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

[Dan O.]

Like Mary_H says, there is no doubt Machiavelli is sincere. He's no troll and eventually gets around to answering questions.

Assuming he ever reads them.

Not time enough to read the snipped point list.

To save you the time of having to scroll back 105 pages, here is that list again:

• Only Rudy could have thrown that rock through Filomenia's window before Meredith came home that night. Nobody is throwing a rock through a window while there is a dead body inside the cottage.
• Rudy acknowledges searching Amanda's sock drawer for the missing money. Problem is that Amanda doesn't have a sock drawer. Rudy was in Laura's room and therefore was alone in the cottage.
• Rudy taking a crap in the Italian girls bathroom says that neither Amanda nor Meredith was there to point him to the bathroom that they were responsible for cleaning.
• The perpetrator of this crime got his hands bloodied and there was not a clean hand in the room to open Meredith's bedroom door from the inside.
• Rudy ripped off Meredith's bra by pulling on the band behind her right shoulder where he left his DNA on the band. This was done after Meredith was fatally stabbed and after Rudy had washed most of the blood off of his hands but not before Meredith had breathed her last.
• Rudy walked out of Meredith's room and to the front door. But Rudy did not get outside at this time. He turned around at the door and stepped back into the living room and stood in front of the couch facing the back room where Meredith lay dying.
• Rudy needed a key to open the front door. He would need to return to the murder room to search for those keys.
• Rudy's DNA is found on the zipper on Meredith's purse.

It was a simple burgler caught in the act and trapped with the victim behind a door locked with a key from the inside. There is no evidence of anything else.

 

[Bill Williams]

Assuming he ever reads them...

Please do not confuse Machiavelli's sincerity with a lack of agenda. It's the single-minded pursuit of his agenda which makes it frustrating.

His agenda is like Mignini's.... to write some drivel that is compatible with an explanation for the crime... much like (I think it was Mary_H) like saying that since Amanda was female and smoked soft drugs, that this made her compatible with a scenario that she traded sex for drugs with Rudy. Machiavelli then, as shown, will fight you tooth and nail that he did not say that literally, all the while letting the smear do the heavy lifting for him - with deniability built in.

But just so that you don't think others have misplaced you questions from 105 pages ago!!!!!

• Only Rudy could have thrown that rock through Filomenia's window before Meredith came home that night. Nobody is throwing a rock through a window while there is a dead body inside the cottage.
• Rudy acknowledges searching Amanda's sock drawer for the missing money. Problem is that Amanda doesn't have a sock drawer. Rudy was in Laura's room and therefore was alone in the cottage.
• Rudy taking a crap in the Italian girls bathroom says that neither Amanda nor Meredith was there to point him to the bathroom that they were responsible for cleaning.
• The perpetrator of this crime got his hands bloodied and there was not a clean hand in the room to open Meredith's bedroom door from the inside.
• Rudy ripped off Meredith's bra by pulling on the band behind her right shoulder where he left his DNA on the band. This was done after Meredith was fatally stabbed and after Rudy had washed most of the blood off of his hands but not before Meredith had breathed her last.
• Rudy walked out of Meredith's room and to the front door. But Rudy did not get outside at this time. He turned around at the door and stepped back into the living room and stood in front of the couch facing the back room where Meredith lay dying.
• Rudy needed a key to open the front door. He would need to return to the murder room to search for those keys.
• Rudy's DNA is found on the zipper on Meredith's purse.

To save you the time of having to scroll back 105 pages, here is that list again:

It was a simple burgler caught in the act and trapped with the victim behind a door locked with a key from the inside. There is no evidence of anything else.

 

[Antony]

It is laughable, isn't it Tony? Hey, I can understand a little sexual experimentation among friends. And although group sex isn't really that common, it happens.

What I can't understand is the knife play? You don't go from 4 college age kids playing a little truth or dare to forcible rape at knife point. But there is no evidence at all that Amanda, or Raffaele had ever experimented with group sex even,

So you have to ask yourself what made the Italian morons make that kind of leap?

Their theory that Amanda manipulated these two young men to rape her friend and then kill her is really absurd. (Now here is where Grinder will jump in and say it doesn't matter.) The statistics of this kind of crime are virtually unheard of and the extremely rare occasion that something even remotely close to this having happened is the equivalent of winning the Powerball lottery....TWICE.

