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

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - you fundamentally misunderstand the issue here. I am not claiming at all that Judge Massei did not convict. The reasons you list, are those reasons mainly that Judge Massei and/or Mignini invented out of thin air. There was no evidence at all to convict Amanda and Raffaele, other than the assertions made. There is no evidence at all to say that the knife seized at Raffaele's is even the murder weapon, let alone that Amanda welded one.

These are not reasons to convict. These are only details of a scenario, details of an inference, of a speculation, which happen to be identical both in Massei and in the prosecution's scenario.

And these details, describe a non-consensual sexual game gone wrong, this is what they describe. Identical to the scenario put forward by the prosecution. Nothing else.

The issue is that Massei at best wrote a self-contradictory report. I have never said that Massei did not make claims that justified (in his mind, and apparently yours) conviction.

Well you said that Massei did not present any sex-game-gone-wrong scenario.
You said that he presented Rudy as the only perpetrator having a motive, that he had any opportunity and motive to do everything alone, and that Sollecito and Knox did not have any lust nor did they share his motive.
These assertions are plain false. This is just not what Massei writes.

Massei also never states that Knox and Sollecito "had no psychopathology", moreover, the prosecution did not even put forward any argument about psycopahtology (they talk about sexual tendencies and personalities, not about psychopatoligy). The truth is Massei even acknowledges the risk factor of their personalities exactly as the prosecution pointed them out.

And yes, Hellmann's acquittals were undone by the ISC. But the reasons for which they came to that decision have themselves not been undone so far by the Nencini court.

The reasons for which they came to that decision was precisely what was undone; it is because of their "logical reasons" they employed that they were annulled, not because of their conclusions, and now their logical argumentations can never be employed by another court again.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks Randy. I could write five pages of why I think the ILE screwed the case and how the evidence can't be viewed as credible but if I say the DNA wasn't starch and CD shouldn't have written that, that is all that people here seem to respond to.

I think this may well come down to the extradition though if the defense (both in and out of court) steps it up maybe there is still hope.

I never said that DNA was starch. What I said was that CV found starch on the blade and that is really what CD wrote as well. And that if you can't see that, well..... you can't see.

 

[Grinder]

Well Peter is not exactly a reliable source. He has been saying that he has "bleach receipts" for years.

Really? I thought that was Michael.

 

[Machiavelli]

Those are mitigating circumstances? That they were away from home??

In Massei's mind, they are.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well you said that Massei did not present any sex-game-gone-wrong scenario.
You said that he presented Rudy as the only perpetrator having a motive, that he had any opportunity and motive to do everything alone, and that Sollecito and Knox did not have any lust nor did they share his motive.
These assertions are plain false. This is just not what Massei writes.

There actually is no point talking to you.

It's not me who said that Massei said that.

It's Massei who said it.

Should I cut and paste it again?

 

[Grinder]

We'll never know what Stefanoni found. She hasn't proven herself to be either competent or credible.

Tesla why do obfuscate?

Did anyone credible say the DNA was starch? Yes or No.

I do not trust her work or conclusions. I don't think that the knife or bra DNA should be admitted to any court, but it wasn't found to be starch.

If you can't admit it, just let it go.

 

[Bill Williams]

The reasons for which they came to that decision was precisely what was undone; it is because of their "logical reasons" they employed that they were annulled, not because of their conclusions, and now their logical argumentations can never be employed by another court again.

The worst thing you've ever said. Why?

Well, if this is true, then there is no justice in Italy, and no basis in law (hypothetically) to undo a wrongful conviction.

Maybe not this one. But ANY wrongful conviction in Italy.

Do you actually approve of this?

 

[xinonix]

"Should I cut and paste it again? "
One of the guilters has hacked into this program and sabotaged it.
I just spent alot of time writing an excellent post that is supposed to be here, but the program lost it in cyberspace and told me I wasn't logged in.
Before you try to post a reply, I recommend you copy it (control+C) and then paste it in this box after the program disposes of it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Another claim where Bill William proves he is unable to read the report:

It should further be noted that the criminal acts were carried out on the force of purely chance contingencies which, put together one with the other, created a situation that, in the combination of various factors, made possible the crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly found themselves without any commitments; they meet Rudy Guede by chance (there is no trace of any appointment having been made), and find themselves together with him at the house on the Via della Pergola where, precisely that evening, Meredith is alone. A crime that is carried out, therefore, without any planning, without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim which could be seen in any way as preparation-predisposition to [commit a] crime.

