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

[yimyammer]

You're kidding, right? A not guilty verdict is not going to mean this is "all over". Some people are so invested in a guilty finding that they will insist on it for the rest of time, I promise you.

No doubt!

I have little faith that the people making the decisions in this case will see the evidence (or lack thereof) in the same way the PIP's of this forum see it, so another guilty verdict wouldn't surprise me in the slightest

 

[Samson]

I suspect that many of the most fevered pro-guilt commentators will for ever refuse to abandon a belief in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. They've already shown a remarkable penchant for the black art of ex-post-facto rationalisation, and I would bet that they will continue to employ such wooly and warped thinking in the future too. Many of them probably also feel simply too deeply invested in guilt to "admit defeat".

I would be very confident that a small online community (or couple of communities ) will keep up the (perceived) "fight for Meredith" long after any acquittals are finalised and confirmed. And provided they do not harass Knox, Sollecito or their families, they should just be considered irrelevant nonentities at that point.

I'm sure there are still small online communities devoted to showing how Lindy Chamberlain was guilty of killing her baby, but "got away with it".....

You are correct, I spoke to an Australian with at least half a law degree the day of the final confirmation of Lindy Chamberlains non involvement, and he immediately rubbished this in some detail, citing a train of theories that had been serially debunked over 30 odd years. This will be similar. Incidentally he was an excellent person (unfortunately recently deceased).

 

[billyryan]

I think that if the SC annulled any acquittal from the Nencini appeal court, the reaction would be so forceful - both outside and within Italy - that the whole integrity of the Italian criminal justice system would be placed in the balance.

After all, SC reversals are essentially the SC saying: "The appeal court judge (and judicial panel) cannot do its job properly". I think that can just about be accepted once, but twice consecutively would be a disastrous indictment of Italian justice.

Again, perhaps we'll see...

I think the exact same,there was a lot of head scratching after the first annulment outside Italy,with Italian disastrous ECHR record,a second annulment would take what little credibility they have left and I do not believe they will bring such international ridicule upon themselves

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It will be interesting to see what the printed media produce, but I would say Raffaele's statement had more impact on the lay jury than the RIS report.

 

[LondonJohn]

Be aware that the following is from some who has yet to predict anything right. By God, Peter Q. has a better record than me!

But this case has enough of a profile in the U.S. if not the world, that any screwing with this case will be brutal for Italy.

Even the most supportive press in the U.S. will only let Italy hit this fat once.... er, twice.... but a third time?

Exactly. Italian justice is already on a short leash right now for its "they did it.....no, they didn't do it......no, that's not right, go back a step to "they did it" and check again" circus with Knox and Sollecito.

If they go through one more cycle of that (which would essentially equate to "guilty... not-guilty... guilty.... not-guilty.... guilty") then I think all hell would break loose not only at an international level, but also very probably at an internal Italian level. After all, a justice system with that many reversals and "re-reversals" is not only an international laughing stock, it's also the very manifestation of a justice system that's not fit for purpose.

 

[Bill Williams]

It will be interesting to see what the printed media produce, but I would say Raffaele's statement had more impact on the lay jury than the RIS report.

That is certainly the case in the press.... and it says a lot, if what you surmise is true.

As of today, that knife is simply worthless as evidence. We now have every reason to believe that on Nov 1, that knife never left Raffaele's apartment. If that is true, then someone needs to then explain the behaviour of Mignini, Stefanoni and those (including Chiacchiera) who claimed this was "proven" as the murder weapon.

A weapon that fit none of the wounds, did not fit the blood outline on the sheet, and now it is confirmed has nothing of Meredith's on it. We've known all alog that Meredith's blood was never on it, save for the allegation it had been cleaned with bleach. Yet such a cleaning would not have left 38i and 36a on it, proving it had never been cleaned. It also required that ridiculous theory of Massei's, plucked out of thin air, to explain how it got to the cottage, with Massei's "no motive/no premeditation" for the crime, meaning that Amanda must have been carrying it for some other reason....

So if what you're saying is that it was Raffaele's address to the panel which will make the greatest impact, then this thing really IS over.