But that didn't stop them even though the guy who obviously murdered Meredith said that Amanda and Raffaele weren't there, Said the murder happened around 9:30, Precisely about the latest time possible given the state of Meredith's digestion. And barely a half an hour after Amanda was talking to Raffaele's neighbor at his apartment and barely an hour after Amanda found out she didn't have to go to work. There is also DVR evidence of the them being at his apartment at 9:30. Although that is somewhat debatable.

And we know that Rudy didn't go to the cottage with Meredith as she was seen going to the cottage alone at 8:55 alone. So that leaves about 15 minutes for Amanda and Raffaele rendezvousing with Rudy, (without calling or texting him) collecting the big cooking knife from Raff's flat and walking the ten blocks and killing Meredith.

It's ridiculous.....no, it's beyond ridiculous.

My point wasn't so much that the 4-way sex-game-gone-wrong scenario is inherently unlikely (of course it is), but that 6 days after first shacking up together, we're supposed to think that Amanda and Raff needed to look around for extra excitement. It just doesn't carry any believability.

 

[Kaosium]

First my apologies, I've been having computer problems lately and haven't been able to do much more than follow the thread before my screen goes dark. I may have discovered a (temporary) work-around that will keep the computer lit up more than the 15-30 minutes it has been able to endure the last week or so. We will see.

I am very surprised that you don’t understand the gravity of what Vecchiotti is saying, its implications.

1. first of all, you say “clearly she mailed asking for them several times”. But this is not true. Maybe that was not clear enough from my hasty translation. In fact she says the opposite: she says she did not ask them, not even once. Her answer is contorted, it consists in admitting she asked for something else, and she implies that she never, never specifically asked about negative controls.
She actually says more and explains in the end what she asked. Let’s see what she says at the beginning (I try to correct some translation imprecisions):



I asked... the files about the laboratory tests.
(not "the negative controls")

So when Comodi asks “did you request the negative controls ?” Vecchiotti answers “I asked for the files related to the tests “. Which implies she did not request the negative controls.

This is very simple: 'the files related to the tests' inherently include the negative controls, in fact from your quote of Vecchiotti it is apparent she thinks so. That jives with the fact without them the DNA analysis would be considered scientifically invalid, as I posted from the FBI report on Jacqueline Blake's malfeasance in the FBI lab.

She doesn't have to ask for them specifically, any more than if someone requests the maintenance records for a vehicle they're buying and the oil-change records are not included. No one would be in the slightest amused by the argument that the 'buyer' had not asked specifically for the records of oil changes, but just the 'maintenance records.'

They are one and the same, the negative controls are naturally part of the 'files related to the tests.'

 

[Grinder]

I must admit I don’t really understand this tendency of quoting posts from other discussion sites, why not post a response on the site in question?

For one thing they don't allow it and I don't want them knowing anything about me, meaning tracing my location etc. They have a history of sliming anyone that believe the kids were innocent or even those that are just sure that the prosecution didn't make the beyond reasonable doubt case.

Once they mixed up some woman with another and sent messages to the mistaken's ones boss. They went after a school teacher in Hawaii. The list is long and not just people that made themselves known. One of their "researchers" digs around the internet accusing people of being pro Amanda.

They did that with Tesla just a little while ago.

I remain curious to see how much of the minutiae discussed here will even been raised, then to read how the defence and prosecution present their arguments. Indeed, I wonder how the Caribinieri RIS evidence has gone down with the lay jury; did they understand what was presented?

To what extent will the professional judge’s guide (influence) the lay jury, do they objectively concede points of law made by defence or prosecution, will they really be explaining the science TOD, don’t think so somehow, and this for me is the interesting aspect of the appeal.

Yes you've made these points before. As we have been told by Mach, the Italian legal system doesn't allow everything to be explored, for example if the defense didn't request something in 2008.

It will be interesting to see how the defense puts together their case. Will they present a video showing that the prosecution has only compatible things not matches? Will they show the tape of Curatolo in the second trial? Will they bring C&V to testify?

What minutia specifically do you wonder about? When she died? When the kids were on their computers? What files were turned over?

 

[Bill Williams]

I am very surprised that you don’t understand the gravity of what Vecchiotti is saying, its implications.

