Or something like that in Italian.
While they were behind bars AK+RS would say yes to this with great enthusiasm. But when they got home and saw how much money was owed to the lawyers, they felt they had no choice but to write a book.
When they failed to make good on a promise, the Italian justice system did what they could to make them feel sorry.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wow - that is what I call a very "finessed" response. In other words, she's a liar. Go ahead, Machiavelli, you can say it... you say it about a lot of people.

What is amazing reading your stuff, Machiavelli is the way you describe friends who make mistakes, and the way you positively demonize people on the other side of the fence.

I will now drop any reference to Nadeau with you. You've said quite enough.

And your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is also intriguing. My bet that Italian reporters were more practised in avoiding defamation charges.....

But thanks for your words about Nadeau. They positively fill me with confidence about what she wrote - who you can criticize, it seems, while admitting you've never read her book.

And you are criticizing MY method?

I confirm all what I said.
I never read Nadeau's book. I've only browsed it and I've read quotes of it which contained mistakes.
So I don't see anything wrong in being cautious about judgements.
Anyway, I've met Nadeau as a person and read several things she wrote; my instinct tells she's honest, not a cheating liar. But I do not hold her as at the same quality of Andrea Vogt for what concerns the reporting on this case.

Yes I wonder why you do not count the sources that do not back what you say. Why should a journalist be charged with defamation, if they report about something that was recorded in a courtroom? Or even recorded on a private recorder?
But what do you do instead when all these sources actually they report something else, something different and alternative from your claim? Are all these liars?

And finaly, do you know what source you refer to? What paper? What document? What speech? What interview?
At least tell me where this Satanic ritual scenario is supposed to be found.

 

[Dougm]

"Appropriately, Popham feels sorry for the reporters which have to sit through this trial.... who will all be scratching their heads, "They annulled the acquitals for this!?" "
They Anulled the aquitals to retaliate for the books AK+RS wrote.
When Amanda went home, the Italians were hoping the world would forget about this case, and they left her alone.
About the time that those 2 books that AK+RS wrote came out and they appeared on TV to promote their books, Italy got mad and took back the acquittal they were given. I suppose they would have liked to find some new evidence, but they couldn't.
We also have to consider that it is quite possible, that while AK+RS were in jail they were offered a deal. If you don't write a book about your ordeal there will be nothing done to stop the appeal process and you will probably get released. Or something like that in Italian.
While they were behind bars AK+RS would say yes to this with great enthusiasm. But when they got home and saw how much money was owed to the lawyers, they felt they had no choice but to write a book.
When they failed to make good on a promise, the Italian justice system did what they could to make them feel sorry.

The Italian Supreme Court ruling came out before Knox's book was released.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thanks again for your long replies. The last point I have is regarding your above comment. I do agree with you that one doesn't always know (ever know?) what is in the drugs one buys off the street. However, the bigger point is that I thought they were tested for drugs. Drug screens are ubiquitous in the US for instance - a big money maker in my opinion, but that is another matter. Anyway, I thought that was tested for and was essentially negative. I may be wrong about that.

It's possible they had blood tests (I don't know) but they would be negative for sure, they would be done 5 days later. Too late.
As for hair tests, that would be not much reliable, not valid for all substances and above all impossible to date.

 

[Dougm]

Just to point out that sex life is never an "issue" itself (unless it takes you into troubles). Personal sexual preferences, tastes, prectices themselves are not issues. As long as one enjoys them.

Raffaele Sollecito was under observation when he was at ONAOSI by the college director because he used to collect extreme violent porn (defined as 'shocking' by a student for its violence). The "issues" of this kind are not because of the sexual likes; they are just question marks about some traits of personality, in particular it is the penchant for knifes and violence - it is the attraction he manifested for the mixing of violence in his sexual fantasies, what attracted attention on Sollecito's personality. Or his expressing understanding for the Monster of Foligno (a sexually motivated serial killer).
As for Knox and Guede, there other aspects of their behaviour, having to do either with sex or violence too, which also attracted some attention.
Knox's writing fictional stories including elements such as sexual violence and manipulation or depravation (recall the "little brother" story), also graphic presence of blood. But also about wider aspects of personality, such as life as a roommate, her habits and her charachter as described by Meredith's friends and by the Italian flatmates.
For example Knox's copying the 'dominant' girl (Laura) even in her piercings; her showing off and be perceived as acting and over-the-top; her being seductive towards Meredith's boyfriend. And several other aspects.
These are complex aspects of personalities, not "issues". We cannot trivialize persons, we can't cathegorize people as "having issues" or being or not normal; but we should also not trivialize the set of elements which describe people's attitude and we should not consider them unimportant.



I don't have time. But I think I explained what are the elements that lead to this as a plausible theory.



What supports a sexual violence scenario is bruises on internal labia and a number of other bruises and traces, plus a male Y-haplotype compatible with Rudy Guede in her vagina.
However the physical evidence does not support a complete (non-consensual) sexual intercourse. But above all, the physical evidence and the autopsy does not support a single-rapist scenario. The presence of multiple perpetrators is the element which brings in the lable (maybe unfortunate) of "sex game". Because it was not a one-man rape, it's a violence to which several people took part and immobilyzed the victim.