Bill highlights the sentence "without any planning, without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim".
In his mind, this extrapolated piece of phrase may magically become equivalent to the statement "no motive".

The phrase is actually: without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim which could be seen in any way as preparation-predisposition to [commit a] crime.
The "feelings of rancour" is linked to the condition "which could be seen in any way as a preparation/predisposition to commit a crime"
The topic Massei is talking about, is premeditation. The reference of the statement is limited to the scope of discussing premeditation, which is the only topic Massei is arguing in this paragraph.
Massei is talking about the issue of premeditation, nothing else. He is saying - on the issue premeditation - the same thing that judges said also about Rudy Guede. That there was no premeditation. There was no planning to commit a serious crime.

This point may be put in discussion by the Nencini court.

 

[Grinder]

Friendly or not, that doesn't mean it is complete

You haven't watched it have you?

You make a statement about Filomena's alibi which you can't even back up with anything but bluster and then when Amanda makes my point on a friendly interview you question the context.

At least give something with or without context. Why don't you email CD she must know. Or have you already done that and it came back negative?

I can guarantee that if Amanda had said Filomena didn't have an alibi any better than mine I'd have told you and you put it in the bank even without details or context.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla why do obfuscate?

Did anyone credible say the DNA was starch? Yes or No.

I do not trust her work or conclusions. I don't think that the knife or bra DNA should be admitted to any court, but it wasn't found to be starch.

If you can't admit it, just let it go.

I've said over and over again, that CD wasn't precise. DNA can never be starch. The tests for DNA have nothing to do with starch. What I have said is that while CD was not literally correct, the gist of what she was saying was. That when the experts went searching for Meredith's DNA, they didn't find it. They did however find starch in some of those samples taken from the blade.

 

[Grinder]

I never said that DNA was starch. What I said was that CV found starch on the blade and that is really what CD wrote as well. And that if you can't see that, well..... you can't see.

Perhaps you are not remembering well. The whole point was that CD said the tiny speck of DNA turned out to be starch. I said bull.

You have been arguing for pages that CD was not wrong.

Let it go, you've been wrong on this and don't seem up to the convo.

 

[Grinder]

I've said over and over again, that CD wasn't precise. DNA can never be starch. The tests for DNA have nothing to do with starch. What I have said is that while CD was lot literally correct, the gist of what she was saying was. That when the experts went searching for Meredith's DNA, they didn't find it. They did however find starch in some of those samples taken from the blade.

Fine Tesla. Saying that the speck the police said was DNA turned out to be starch is basically correct. It is just not at all what was the case but hey she's innocent and CD is on her side so shut the blank up.

Meanwhile back the PMF ranch the cowboys are doing their best for ole Andrea.

 

[acbytesla]

Fine Tesla. Saying that the speck the police said was DNA turned out to be starch is basically correct. It is just not at all what was the case but hey she's innocent and CD is on her side so shut the blank up.

Meanwhile back the PMF ranch the cowboys are doing their best for ole Andrea.

Fine..

 

[acbytesla]

You haven't watched it have you?

You make a statement about Filomena's alibi which you can't even back up with anything but bluster and then when Amanda makes my point on a friendly interview you question the context.

At least give something with or without context. Why don't you email CD she must know. Or have you already done that and it came back negative?

I can guarantee that if Amanda had said Filomena didn't have an alibi any better than mine I'd have told you and you put it in the bank even without details or context.

Actually, I watched it last night during the 5 minute segment during the 11 oclock news.. I knew you were going to bring it up.

I've never communicated with CD. I read her book though. I think she said that basically Amanda's alibi was the same as Filomena. That they were both with their boyfriend. But I didn't CD's book. I checked it out of the library, so I can't verify.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then Bill's third, and last claim based on quotes from Massei:

It is not possible, however, to know if Rudy went to Meredith’s room on his own initiative, almost subjugated by the situation which he interpreted in erotic terms (the two young lovers in their room and Meredith who was on her own in the room right next to it) or, instead, he went to Meredith’s room at the urging of Amanda and/or Raffaele.