1. first of all, you say “clearly she mailed asking for them several times”. But this is not true. Maybe that was not clear enough from my hasty translation. In fact she says the opposite: she says she did not ask them, not even once. Her answer is contorted, it consists in admitting she asked for something else, and she implies that she never, never specifically asked about negative controls.
She actually says more and explains in the end what she asked. Let’s see what she says at the beginning (I try to correct some translation imprecisions):



I asked... the files about the laboratory tests.
(not "the negative controls")

So when Comodi asks “did you request the negative controls ?” Vecchiotti answers “I asked for the files related to the tests “. Which implies she did not request the negative controls.

This is very simple: 'the files related to the tests' inherently include the negative controls, in fact from your quote of Vecchiotti it is apparent she thinks so. That jives with the fact without them the DNA analysis would be considered scientifically invalid, as I posted from the FBI report on Jacqueline Blake's malfeasance in the FBI lab.

She doesn't have to ask for them specifically, any more than if someone requests the maintenance records for a vehicle they're buying and the oil-change records are not included. No one would be in the slightest amused by the argument that the 'buyer' had not asked specifically for the records of oil changes, but just the 'maintenance records.'

They are one and the same, the negative controls are naturally part of the 'files related to the tests.'

I worry that Machiavelli's "reasoning" is actually representative of what Nencini will decide.

What we have is Machiavelli's admission that Vecchiotti says, “I asked for the files related to the tests“ in response to Comodi's question, “did you request the negative controls?”

What Machiavelli constantly and continually does is fudge what this means. Rather incredibly M. says this is an admission that Vecchiotti did not ask for the negative controls.

But this is not about M., it's not about Kaosium, CoulsdonUK or me.... the really worrying thing is if this is the style of argumentation in Nencini's court.

The only relief is that when the RIS Carabinieri submitted their report to the Nencini court, they in fact submitted the whole enchilada. Maybe there is hope that the Nencini court is going to rule the right way on this.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok - I've had five posts removed, three of which are arguably personally directed at Machiavelli. Apologies.

Yet two of them are dealing with points Machiavelli raises here. I'm saving those ones off-line, because it's a little inexplicable that "on topic", "non-personal", "deal with the issue not the poster" posts can be removed like that.

 

[GreyFox]

End around play

Please do not confuse Machiavelli's sincerity with a lack of agenda. It's the single-minded pursuit of his agenda which makes it frustrating.

His agenda is like Mignini's.... to write some drivel that is compatible with an explanation for the crime... much like (I think it was Mary_H) like saying that since Amanda was female and smoked soft drugs, that this made her compatible with a scenario that she traded sex for drugs with Rudy. Machiavelli then, as shown, will fight you tooth and nail that he did not say that literally, all the while letting the smear do the heavy lifting for him - with deniability built in.

But just so that you don't think others have misplaced you questions from 105 pages ago!!!!!


To save you the time of having to scroll back 105 pages, here is that list again:

No ! The agenda is to run around the room with this naughty,naughty, Amanda Knox sex doll in order to prevent the intelligent people in the room from digging deeper into the corruption involved in this case. Have to admit....It works ! Pressure off Stefanoni and onto Amanda.

Time to put some clothes on that doll and get back to work !


@ Dave..........After his post sometime ago of how Italy will open the back door to terrorist if the US don't give up Knox I stopped putting value into these post .

 

[andreajo]

Please do not confuse Machiavelli's sincerity with a lack of agenda. It's the single-minded pursuit of his agenda which makes it frustrating.

His agenda is like Mignini's.... to write some drivel that is compatible with an explanation for the crime... much like (I think it was Mary_H) like saying that since Amanda was female and smoked soft drugs, that this made her compatible with a scenario that she traded sex for drugs with Rudy. Machiavelli then, as shown, will fight you tooth and nail that he did not say that literally, all the while letting the smear do the heavy lifting for him - with deniability built in.

Good point! It's important not to lose sight of the agendas of the people and groups who may influence the final outcome of this process. There seem to be precious few rules in Italian court proceedings to minimize the impact of interested parties on trial outcomes.