Yes. The nature of wounds.
And also, the very basic context of this crime. This crime has no "motive" meant in rational sense. It has causes, or a chain of causes, rather than a "motive". Even if the murder was committed - hypothetically - by a lone burglar who decided to cmmit a rape, a "cause" in this event would be anyway the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Rudy Guede had episodes of being under alcohol and cocaine and those were the situations where his behaviour created some problems.



No there is no evidence, except their admission about smoking marjuana. But Amanda Knox's phone number was found in the telephone memory of a cocaine dealer in perugia. Raffaele Sollecito was recorded by the Prefect office of Bari as being a user of heavvy drugs. There is no direct evidence nor admission they took anything that night except several marjuana joints, anyway.

PS: anyway we actually don't know what substance you actually find in joints you buy in Piazza Grimana in Perugia. Would you be sure you know what you are smoking?

I think a lot of this is quite rational, but it is also highly speculative. Verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt require not speculation, but rather that there is no reasonable alternative explanation.

The above is way too speculative to result in a firm conclusion. It is the result of a series of guesses, not firm evidence.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think a lot of this is quite rational, but it is also highly speculative. Verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt require not speculation, but rather that there is no reasonable alternative explanation.

The above is way too speculative to result in a firm conclusion. It is the result of a series of guesses, not firm evidence.

It's correct to say it's speculative. The scenario, in fact, is speculation.
But it's a speculation built on the evidence, compatible with other numerous evidentialry elements. It's a plausible speculation.

However, conviction beyond reasonable doubt stems from the evidence, not from the scenario. The speculation you point out is not the basis of the conviction. The basis is the evidence set. The scenario is only corroboration, meaning it's when you search if there is actually a plausible scenario/explanation compatible with the evidence you already found. But you already have evidence of involvement. And it's evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

You know finding evidence is a bit like finding a body. Not a beautiful example but you remember it. Sometimes the finding is a nasty mess. You find half a torso, a leg. At this point you have an evidence there was a body. You need to make speculations about the existence of the rest of the body and how it was. You don't know how it was; maybe you will never identify it for sure. But you have found sure evidence that there was a body: you can make a sure inference there was a head, there was arms. You can say that beyond reasonable doubt even if you don't find them and don't know who they belonged to.

What, how, who: those questions are inference or just speculation. But, you have evidence.

You may well find evidence of a crime but not have direct information about all areas. You have evidence, and you have speculation. And the set of evidence may well be enough to convict.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think a lot of this is quite rational, but it is also highly speculative.

It's not "rational." It's lurid slander. When the cops searched Raffaele's apt., they found two folding pocket knives. That's what his interest in knives amounted to. The closest they came to pornography was manga comic books.

As for Amanda's story... she wrote one story in which one character made one reference to a date rape. That's it. John Follain rewrote part of the story to make people think it described a rape, but that was Follain's mind at work, not Amanda's. Likewise Machaivelli's mind is at work in his post. He's describing his sick fantasy of what Amanda is like, not the real person, about whom he is completely ignorant.

 

[RWVBWL]

Where's the presence of the other perps, Machiavelli?

<snip>
What supports a sexual violence scenario is bruises on internal labia and a number of other bruises and traces, plus a male Y-haplotype compatible with Rudy Guede in her vagina.

Why was only Rudy Guede's DNA found in Mez's vagina?

However the physical evidence does not support a complete (non-consensual) sexual intercourse. But above all, the physical evidence and the autopsy does not support a single-rapist scenario. The presence of multiple perpetrators is the element which brings in the lable (maybe unfortunate) of "sex game". Because it was not a one-man rape, it's a violence to which several people took part and immobilyzed the victim.
<snip>

Machiavelli,
What the heck?
What other multiple perps had their DNA inside of Miss Kercher's vagina?

What other multiple perps had DNA from their fingers, their tongues, their kisses
on Miss Kercher's thighs, her navel, her breasts, her neck, her ears or elsewhere,
in this Sex Game Gone Wrong your country's court system claims had happened?

Other perps?
Right...


I've played more than a few Sex Games myself.
Even with that beautiful blonde in my current avatar,
(who happens to be 1 of my best friends, a DNA scientist who surfs+luvs to drink+party,)
(+yes, 1 whom I've given+drank belly-button shots with her, both ways, with another legendary 'DogTown' bro present!)
YEA!!!

I don't know about you folks, but I find it weird
how it was only Rudy Guede's DNA that was found on+inside of Miss Kercher in a Sex Game Gone Wrong.

Machiavelli,
can you enlighten me by sharing a theory on why only Rudy Guede's DNA is inside and on Miss Kercher?

 

[RWVBWL]

Heya Machiavelli,
do you know why it was only Rudy Guede's DNA that was found on Meredith's sweatshirt?

How come Raff+AK did not leave any DNA on that sweatshirt?
What, you don't remember what I'm asking about?
Allow me to refresh your memory with something I recently re-read myself.

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015...-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50

It was a stubborn fight between Rudi's defense and the prosecution of the Corte d'Appello.
Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile had used all possible arguments to give value to Rudi's little tale, as prosecutor Catalani defined it.
They recalled all cases of innocence, Dr Kimble, Dmitri Karamazov, Tom Robinson. In fiction (of The Fugitive, Brothers Karamazov, To kill a Mockingbird).