 

[Samson]

I would think it might also be beneficial (even if only slightly) that he was in court making a statement versus not attending and staying abroad in the Dominican Republic

I believe there is some symmetry here, in that Amanda made a passionate and convincing statement to judge Hellmann, now Raffaele to judge Nencini.

 

[LondonJohn]

It will be interesting to see what the printed media produce, but I would say Raffaele's statement had more impact on the lay jury than the RIS report.

Today it might have, yes.

But wait til Bongiorno drills home the inference in relation to Meredith's "DNA" on 36B in closing arguments.

Those of us who realise the significance of the Carabinieri experts' testimony today are thinking one step ahead - in that it's now obvious that the defence teams will (in closing) link today's testimony back to Stefanoni's disastrously-inept examination of the knife to show why 36B (and therefore the whole knife) should be thrown out as evidence.

I imagine that much of the media haven't made the link yet. And defendants speaking in court are always more "mediagenic" than dry and detailed scientific testimony - especially when the findings linked to that testimony have been leaked in advance.

However, it happens that today the scientific testimony unearthed a rough diamond in the "two or more tests are needed to validate the DNA results" testimony. Once Bongiorno has polished that diamond and presented it back to the judicial panel, I think they'll sit up and notice alright.

 

[Strawberry]

Re: the knife. Is it true that Raffaele Sollecito said the following....

"The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

If so, what is the explanation for that?

 

[yimyammer]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that Rudys shoes were never found but the box they came in was found in his apartment.

Did Rudy provide a clever answer as to why he no longer had these shoes or is it accepted by all parties that he deliberately disposed of them after the night Meredith was murdered?

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly. Italian justice is already on a short leash right now for its "they did it.....no, they didn't do it......no, that's not right, go back a step to "they did it" and check again" circus with Knox and Sollecito.

If they go through one more cycle of that (which would essentially equate to "guilty... not-guilty... guilty.... not-guilty.... guilty") then I think all hell would break loose not only at an international level, but also very probably at an internal Italian level. After all, a justice system with that many reversals and "re-reversals" is not only an international laughing stock, it's also the very manifestation of a justice system that's not fit for purpose.

There is already reason to believe that internally, Italian judges are not happy, some of them anyway. One has quit, Hellmann has retired, Zanetti is mad as a wet hen.... Galati lucked out with the ISC getting the judge who believes that 9/11 was an inside job and also probably thinks Masons paid off Hellmann....

The scary thing is that now, if it had not been for the tabloid frenzy early on, no one would be paying any attention to this at all. For heaven's sake, today's news was the "lead" on the CNN webpage, albeit from Barbie Nadeau....

Jeffrey Toobin back in Oct 2011 explained to Piers Morgan that the reason Hellmann acquitted was, "because there simply was no evidence." Toobin has been pretty neutral since then, really, in keeping to just the facts, ma'am, just the facts and not really ripping into Piers Morgan when the latter goes all weird on us...

What's Toobin going to say if the Nencini court convicts? What's Toobin going to say if Nencini acquits, and then the ISC in 2015 (again) nullifies an acquittal!?

The tsunami of tabloid frenzy might be reversed. Karma is a dish best served cold.

 

[Bill Williams]

Re: the knife. Is it true that Raffaele Sollecito said the following....

"The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

If so, what is the explanation for that?

He was told that there was Meredith's DNA and had no way of knowing, really. He panicked and was stupid. It's the only time, really, that he's been caught in a lie.

It probably taught him a lesson. May as well tell the truth. Because the companion to this is that he had MORE reason to lie, when he was pressured to turn on Amanda Knox.

Why did he not turn on Amanda Knox? That's the bigger question.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but it's my understanding that Rudys shoes were never found but the box they came in was found in his apartment.

Did Rudy provide a clever answer as to why he no longer had these shoes or is it accepted by all parties that he deliberately disposed of them after the night Meredith was murdered?

Guede admitted not only that he owned the shoes in question, but also that he had worn them on the night of the murder. IIRC, he also admitted to disposing of them en route to Germany after the crime.