There are parties who have a financial interest in the final outcome of the court proceedings. There is a potential cash award for the Kercher family to be paid by AK and RS in the event of a conviction. Their representative, Francesco Maresca, has said and done some beastly things in pursuit of a guilty finding.

Additionally, there are a number of people who stand to lose face and career standing if an acquittal is finalized.

I don't know what the driving force is behind Machiavelli's agenda is, but the tactics he/she uses to move that agenda forward are reprehensible. The musings around whether Rudy Guede was Amanda's pimp or perhaps just a customer was a real moral low point for Machiavelli. I wonder how he/she sleeps at night?

 

[Kaosium]

I worry that Machiavelli's "reasoning" is actually representative of what Nencini will decide.

What we have is Machiavelli's admission that Vecchiotti says, “I asked for the files related to the tests“ in response to Comodi's question, “did you request the negative controls?”

What Machiavelli constantly and continually does is fudge what this means. Rather incredibly M. says this is an admission that Vecchiotti did not ask for the negative controls.

But this is not about M., it's not about Kaosium, CoulsdonUK or me.... the really worrying thing is if this is the style of argumentation in Nencini's court.

The only relief is that when the RIS Carabinieri submitted their report to the Nencini court, they in fact submitted the whole enchilada. Maybe there is hope that the Nencini court is going to rule the right way on this.

There's one indication that--if reported correctly--is a potentially ominous sign of the understanding Nencini has of this field and possibly foreshadows how he might rule on the DNA evidence:

It was in that report attributed here to Barbie Nadeau regarding Nencini supposedly threatening CDV with contempt or something for challenging the Carabinieri when they said something about the material they had found being a 'bodily fluid.' I didn't read the entirity of the article, but if reported correctly that's...not a good sign in my opinion. The Carabinieri never had the knife to test, as I understand it all they had was a sample in a container that had already been extracted. There is no way they could have determined that the substance was a 'bodily fluid' from was reported they had to sample, all they had was DNA--and the Cytocentrifugation to detect cellular material was negative on the knife from the area the sample was taken.

So, why did they ever say anything about sample I containing a bodily fluid, and why did Nencini crack down on CDV like he was reported to have done? One possibility is that the Carabinieri officer just slipped, most times DNA (being analyzed) is going to be a bodily fluid, in fact he may never have worked on a case where he wasn't analyzing a bodily fluid. Then the judge may have thought CDV was trying to 'lead' his witness in an untoward way and that was why he (supposedly) said that.

However even in the best case scenario it suggests Nencini really doesn't understand this process, because CDV was absolutely right that the RIS could have no way of identifiying the substance. Also if he did indeed threaten CDV in any way that too is...not a very good sign...

 

[Bill Williams]

Please do not confuse Machiavelli's sincerity with a lack of agenda. It's the single-minded pursuit of his agenda which makes it frustrating.

His agenda is like Mignini's.... to write some drivel that is compatible with an explanation for the crime... much like (I think it was Mary_H) like saying that since Amanda was female and smoked soft drugs, that this made her compatible with a scenario that she traded sex for drugs with Rudy. Machiavelli then, as shown, will fight you tooth and nail that he did not say that literally, all the while letting the smear do the heavy lifting for him - with deniability built in.

Good point! It's important not to lose sight of the agendas of the people and groups who may influence the final outcome of this process. There seem to be precious few rules in Italian court proceedings to minimize the impact of interested parties on trial outcomes.

There are parties who have a financial interest in the final outcome of the court proceedings. There is a potential cash award for the Kercher family to be paid by AK and RS in the event of a conviction. Their representative, Francesco Maresca, has said and done some beastly things in pursuit of a guilty finding.

Additionally, there are a number of people who stand to lose face and career standing if an acquittal is finalized.

I don't know what the driving force is behind Machiavelli's agenda is, but the tactics he/she uses to move that agenda forward are reprehensible. The musings around whether Rudy Guede was Amanda's pimp or perhaps just a customer was a real moral low point for Machiavelli. I wonder how he/she sleeps at night?

This "compatibility" argument that M. puts forward is cinvenient, as it's the very engine of what went wrong at the 2009 trial which resulted in conviction.

The analogy is this: an airliner flies directly from New York to Los Angeles. One of the passengers is accusedof the crime - but the crime is committed in Chicago, and as bad luck would have it, the airliner was over Chicago during "window of opportunity".