In reality things are a bit different and the only tale they had to prove true was Rudi's little tale. The kiss with Meredith. The appointment. The petting. He in the toilet with the music on. Amanda arguing with Meredith. Meredith's scream over the music. Him going out and finding everything already done. His flash fight with the guy. The shape of Amanda waiting outside. The guy saying they would have blamed the negro...

The little tale for Biscotti and Gentile is credible and for every step there's a confirmation.

The kiss in the discotheque was possible, it wasn't a real kiss and Meredith wasn't very selective as proven by the relationship with Giacomo, a guy involved with drugs. She could have kissed a guy like Rudi. Because even with Giacomo they weren't really together.
The appointment is possible. It wasn't a real, official appointment and it's not true that she was telling her girlfriends really everything.
Rudi and Meredith entered together. Indeed there's no sign suggesting a different hypothesis, since the fake B & E is proven.
Rudi really touched Meredith. There's no medical sign of sexual violence.
Using the iPod on the toilet is possible. They even sell a toilet paper holder with incorporated iPod drive.
The argument about the money between amanda and Mez is true. When you use drugs the money is never enough and indeed Raffaele's bank account was empty.

The fight with the guy is true. Rudi reported cuts on his fingers.
Rudi's DNA on the wristband of Meredith's sweatshirt is contamination. If he had really clutched her wrist hard there would be sign of it on her skin. After all, he left his DNA on her purse by having just touched it.
Etc.

Gosh,
in my humble opinion,
Rudy Guede musta been kinda busy, ya know,
if he was holding Mez's sweatshirt wristband while restraining her in a Sex Game Gone Wrong
and he also had his hands down her *******.

Hava look at Meredith's bedroom,
where that Sex Game Gone Wrong happened:



Any thoughts, Mach?
See that blue sweatshirt?
Do you think that as Rudy Guede held the wristband of that blue sweatshirt pictured
from which Meredith's hands protruded, that he also fondled Meredith,
while someone else, another dude, held a knife to Meredith's throat?

Or were 2 perps holding knives to Miss Kerecher's throat?

Was it really Rudy's DNA on that sweatshirt wristband that FS writes of back in December of 2009?
Or was it contamination?

And who, in your theory,
took off Meredith's sneakers, her pants, her underwear and placed a pillow under her naked genitalia to stage a rape scene?
I thought that the staging was supposed to help throw off the investigators.
But it sure looked like a rape scene to me.
Multiple perps?
Where?

 

[Bill Williams]

I confirm all what I said.
I never read Nadeau's book. I've only browsed it and I've read quotes of it which contained mistakes.
So I don't see anything wrong in being cautious about judgements.
Anyway, I've met Nadeau as a person and read several things she wrote; my instinct tells she's honest, not a cheating liar. But I do not hold her as at the same quality of Andrea Vogt for what concerns the reporting on this case.

Yes I wonder why you do not count the sources that do not back what you say. Why should a journalist be charged with defamation, if they report about something that was recorded in a courtroom? Or even recorded on a private recorder?
But what do you do instead when all these sources actually they report something else, something different and alternative from your claim? Are all these liars?

And finaly, do you know what source you refer to? What paper? What document? What speech? What interview?
At least tell me where this Satanic ritual scenario is supposed to be found.

I also note that you do not challenge at all my summary of your own remarks that Nadeau is a liar...

Can you explain why this comment of yours is not such an admission? You virtually accused her of including stuff in her book so that it would simply sell..... have you any clue that you've just thrown her under a bus?

I think Nadeau's book was very imprecise. She made many mistakes, wrote several false things.
But I don't think she did that consciously nor on purpose. I just think she did not have a direct knowledge of these events and she resorted on second-hand material. Actually, she might have put this stuff in without checking just to publish the book quickly (or maybe because the publisher thought it would sell; but I can't tell that for sure, so I can't say she purposely wrote false information).
However, I've just never read Barbie Nadeau's book.

So, she didn't do it on purpose, but she DID do it to finish the book more quickly. Which is it?

It's good to see that you make no similar accusations against Ms. Vogt. I think I know why but that's for another time.

 

[moije2]

I confirm all what I said.
I never read Nadeau's book. I've only browsed it and I've read quotes of it which contained mistakes.
So I don't see anything wrong in being cautious about judgements.
Anyway, I've met Nadeau as a person and read several things she wrote; my instinct tells she's honest, not a cheating liar. But I do not hold her as at the same quality of Andrea Vogt for what concerns the reporting on this case.

Yes I wonder why you do not count the sources that do not back what you say. Why should a journalist be charged with defamation, if they report about something that was recorded in a courtroom? Or even recorded on a private recorder?
But what do you do instead when all these sources actually they report something else, something different and alternative from your claim? Are all these liars?

And finaly, do you know what source you refer to? What paper? What document? What speech? What interview?
At least tell me where this Satanic ritual scenario is supposed to be found.

Just curious, did you speak to Nadeau in english or italian? What was your assessment of her fluency in italian?