This Court is inclined towards the first hypothesis.

It cannot see, in fact, the motive for such an invitation on the part of Amanda Knox and/or of Raffaele Sollecito. Besides, Rudy does not seem to have needed to be encouraged to make advances toward Meredith.

Bill highlights the fact that the court belives that, once in the house, Rudy Guede took the initiative of a sexual approach on Meredith, meaning that he initiated the sexual harassment.

But:
1) Actually the court says "it is not possible to know"; so, it is not a firm point for the court. The other could equally fit their evidence and reasoning.
2) The crime we are talking about, known as the Kercher case, does not consist in Rudy's initiative of harrassing and bothering Meredith. This sexual is initiative is not the crime that was committed, it is not a muder and it is not yet even sexual violence. Rudy could not commit any sexual violence alone, in someone else's house.
The crime of sex game gone wrong and consequent murder, is what - in Massei's court mind - happened after this.
3) a personal, logical point, where I can see a contradiction in Massei's reasoning: Rudy did not need any encouragement to start a sexual harassment of Meredith, let's accept this consideration by Massei as reasonable; however, this creates a contradiction, because Rudy was in the house, and in Massei's narrative, Rudy is in the house because of Knox, because she picked him up and let him in; so if Sollecito and Knox were actually alone in one room and if they intended to remain alone, the presence of Rudy would become illogical. It would be logical that he would start to harass Meredith, but the reason why he has been taken there before that would be illogical.
We could assume he might have come to the house to sell drug, but this won't explain why Sollecito and Knox did't send him away or did not prevent him from being violent.
So, what I believe, is that Rudy was there for another purpose, which was not to harass Meredith, but it was not even to remain out of Knox's room while she was with Sollecito.
This is why I assume that the realistic purpose why Guede was in the house, was because he wanted to have sex with Knox, and Knox may have shared (or partly shared) the same intent too.
The presence of Sollecito could have been an unpredicted event that changed programs and behaviors (Knox might have attempted to avoid Sollecito that night, that would be alogical reason why she put off her phone), and contributed to create chaos.
Or, in alternative, Sollecito could have been called by Knox on purpose, for another reason.
But what I really think, is that what Knox had in mind - what she would have really liked to do that evening - was to make something in three with Meredith. I think she was revolving around this idea.

 

[Bill Williams]

Another claim where Bill William proves he is unable to read the report:




Bill highlights the sentence "without any planning, without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim".
In his mind, this extrapolated piece of phrase may magically become equivalent to the statement "no motive".

The phrase is actually: without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim which could be seen in any way as preparation-predisposition to [commit a] crime.
The "feelings of rancour" is linked to the condition "which could be seen in any way as a preparation/predisposition to commit a crime"
The topic Massei is talking about, is premeditation. The reference of the statement is limited to the scope of discussing premeditation, which is the only topic Massei is arguing in this paragraph.
Massei is talking about the issue of premeditation, nothing else. He is saying - on the issue premeditation - the same thing that judges said also about Rudy Guede. That there was no premeditation. There was no planning to commit a serious crime.
This point may be put in discussion by the Nencini court.

Can we then quote you, Machiavelli, that you believe that the convicting court said there was no premeditation?

Can you go over to TJMK and log in as Yummi and let Peter Quennell know this the next time someone on his site goes on and on and on about how Amanda's hatred of Meredith led Knox to go over there to "teach her a lesson."

Your narrative is coming unwrapped, Machiavelli, and for some reason you think we cannot read what you post on other boards.

 

[Bill Williams]

The presence of Sollecito could have been an unpredicted event that changed programs and behaviors (Knox might have attempted to avoid Sollecito that night, that would be alogical reason why she put off her phone), and contributed to create chaos.
Or, in alternative, Sollecito could have been called by Knox on purpose, for another reason.
But what I really think, is that what Knox had in mind - what she would have really liked to do that evening - was to make something in three with Meredith. I think she was revolving around this idea.

Now YOU are reinventing the crime with surmises and assertions.

You have every right to believe this out of personal choice.