Machiavelli's "compatibilty" argument is to point out that Chicago has an airport, and thus a notion of guilt is compatible with the fact that the airliner could have landed there. There's actually no evidence that it landed in Chicago, but (like the contamination argument) it's up to those who claim innocence to prove it didn't land there. After all, officers of the court will charge you with defamation if you say that they are either lying or simply mistaken.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, viewing everything through his bottle-glass lenses, sees Amanda's use of the phrase "most beautiful [black man]" to mean sexiest.

I've described men, women, animals, plants - well, almost anything in creation as "beautiful", and hardly ever intended it to mean "sexy".

Once again; who's psyche is being revealed here? Amanda's or Machiavelli's?

I thought it would be better (for Amanda's charachter) to suggest she may just felt sexually attracted by Guede, rather than suggesting she was being spiritually and emotionally attracted. Just my opinion.
But if you prefer the second option, it's up to you.

The actual point is, you don't think you can find many black men - 'unnamed' or 'unknown' black men - attending bars around Via Garibaldi, do you?

 

[Samson]

Ok - I've had five posts removed, three of which are arguably personally directed at Machiavelli. Apologies.

Yet two of them are dealing with points Machiavelli raises here. I'm saving those ones off-line, because it's a little inexplicable that "on topic", "non-personal", "deal with the issue not the poster" posts can be removed like that.

Machiavelli wrote this a day or so ago
"Anyway the point is responding your lie, your allegation, which you know is false, about me "implying Guede was Knox's pimp"....
What I claim is that - given that we have already proof beyond doubt that all three are guilty and were in the house - it is perfectly normal to reasonably assume that Guede and Amanda were at home to have some drug-fuelled sex together that night."
He should be pleased that an American based forum allows him to make these obscenely defamatory statements, while you should be disappointed the same forum apparently now requires you to tiptoe somewhat.

 

[andreajo]

This "compatibility" argument that M. puts forward is cinvenient, as it's the very engine of what went wrong at the 2009 trial which resulted in conviction.

The analogy is this: an airliner flies directly from New York to Los Angeles. One of the passengers is accusedof the crime - but the crime is committed in Chicago, and as bad luck would have it, the airliner was over Chicago during "window of opportunity".

Machiavelli's "compatibilty" argument is to point out that Chicago has an airport, and thus a notion of guilt is compatible with the fact that the airliner could have landed there. There's actually no evidence that it landed in Chicago, but (like the contamination argument) it's up to those who claim innocence to prove it didn't land there. After all, officers of the court will charge you with defamation if you say that they are either lying or simply mistaken.

I am trying to figure out how much of what Machiavelli posts is rhetoric, and how much is an attempt at reason.

 

[Diocletus]

I thought it would be better (for Amanda's charachter) to suggest she may just felt sexually attracted by Guede, rather than suggesting she was being spiritually and emotionally attracted. Just my opinion.
But if you prefer the second option, it's up to you.

The actual point is, you don't think you can find many black men - 'unnamed' or 'unknown' black men - attending bars around Via Garibaldi, do you?

Why not? Of the few Perugians I know of, at least 2 are black. I'll bet there are plenty around Perugia. Curiously, none of them seem to work for the government, which suggests to me that this society is effectively segregated.

The fact that there are at least two black men in perugia is compatible with there being lots of black men on perugia.

 

[andreajo]

I thought it would be better (for Amanda's charachter)

I wonder why I doubt your sincerity?

to suggest she may just felt sexually attracted by Guede, rather than suggesting she was being spiritually and emotionally attracted.
Just my opinion.
But if you prefer the second option, it's up to you.

There are actually wayyyyy more than two options here.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is very simple: 'the files related to the tests' inherently include the negative controls, in fact from your quote of Vecchiotti it is apparent she thinks so.
(...)

This assumption conflicts with the fact that Vecchiotti actually did ask for specific files in her mails (as it is evident even from one e-mail that Charlie Wilkes has). And also conflicts with the facts that is documented that Stefanoni indicated specific files (both in court and in her e-mail), as items that could be included in the submissions, or not.