 

[LondonJohn]

He was told that there was Meredith's DNA and had no way of knowing, really. He panicked and was stupid. It's the only time, really, that he's been caught in a lie.

It probably taught him a lesson. May as well tell the truth. Because the companion to this is that he had MORE reason to lie, when he was pressured to turn on Amanda Knox.

Why did he not turn on Amanda Knox? That's the bigger question.

To me, a convincing context for this is the power and authority - and trustworthiness - that Sollecito may have perceived in the police and PM at the time.

Given that Sollecito was told that - beyond any doubt - Meredith's DNA had been found on his kitchen knife, I suspect that an innocent Sollecito would have experienced classic cognitive dissonance: he would have KNOWN that this kitchen knife couldn't have been involved in the murder, yet he'd been told by the authorities that Meredith's DNA was on the blade.

If that was the case, then I think that he - again classically - would have been pushed into a resolution of this cognitive dissonance, in a way that would have resolved both disparate sides of the equation. I think that this would have been why he rationalised the "enhanced factual" account of pricking Meredith's hand - which I think may indeed have been loosely based on a real incident (possibly with a different knife or with no knife at all).

I believe that a good psychiatrist would easily be able to explain why an innocent Sollecito might act in such a way - based on the whole "cognitive dissonance" phenomenon where a resolution of that dissonance is forced (Sollecito felt he HAD to come up with a reason how and why his kitchen knife came to have Meredith's DNA on it).

That's why I think that Sollecito's words on the "knife-pricking" are in fact entirely compatible with an innocent man who's confronted with cognitive dissonance (coupled with fear and helplessness), who's forced into resolving that dissonance.

Of course, it's fair to say that it's also compatible with a guilty Sollecito trying to lie his way out of trouble. But that's not really the point: the point is that - in my view - this behaviour is compatible with both a "guilty Sollecito" and an "innocent Sollecito" - in direct contrast to those pro-guilt commentators who claim it's only compatible with guilt.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: Hugo did miss something. The Carabinieri experts did indeed EXCLUDE Meredith Kercher as a contributor of DNA to sample 36I.

You're welcome

 

[acbytesla]

Hehehehe

the same pro-guilt commentator - nothing if not persistent (or should that be "unable to back down") - is still trying to claim that "at least two" means "probably three"

Let me try a different tack here to get the message across as plainly as I can:

Suppose I am taking an exam tomorrow, that consists of twelve questions.

In order to pass the exam, I need to get "at least eight" answers correct.

So:

If I get exactly eight answers correct, do I pass the exam?

If I get nine answers correct, do I pass the exam?

If I get seven answers correct, do I pass the exam?


For the final time: "at least two" means axiomatically that "two are acceptable". Whether "three might be better" is true or not is irrelevant. Two are acceptable. Less than two (i.e. one) is unacceptable. End of story. For ever.

It's sort of like testing for blood. It's not enough to just get the first question right. One must get all the questions right. Getting the first right, then missing the second and skipping the third entirely just doesn't get it.

 

[charlatan]

It will be interesting to see what the printed media produce, but I would say Raffaele's statement had more impact on the lay jury than the RIS report.

I thought it was a rather effective strategy. The lay judges got to see a humanized Raffaele and Nencini was invited to make an unfavorable comparison between the RIS LCN protocols and Stefanoni's ad-hoc work. In the end I think both will prove important.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Re: the knife. Is it true that Raffaele Sollecito said the following....

"The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

If so, what is the explanation for that?

Yes, and the only explanations I have ever been able to think of are: 1. Guilty 2. Innocent, but scared enough to try and make up an explanation.

 

[yimyammer]

Guede admitted not only that he owned the shoes in question, but also that he had worn them on the night of the murder. IIRC, he also admitted to disposing of them en route to Germany after the crime.

Thx LJ, what an odd thing for an innocent person to do. Yet the "guilty" pair stayed home and presumably all their shoes were present and accounted for?

 

[acbytesla]

It will be interesting to see what the printed media produce, but I would say Raffaele's statement had more impact on the lay jury than the RIS report.

You may be right...but if it did, then that is sad.