 

[davefoc]

The most likely event is #2. I would guess a likely reconstruction of the sequence in these steps: a) The photo was from a police fil; b) the police file was accessed by one of the parties lawyer/s; c) the lawyer/s or people close to the party gave the picture to a journalist or anyway to third person; d) the journalist or the person sold the photos to either i) sold the formally but illicitly to Barcroft or another media company; ii) gave/sold them informally to his/her newspaper or a media subject; iii) gave/sold them informally to another person; in the case d.(i), the last step is that someone or some subject sells picture to Barcroft claiming an unjustified copyright. In the other cases there may be no subject who claimed an unjustified copyright except Barcroft, but anyway the copyright was illicitly created/transferred. In any event, there is certainly a copyright use violation (unjustified use of copyright) along the process of handling the photos, at some point of the chain.
This does not imply that some officer, nor that some lawyer nor that a party committed anything of criminal nature.
The copyright violation itself might have or not have a criminal content but, strictu sensu, an issue of illicit use of copyright could be only brought to court by a subject who owned the copyright and was damaged by it, or anyway who was damaged by its illicit claim.

Thank you Machiavelli for your thoughtful reply. Assuming that you are right that the source was a police file and that Barcroft claimed an unjustified copyright my guess would be that the leak was from a plaintiff's lawyer or their staff.

Regardless of what the situation was it seems like the prosecution would need to have approved it. I don't think the prosecutors would have stood by without a whimper while crime scene photos were being leaked unless they approved it.

We can't know what the true story is, but there are some reasons to doubt your theory. If Barcroft didn't have a legitimate copyright for the photos it seems like media outlets might have figured it out and just ignored the copyright. But maybe they did and we don't know about it. It has also been claimed a few times that one can discern in places that some of the photos were different than the official police photographs. Maybe you didn't believe the evidence for those claims?

As to your claim that only a party that was damaged by a bogus claim of copyright would have standing to challenge the bogus copyright:

On one thing I suspect you are right. Assuming that the images were in the public domain (as I think they would have been if they had originated by a police crime scene photographer) then nobody would have had standing to challenge Barcroft's copyright although they might just use the images without compensating Barcroft if that was the case.

But there is more to this situation than a civil violation. I presume that leaking crime scene photos in Italy is against the law and I presume that if the prosecutor believed that the photos were released in a way counter to his wishes he would institute an investigation to determine who leaked the images. The fact that he didn't do that was a pretty good indication that he didn't object to the release of the photos.

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>
What supports a sexual violence scenario is bruises on internal labia and a number of other bruises and traces, plus a male Y-haplotype compatible with Rudy Guede in her vagina.
However the physical evidence does not support a complete (non-consensual) sexual intercourse.
But above all, the physical evidence and the autopsy does not support a single-rapist scenario.
<snip>

Heya Machiavelli,
Remember the guy that PM Mignini silenced?
He went to all or most the court hearings back in the day.


Here' what he wrote years ago about the little lips:

A second element on which Rudy's team seems to point is that there isn't sexual violence. And this is a good point. Biscotti's investigations, indeed, proved that the night before the crime Rudy may really have met Meredith. Which means he may really, theoretically, have received an appointment for next evening and had consensual sex with her before the crime. This possibility is not excluded by the signs on Meredith, that are not typical of a sexual violence.
There are some minimal bruises on her thighs. Nothing to compare with what 'needed' for a rape. On the little lips there are some abrasions. They are also minimal. They are something inferior to a bruise: there's no mixture of blood and other cells. They are indeed not typical of a rape but they are compatible with a sexual activity started before the girl had the time to lubricate.A good point for Rudy, at the condition that there will be other good points, otherwise this too will not mean too much. Because we should remember that this element is also compatible with a sexual activity had with a girl immobilized by a threat. We can only hope for Rudy that the other 8 elements are also on his favor so this one too can be read in the convenient way (consensual sex).
<snip>

Link:
September 9, 2008 article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100807000154/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html


So Machiavelli,
Was it 4 people having a Sex Game Gone Wrong with 1 dude never havin' meet the other before?

Or was it 1 dude+ a girl having an affair while her boyfriend was outta town?

Or was it 1 dude attacking a gal at a place he was intent on robbing because his rent of $320 Euro was due that day and he did not have a job so the robbery morphed into a sexual assualt +murder when he was caught inside the womans flat, who was all alone on a holiday evening?

Hmmmmm.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I thought one of his most impressive posts was the tactful way that he explained why he did not want to go to dinner with Bill Williams. I think he not only is interested in this case from an intellectual stand point he sympathizes deeply with Kercher and her parents and he would not enjoy going to dinner with some one that favors a verdict of not guilty for two people that he sees as brutal murderers. I can relate to his sentiment on that.

I had a similar, but short lived emotional moment when I realized that Mignini was actively working to put two people in jail for the rest of their lives that appear to be completely innocent to me. Perhaps I would be more emotionally invested if I thought there was any chance that this was going to happen, but for better or worse my interest in this case has largely devolved into an academic interest about the nature of people's beliefs, the nature of criminal systems and the details of this particular crime. So, I would very much like to have dinner with Machiavelli, but I can completely understand why he would not want to have dinner with me.<snip>

I think I know what you mean, dave. I felt irritated on another forum (Math on Trial, in Injustice Anywhere), when a guilter wrote this:

"Anyway, being on opposite sides doesn't preclude mutual respect, or even friendship. Remember when Mary Matalin married James Carville?"

Under the circumstances, the comment struck me as extremely callous, so I replied:

Yeah, we're just one big ******* happy family. And, hey, when we get together at Dysfunction Junction for Colpevolisti-Innocentisti Thanksgiving, let's be sure not to mention the gargantuan elephant in the room, k?