It's just that the evidence does not support this, and Massei never considered it.

What is startling to me is that PGP such as yourself need to keep reinventing the crime.

I should thank you, though, you at least gave the points I raised a go.

 

[toto]

Another claim where Bill William proves he is unable to read the report:




Bill highlights the sentence "without any planning, without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim".
In his mind, this extrapolated piece of phrase may magically become equivalent to the statement "no motive".

The phrase is actually: without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim which could be seen in any way as preparation-predisposition to [commit a] crime.
The topic Massei is talking about, is premetitation. The reference of the statement is limited to the scope of discussing premetitation, which is the only topic Massei is arguing in this paragraph.
Massei is talking about the issue of premeditation, nothing else. He is saying - on the issue premeditation - the same thing that judges said also about Rudy Guede. That there was no premeditation. There was no planning to commit a serious crime.

This point may be put in discussion by the Nencini court.

It should further be noted that the criminal acts were carried out on the force of purely chance contingencies which, put together one with the other, created a situation that, in the combination of various factors, made possible the crimes to the detriment of Meredith: Amanda and Raffaele who suddenly found themselves without any commitments; they meet Rudy Guede by chance (there is no trace of any appointment having been made), and find themselves together with him at the house on the Via della Pergola where, precisely that evening, Meredith is alone. A crime that is carried out, therefore, without any planning, without any animosity or feelings of rancour against the victim which could be seen in any way as preparation-predisposition to [commit a] crime. Considerations which, together with what has been observed on malice with regard to the crime of murder, appear significant in terms of Article 133 paragraph 1 number 3 of the Criminal Code.​

I think the above paragraph shows how asinine the prosecution case is. They just happened to turn up , no planning, chance meeting of Guede, no malice towards Meredith and the poor girl gets killed. The only redeeming feature of the paragraph is that it would never be written by anyone on the PGP websites ever. I see your point that Guede, according to Massei also had no bad feelings towards Meredith, but as someone who everyone agrees was there NOT BY CHANCE and with intent to commit a crime (even if not necessarily to murder) and whose dna was present in the scene of the crime I feel his feelings towards Meredith are irrelevant. (But not irrelevant regarding Amanda and Raffaele of course - I think the prosecution would have to show some kind of animosity, and something a bit more convincing than an embarrassing discussion about how to clean a lavatory.)

 

[moije2]

Tesla why do obfuscate?

Did anyone credible say the DNA was starch? Yes or No.

I do not trust her work or conclusions. I don't think that the knife or bra DNA should be admitted to any court, but it wasn't found to be starch.

If you can't admit it, just let it go.

I wrote up stream asking about this, and got some helpful answers. Now, this DNA thing keeps going on. I was informed that Stefanoni swabbed one area and with the help of her machines on high crank she got data that interpreted the existence of Meridith's DNA. This was the unrepeatable test because the sample produced by the swab was used up. In the 'last trial" C&V swabbed again at another area and they found the now famous starch. (Halides I think told me that they also did a repeat swab at the same area of the previous DNA location but nothing was found.)

So, in this marvelous dispute about CD, when she says, "In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch," how do we know which speck the police were talking about? Are we sure they were talking about a speck produced from the "DNA" location? Did the police think that the other area had her DNA? Could CD have been thinking that, or had reasonable basis for thinking that? (Sorry I don't have the sample ID's memorized.)

Grinder you do a good job at keeping everybody "clean". Maybe you can clarify this point because every time I hear you say the "DNA speck turned out to be starch" I can't help but think that is inaccurate, or at least incomplete. It was, according to the CD quote, "the speck claimed by the police..."

So which specks did the police claim? And what is the source for any of that? Especially if we are going to call CD a liar.

There is a lot of ambiguity in this conversation even with your helpful insistence on precision of speech. For instance, every time I hear people talk about the DNA found on the knife I can't help but think that is terribly wrong also. Nobody has "seen" DNA. They do a swab and submit the sample to a machine and data is produced after chemical manipulations, and that data is in turn interpreted with graphs and so on. So what they "found" what data which was turned into graphs that hopefully represent a finding of DNA. So it does seem a little strange to be arguing about stating that DNA was found here or there in the first place.