Your assumption also conflicts with other important things that you should take in account, as for Vecchiotti's tasks. Vecchiotti in fact she is paid to research and verify the existence of materials and records. If something is missing from the folder she is provided, she is anyway responsible to point it out and verify its existence. She is not suposed to "assume" things. In other words, the fact that she may think so does not exonerate her from her duty to verify, as she has to do with any hypotheses she has, her thoughts notwithsanding.

Something else that Vecchiotti also should do, a point which further strengenths the previous one, is take note that Stefanoni declared that the laboratory always performed controls, a declaration which was contained in the file that Vcchiotti used as a legal pape to make other claims.

In addition - and this is another element which is not irreelevant at all - Vecchiotti also should have verified the case file at the prelimiary hearing chanchellery, to see if the negative controls were already there (as the prelimiary judge had recorded). It is evident that she did not do this because when questioned about the negative controls she repeatedely justified herself by refering to things that Stefanoni should send her. She kept saying that she didn't find them because they were not sent. Which implies, she only asked to Stefanoni, she didn't go anywhere else to collect material for her research.

But moreover, it is also obvious that Vecchiotti was not aware about the content of the hearings of Oct. 4 and Oct. 8 2008. She just didn't know that the negative controls were deposited on a hearing. It was obvious from what she said in her questioning that she did not know that the judge ordered further documentation to be deposited, and that such documentation included the negative controls, and that Stefanoni was recorded as she deposited them with the preliminary court. Vecchiotti said that she was hearing this information from the first time from Comodi.

You also should not forget the fact that Vecchiotti failed to record any contradiction between: the transcripts where Stefanoni is recorded saying she deposited the controls (oct 8) or the judge's declaration that they would be put in the case file and when Stefanoni stated she always performed them(oct 8), and tha fact that she may not have found the negativ controls in her researches. Vecchiotti failed to point out such issue in her report, and failed to do so also in her interrogation (until Comodi iformed her that the controls were already in the file).

You also have several other elements against Vecchiotti actually.
For example, in her report she wrote that Stefanoni is nowhere reported to clean her laboratory desk with alcohool, and instead the Oct 4. transcript does report about the cleanings procedures extensively. These omissions are glaring in Vecchiotti's report: it is obvious that she only picks up the "hundreds picograms" quote from the legal paper but she ignores all the rest.
It is also obvious that we have Comodi who says things like "you didn't request them" and "the negative controls are already in the file". You may think that this is not an evidence they are there, but it rises anyway the burden of proof if you want to prove the contrary: you can't just ignore a statement by a magistrate without actually doing anythig to disprove it.

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)
However even in the best case scenario it suggests Nencini really doesn't understand this process, because CDV was absolutely right that the RIS could have no way of identifiying the substance. Also if he did indeed threaten CDV in any way that too is...not a very good sign...

Actually this is an incorrect report. Dalla Vedova said something else. He did not point out that the RIS could not identify the substance; quite on the contrary, it was the RIS who answered that they could have no way to identify the substance, while Dalla Vedova insisted that they should (or could) identify the substance based on Vecchiotti & Conti's report. Dalla Vedova thus attempted to have the RIS expressing themselves about the Vecchiotti's report, or maybe in terms of crediting or validating the C&V report in some way. Since they refused to do that and Dalla Vedova insisted in a "Bill Williams-style" dialogue (what do you you say they say...) Nencini stopped him abruptly telling him he was just attempting to put others' words into people's mouth.

 

[Bill Williams]

I thought it would be better (for Amanda's charachter) to suggest she may just felt sexually attracted by Guede, rather than suggesting she was being spiritually and emotionally attracted. Just my opinion.
But if you prefer the second option, it's up to you.

The actual point is, you don't think you can find many black men - 'unnamed' or 'unknown' black men - attending bars around Via Garibaldi, do you?

First of all, M., there's no indication at all, except for your confirmation bias, that Knox was talking about Guede.

Second of all, your evaluation of this makes no sense.

 

[Matthew Best]

Machiavelli wrote this a day or so ago
"Anyway the point is responding your lie, your allegation, which you know is false, about me "implying Guede was Knox's pimp"....
What I claim is that - given that we have already proof beyond doubt that all three are guilty and were in the house - it is perfectly normal to reasonably assume that Guede and Amanda were at home to have some drug-fuelled sex together that night."

I wonder if Machiavelli has ever heard of the phrase "begging the question"?