I want to be there to convey my utmost respect to the hate-filled raptors who desire nothing more than to completely ruin the lives of two innocent young people. Gosh, I HOPE we all can be not just friends, but ForEVER-Friends.

:heart: :heart: :heart:

It's too hard to enjoy the company of people with whom one has such a fundamental difference of ideals.

By the way, another poster (erasmus) added this for a little comic relief:

Do you think that there will ever be a "mixed" (colpevolisti-inncentisti) marriage? Will the children be brought up as Colpevolistis or Innocentistis? Which holidays will they celebrate?

 

[Samson]

It was 1 dude attacking a gal at a place he was intent on robbing because his rent of $320 Euro was due that day and he did not have a job so the robbery morphed into a sexual assualt +murder when he was caught inside the womans flat, who was all alone on a holiday evening?

And the sun will rise tomorrow, which in logic classes we were advised was not certain, but a functionally useful proposition.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Raffaele Sollecito was under observation when he was at ONAOSI by the college director because he used to collect extreme violent porn (defined as 'shocking' by a student for its violence). The "issues" of this kind are not because of the sexual likes; they are just question marks about some traits of personality, in particular it is the penchant for knifes and violence - it is the attraction he manifested for the mixing of violence in his sexual fantasies, what attracted attention on Sollecito's personality. Or his expressing understanding for the Monster of Foligno (a sexually motivated serial killer).
As for Knox and Guede, there other aspects of their behaviour, having to do either with sex or violence too, which also attracted some attention.
Knox's writing fictional stories including elements such as sexual violence and manipulation or depravation (recall the "little brother" story), also graphic presence of blood. But also about wider aspects of personality, such as life as a roommate, her habits and her charachter as described by Meredith's friends and by the Italian flatmates.
For example Knox's copying the 'dominant' girl (Laura) even in her piercings; her showing off and be perceived as acting and over-the-top; her being seductive towards Meredith's boyfriend. And several other aspects.
These are complex aspects of personalities, not "issues". We cannot trivialize persons, we can't cathegorize people as "having issues" or being or not normal; but we should also not trivialize the set of elements which describe people's attitude and we should not consider them unimportant.

No, these are not complex aspects of personalities. These are common behaviors of late adolescence and early adulthood, when the brain is still developing and judgment is not sound. All they are is examples of experimentation and exploration, and they have little meaning beyond that. Everything you're describing is in the category of the things young people do and then look back on later in life and ask how they could ever have done that.

You are looking at these behaviors anthropologically for two reasons. First, Amanda is odd to you. You want to understand her, but you erroneously analyze her behavior through the lens of your culture, not hers.

Second, you are looking for whatever you can find in either individual's behavior that will support a case for guilt. These behaviors are not evidence of guilt, they are justifications for your belief in it.

 

[Mary_H]

It's correct to say it's speculative. The scenario, in fact, is speculation.
But it's a speculation built on the evidence, compatible with other numerous evidentialry elements. It's a plausible speculation.

However, conviction beyond reasonable doubt stems from the evidence, not from the scenario. The speculation you point out is not the basis of the conviction. The basis is the evidence set. The scenario is only corroboration, meaning it's when you search if there is actually a plausible scenario/explanation compatible with the evidence you already found. But you already have evidence of involvement. And it's evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
<snip>
What, how, who: those questions are inference or just speculation. But, you have evidence.

You may well find evidence of a crime but not have direct information about all areas. You have evidence, and you have speculation. And the set of evidence may well be enough to convict.

You are suggesting that any given police officer or investigator would look at the evidence from the scene of this crime and reach a conclusion that is about a million times less likely than the obvious conclusion. Sorry, nobody but someone with a vivid imagination influenced by sexual arousal in response to the scene and the various individuals he is dealing with would reach the conclusions that were reached in this case.

Like you, Mignini wanted the kids to be guilty, so he went hunting for anything that would support his speculation. If he were looking for something to support a speculation they were great athletes, he would have found that, too. It's a very simple process.

 

[Kaosium]

Sorry to confuse. i was referring to a poster on PMF.org who used to post here and seems more sensible than most of the posters there. She was showing some incredulity over Amanda's naming of Lumumba in the police interview as being seen in a not-guilty of murder context.

She quoted Amanda's words: (from an Italian interview)

- I didn't know what was happening to me, so I didn't know how to improve the situation. I was trying my best to understand what they wanted from me and what there was inside me to give them. And in this situation their methods of interrogating me confused me completely. They didn't take a confession. And then they put the person who had not done this thing in prison. They didn't look at his alibi. They didn't even ask him a word.​

She then asked

WTF does that mean - "They didn't take a confession"? Did she offer one?​

A lawyer would have had to have been present for a confession, the police didn't want lawyers involved as they told both Raffaele and Amanda and their actions indicate. What they did was yell at Raffaele about what Amanda did that night until they convinced him that must have been the night Amanda went to Le Chic. He didn't know for sure and they wouldn't let him check a calender, they wanted a statement to that effect and he signed it after being threatened if he tried to leave and not being able to call a lawyer or his father.

They then took Amanda into that room and went over her actions that night and again she fails to tell them about Patrick's text the night of the murder. As Arturo di Felice would say shortly after the arrest, quoted here by Malcolm Moore et al of the Telegraph:

The police chief, Arturo De Felice, said Knox had "crumbled and confessed" under intense questioning. "There were holes in her alibi and her mobile phone records were crucial," he said. Police also found text messages from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on November 1, the night Miss Kercher died.

They had Raffaele and Amanda wiretapped, they (and the defense) would produce evidence of conversations between Amanda and Raffaele in court, they had access to her mobile phone records which recorded texts between Patrick and Amanda right before Meredith left for the cottage from her night with the English girls. Patrick had just met Amanda the day of the interrogations in a manner that might have looked suspicious, previously he'd called down to the Questura (the night of the discovery IIRC) to check on Amanda, the police might have thought they were putting two and two together and they called Raffaele in and got a 'confirmation' that Amanda hadn't been with Raffaele and had gone to Le Chic.

So with Amanda readily at hand being as she'd tagged along with Raffaele to the Questura as she was afraid to be alone with a murderer on the loose, they took her into that room and after going through it again without her mentioning the text (as it really had nothing to do with the murder) they told her they had 'hard evidence' she was at the cottage, that Raffaele had 'dropped' her alibi and she had to stop protecting the murderer or she'd be going to jail for thirty years and would never see her mother again, amongst other pleasantries.

This whole passage is truly odd. "what was inside me to give them"? Umm, is it so hard to say what you know and what you do not know? "Their methods of interrogating me confused me"? Again, how does asking straightforward questions confuse someone? Lot of implication there without a concrete claim. And then....... the leap to the arrest of Patrick with absolutely no mention of the fact she accused him? Is there nothing in between these sentences?

She'd told them again and again what she knew, what they were asking her for was what she didn't know but they claimed they had proof had happened. These weren't straighforward questions at all, they were about something the police said they had 'hard evidence' of that Amanda had no recollection of. So they told her that she might have 'repressed the memory due to trauma' as Anna Domino testified to, and they thrust the cellphone in front of her face and demanded she recall who it was, insistent it had something to do with the murder, and started hitting her upside the back of the head, 'to help her remember' and she recalled it was Patrick, and summoned metal images of Patrick, by the basketball courts, by the door of the cottage, just like she details in her note the day of the arrests, the best contemporaneous account of what Amanda was actually thinking about the night of the interrogations, with no translator, no statement typed up by police in a language she could barely read, her own words.

She probably 'leaps to the arrest of Patrick' because what happened in between those sentences was what would ruin her life and is probably very difficult to explain to someone who hasn't been surrounded by police yelling and threatening them about something that didn't happen in the middle of the night in a week of high stress and little sleep. They managed to convince her they must have been right and those mental images were related to the murder and she'd 'repressed' that. In simple terms they gaslit her. As Arturo di Felice also put it at that press conference:

]"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in."

They 'knew' that Amanda and Patrick had exchanged texts and thought it meant they met up the night of the murder, as the phrase Amanda used to say 'see you later' comes across in Italian more like 'see you soon' which implies a (definite) future meeting. They ignored the signing off of 'good night' which ought to have suggested that perhaps the foreign exchange student with only a semester of Italian and a couple months in Italy didn't mean it that way. Now here are what they thought were the 'facts we knew to be correct' from the two statements Amanda signed in the middle of the night, exhausted, stressed and without a lawyer:

"Last Thursday, November 1, a day on which I normally work, while I was at the house of my boyfriend Raffaele, at around 8:30 pm, I received a message on my cellular phone from Patrik, who told me that the premises would remain closed that evening, because there were no customers, and thus I would not need to go to work.

"I responded to the message by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. In view of the fact that during the afternoon I had smoked a joint, I felt confused, since I do not frequently make use of mind-altering substances, nor of heavier substances.

"I met Patrik immediately afterward, at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana, and together we went [to my] home. I do not recall whether Meredith was there or arrived afterward. I struggle to remember those moments, but Patrik had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I do not recall whether Meredith had been threatened beforehand. I recall confusedly that he killed her."

I've stripped all the official wording out of it and the description of Patrick and his bar and the cell phone numbers to pare it down to what the 'facts we knew to be correct' could have been. As you can see there's almost nothing there concrete outside the fact she received a text from Patrick and replied, everything else is qualified with how "confused" she was starting with when she (supposedly) left the cottage, then not being able to recall if Meredith was there, she struggles to remember the moment that Patrick had sex with Meredith, (because he didn't) can't remember if there were anything threats and then she "confusedly recalls that he killed her."

Now here's the 5:45 Statement, at this point Mignini is involved, the above happened (mainly) as the result of Polizia di Stato officers from the Questura, Raffo, Ficarra and Zugarini, listed in the officialese I snipped but can be found at the links above. The part following the statements and which ends the document is telling:

The Office records that the statement was interrupted and that Amanda KNOX was placed at the disposition of the Judicial Authority for further proceedings.

At this point she's supposedly a suspect, and as such subject to protections under Italian law, which would require a lawyer and taping, the latter something they had no problem doing other times she was in this room giving previous statements, or other rooms of the Questura, or even talking to Raffaele on her cell phone as would be revealed in court. This part, and all of that night is missing from their otherwise obsessive surveillance of Amanda. Here is the 5:45 AM statement, again stripped of the officialese and which came at the culmination of 53 of 89 hours she'd spent with police since the postal police arrived at the cottage at roughly 1 PM on the second:

"I wish to spontaneously report what happened because this case has deeply disturbed me and I am very afraid of Patrick, the African owner if the pub called 'Le Chic' on Via Alessi where I occasionally work. I met him on the evening of the first of November, after having sent him a message replying to his, with the words 'see you' ['ci vediamo', lit. "we'll see each other"].

"We met immediately afterward around 9:00 pm at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana. We went to my house at Via Della Pergola no. 7. I do not recall exactly whether my friend Meredith was already home or if she arrived later, [but] what I can say is that Patrik and Meredith went off to Meredith's room, while it seems to me that I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot recall how much time they stayed together in the room but can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I, frightened, covered my ears. Then I don't remember anything anymore, I am very confused in my head. I do not recall whether Meredith was screaming and if [I? she?](*) also heard thuds [tonfi] because I was involved, but I was imagining what could have happened.

"I met Patrik this morning, in front of the University for Foreigners, and he asked me some questions, specifically he wanted to know what questions I had been asked by the Police. I think that he also asked if I wanted to meet with journalists perhaps in order to find out if I knew anything about Meredith's death. [I am] not sure whether Raffaele was present that evening but I do remember waking up at my boyfriend's house in his bed, and that I returned in the morning to my residence, where I found the door to the apartment open. When I woke up, the morning of November 2, I was in bed with my boyfriend."

Again, outside the text message exchange there's no facts here that aren't qualified by "I do not recall exactly," "It seems to me" "I cannot recall," "I don't remember anything anymore, I am very confused in my head," "I do not recall," "I was imagining" and she's "not sure whether Raffaele was present." The only new 'fact' here is the scream which she testified in court as happening as a result of being led through the statement by Mignini (and others) and being asked why she didn't hear it, and she volunteered that maybe she'd covered her ears. "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine" is what they said. They fed it to her and recorded her speculation.

The other interesting addition is that now she's 'afraid' of Patrick when as revealed later in the statement she'd just met him that day (November 5th). Later during this day (Nov. 6) she'd write the note linked above telling them she didn't think she could be used as "testimone" and they needed to find the "Real murder(er)" and she didn't think any of this really happened, but for some reason between meeting Patrick at the University and her second statement she's become afraid of Patrick: because the police have convinced her he must have been the murderer.

The police had Amanda and Raffaele wiretapped and had their phone records, they were convinced that text message was related to the murder. They called Raffaele in and confused him to the point he signed a statement mushing up October 31st and November 1st as he wasn't sure what they did. They used that to go after an exhausted, stressed Amanda until the wee hours of the morning telling her they had 'hard evidence' she was at the scene and Raffaele had dropped her alibi, that she must have 'repressed' it and the poor girl believed them. She summoned mental images when she remembered the text message and realized they were talking about Patrick and tried to confabulate a statement around it, which she always qualified with how "confused" it was. Later that day (after she'd had a chance to sleep!) she'd write that note saying how she didn't think any of it happened, she couldn't be used as 'testimone' etc. The next day, the Seventh, she wrote them another note saying she was certain she'd never left and none of it happened, and the following said the same to her lawyers.

However the police went out and arrested Patrick off this wholly confused gibberish elicited from an isolated foreign exchange student in the middle of the night, then rounded up a 'witness' to his bar being closed and took this before a judge, mainly on the strength of the text messages and wouldn't let him go no matter what Amanda said, or they overheard Amanda saying to her mother, who as of the 10th has realized the cops didn't actually have any evidence against Patrick, just the confused confabulation they coerced from her. Going from from what she's said, she feels badly about what happened to Patrick and blames herself for anything she might have had to do with it, but in the final analysis it was the police who pushed her to the point where she "buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct," who accepted that confused gibberish as 'fact,' hauled him out of his home early in the morning and wouldn't listen to him or any of the ones who could alibi him--but instead rounded up a 'witness' to his bar being closed.

The police are the ones responsible for the arrest and detainment of Patrice Lumumba. That they have managed to scapegoat Amanda and she was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for their mistake is one of the true travesties of this case. She spent a total of four years in prison and they tried (and are still trying!) to use it take as much of her life as they can well as a result of that harrowing night in the Questura, they all had medals pinned on their chests.

I wouldn't blame her if what she really wants to say about it to anyone who asks is more along the lines of:

'Listen up, you bootlicking scumpuppy, the police are the ones who took me in the backroom and mind-raped me, they're the ones who arrested Patrick, and they were the ones who wouldn't let him go when I told them it never could have happened. My problem was believing those police, yours is you still do.'

I have already appealed to him to tell him that I didn't go to the Police Headquarters with the aim of accusing him of a murder he did not commit. What was dragged out of me was dragged out from me without my wanting to harm him. I only wanted to help and I was completely confused so that I didn't know what was true and what was not true at that point. Therefore I didn't want to harm him. I … (MAXI-SIGH) … His.. His name came out only because my mobile phone was there and we exchanged some SMS.​

to which she asks

That "Therefore" is .....well what is it?​

She never wanted to harm Patrick, she wanted to help ILE find the killer of Meredith and in her condition that night not mentally and emotionally strong enough to disbelieve them as they went at her until she 'buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct.'

I wondered if the poster still read the posts on this forum because I thought the discussion of whether Amanda meant to accuse Lumumba or incriminate him when she "confusedly remembered" details of the night were quite interesting. Machiavelli seemed to have quite a black and white take on the issue , but it seemed far from the case to me, and Bri1 articulated the other side rather well I thought. I don't think the poster on PMF.org gets the benefit of much nuanced discussion.

Amanda's note is the best contemporaneous account of what she was trying to convey after they did what they did to her in that overnight session. In it she explicitly says she cannot be used as 'testimone' and they need to find the 'REAL murder(er).' Her note on the seventh (for which I cannot recall a link--anyone else have one?) is definite, as is the one to her lawyers the following day. If they had ever let her see a lawyer when she asked then neither of those statements would have been signed, they knew that which is why they told her it would go worse for her if she had one. They were lying, they do that. They get away with it just by blaming her for 'accusing' Patrick when they're the ones who worked her over until she "buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct."

“Il caso è chiuso”​

 

[RWVBWL]

What Game Shall We Play?

<snip>
I have heard nothing at all mentioned to support a "sex game". We have brutally murdered young woman found naked with DNA evidence found in her of RG, and a group of people who all partook in the spliff.

Next question: Machiavelli states: "I also see evidence that the crime was committed by someone under drug effect and that all three were on drugs that night." What evidence? "Drug effect" - huh? What is that - by the nature of the wounds or something? I am waiting for that. Evidence they were on drugs that night? That they used marijuana? Or are you meaning something more? I know of no evidence of any other drugs and would like to know about that if there is. If it is marijuana, well,
<Snip>

Anyone who dates enough or parties knows that you never get a young, hot-lookin' chick stoned on pot
if you have just met her and wanna get laid. Especially in a Sex Game.

You get her drunk.
Bust out the beer, and/or some hard liquor, and start playin' games. Bring on a sexual atmosphere.
Gosh, it's soooo fun+enjoyable, for everyone!


As everyone's just hangs around makin' small talk + casually drinkin' a beer,
dudes like me will say: Let's play Quarters!!!


Ya know,
just add some alcohol, a table, a glass+ 1 quarter. A buncha bro's+ fun-luvin chicks too.
Do ya need me to share some pictures?

It's a simple game really, it is:
just try to bounce a coin into the glass + pick someone to drink.
If ya make it, ya getta try to bounce it in again...

When the Quarter sinks inside the glass again,
(much like a basketball does of which I'm sure Rudy Guede, nicknamed "The Baron" was good playin' at),
you getta chose someone to drink again.

"Hey Mez, it's YOUR TURN AGAIN!!!"

Thius is fun, chosin' someone to get hammered quickly, usually someone you like alot. Or H8, maybe.
It's a time to drink again, time to take that quick shot,
fast, as everyone around ya watches+talks crap, err, encouragement!
Gotta luv your friends!


You who made that last shot, since ya made 2 in a row, now ya getta make A Rule.
And after makin' A Rule, you get another try to sink that Quarter!

That's where the FUN starts now!
Because everyone, as they get hammered,
forgets The Rules!

So that person getsta take another shot.
He or she makes it into The Glass once more.
"You gotta take a shot, but so+so gets a kiss, it's The Rules!"


As the beers get downed more+more quicky, everyone's getting drunk.
Add some hard liquor, everyone's gettin' wasted.
Sexual innuendos fly, + where I come from boyz+girls, if not already hookin' up already, will often pair off.
(What, that chick over there, she stared in a music video!?! No way! Dang, she's HOT!!! You+Foxy Knoxy are an item? Cool, I hiitin' on that 1!!!)
Oh ya, need I mention how much fun belly-button shots are when playin' a Game of Quarters?

This game easily turns into a Sex Game,
with clothing articles often removed and whatever else happenin' after that...
You dig?

NOBODY brings + just smokes only a fatty at a Sex Game.
People get paraniod+ too introspective when blazing a doobie or downin' a bongload.
No matter what someone in Perugia wants you to believe.
Don't believe me? Try it...

Play some Quarters in a Sex Game though,
watch out, relationships have blossomed+kids have been born from these drunkin' post-surf Luv Connections,
well at least here in "DogTown", California. I know, I used to run the Old Zephyr Surfshop. Watch a movie if ya don't know what I write of...



Happy thoughts for ya all,
Peace, RW



PS-For some reason,
I doubt that Guede-o, Mez, Raff+AK played a drinking game of Quarters
the night Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered in what Italian Law says was a Sex Game Gone Wrong.

So what Sex Game did they play?

 

[acbytesla]

You are suggesting that any given police officer or investigator would look at the evidence from the scene of this crime and reach a conclusion that is about a million times less likely than the obvious conclusion. Sorry, nobody but someone with a vivid imagination influenced by sexual arousal in response to the scene and the various individuals he is dealing with would reach the conclusions that were reached in this case.

Like you, Mignini wanted the kids to be guilty, so he went hunting for anything that would support his speculation. If he were looking for something to support a speculation they were great athletes, he would have found that, too. It's a very simple process.

I don't think anything bothers me more than how people like Machiavelli and others have used the sexual nature of this murder as an excuse to tie normal sexual exploration as something deviant and perverse. We've seen the prosecution, Machiavelli and others demonize Amanda and Raffaele and call them freaks. Even if Amanda and Raffaele were interested in group sex and there is no evidence that they were, there is no link between that behavior and violence or murders.

So Amanda and Raffaele not only have to defend against the murder charge, they are forced to deal the prudish jerks who are calling them freaks.