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

[acbytesla]

Headline: Porn Sites Get More Visitors Each Month than Netflix, Amazon and Twitter Combined

Summary: Porn consumes 30 percent of Internet bandwidth. 70 percent of men and 30 percent of women watch porn.

This is the world we live in, and it is supposed to be evidence that someone is a murderer???

The police got Raffaele's laptop, and they searched his apartment. What did they find? They found a Japanese comic book about vampires. And they found a guy to testify that Raffaele was in possession of porn at some point in the past. "It was violent! It was extreme!" Was it? We'll never know, because all we have is this vague hearsay. There is no actual porn, extreme or otherwise, in the case evidence.

And if there were, it would still prove NOTHING. Talk about desperation...

The weird thing about those numbers Charlie, is the porn percentage of the overall bandwidth is actually, significantly down. That isn't to say that less bandwidth is porn, but other traffic has increased significantly.

Porn actually carried the Internet for at least the first dozen years. My biggest customers were "ISPs" and COLOs (Colocation facilities) and they always said that their that their biggest customers were porn sites. This is from memory, but I'm pretty sure that 10 years ago more than HALF or the bandwidth was porn.

What is really surprising Charlie is that they didn't find porn on Raffaele's laptop.

One Manga comic book.... Raffaele sounds boring.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie - can you think of an item Machiavelli has presented in the past two months which does not have this sort of desperation associated with it?

No. It's ridiculous. He has logged off half the world's ascii trees with his drivel, and it becomes more and more unhinged with each passing day. Most of it is peripheral garbage that wouldn't prove anything if it were true, which it certainly is not.

That is why I usually try to ignore him.

 

[davefoc]

No. It's ridiculous. He has logged off half the world's ascii trees with his drivel, and it becomes more and more unhinged with each passing day. ...

If by that you mean there is a monotonic increase in the unhingement of Machiavelli's posts, I disagree. Earlier we had the LJ is a criminal meme, the strained rationalizations about the Stefanoni's failure to provide documentation for her DNA testing and the barrage of unsubstantiated anti-Knox speculation. If we are just looking at recent trends his/her posts have gotten much better. His/her recent series of posts have contained some surprisingly well written moments and some reasonable* challenges to what is accepted lore around here.

Of course, his posts are always written from the perspective of an advocate and they do contain advocate style spin, I'm not saying that he has all of a sudden become an introspective truth seeker who reliably confronts the possibility that his biases are obscuring the truth.

* reasonable meaning that they don't look obviously silly or wrong to me, a person with an admittedly much lower knowledge base about the case than many people participating in this thread.

 

[NancyS]

I think the key word of interest to the case is "violent".
Not porn, but violent porn.

Tavernese said that De Robertis was shocked by violence he saw in some of Sollecito's porn movies. He reports that in the plural, "movies" (not just one).

There was some recent research, which suggested that many young teenagers had watched some fairly violent an nasty porn - it's an age when you want to find out about sex and the Internet can lead you to some dark places during normal teenage exploration - it doesn't have anything to do with becoming a murderer.

Thinking back to my school - at about 16, I think every person in my year had watched 'Animal Farm', which was a fairly nasty bestiality movie - one person had seen it, which meant that that everyone had to watch it - I think about 20 of us crowded into a room at a party and watched in shock - there was nothing sexual, it was mainly point and laugh and shock. I think it is very telling that there was nothing found in his flat or on his computers, so it certainly wasn't something that had become habitual or continued to interest him into adulthood

And also, if I think back to my university days - all the middle class boys I knew, were into Tarantino Films, Hong Kong Shoot Out movies and martial arts films - and were giving themselves Wu-Tang-Clan names - and similar boys today would be playing Grand Theft Auto - however, they've now all become fairly conservative married fathers, living a very regular middle class life. I dread to think how their younger selves would have been portrayed if arrested in Italy - even though none of them were remotely violent

My BIL is massively into Manga Stuff and teaches martial arts (he's some sort of master) and eastern philosophy and I think he has a couple of replica swords. However, he's not remotely violent - and if anything , it is very anti-violence and is more about teaching self control. He's ridiculously Zen about everything. The Italian Prosecution would probably describe him as Freaky and Sword Obsessed

 

[acbytesla]

If by that you mean there is a monotonic increase in the unhingement of Machiavelli's posts, I disagree. Earlier we had the LJ is a criminal meme, the strained rationalizations about the Stefanoni's failure to provide documentation for her DNA testing and the barrage of unsubstantiated anti-Knox speculation. If we are just looking at recent trends his/her posts have gotten much better. His/her recent series of posts have contained some surprisingly well written moments and some reasonable* challenges to what is accepted lore around here.

Of course, his posts are always written from the perspective of an advocate and they do contain advocate style spin, I'm not saying that he has all of a sudden become an introspective truth seeker who reliably confronts the possibility that his biases are obscuring the truth.

* reasonable meaning that they don't look obviously silly or wrong to me, a person with an admittedly much lower knowledge base about the case than many people participating in this thread.

With all respect Dave, I think you might be talking about the last day or two. Charlie and Bill have been reading Machiavelli's posts for 4, 5, maybe 6 years.

Charlie in particular is probably more involved in this case than as anyone with the exception of maybe Mary who is a Knox family friend. Kaypea or Karen Pruett is also a family friend although I haven't seen her post on this site in a
while.

I'd agree with you that Machiavelli is articulate but it is easy to make arguments you make up the facts which he has done since day one. Bill, Charlie, Dan O have been debunking his stories since the beginning. One of the big problems we have with with Machiavelli, is that he almost never provide actual cites. Although he claims that he has transcripts etc. (I believe that)..but he almost never shares the info.

For example, he has claimed over and over again that Amanda's phone number was in the phone of a drug or cocaine dealer. But HE HAS NEVER shared the documentation that proves this little defamation that has nothing to do with the murder.

You must make up your own mind Dave. But you might give some of the old timers a break when they tire of the battle with this Italian sophist.

 

[davefoc]

With all respect Dave, I think you might be talking about the last day or two. Charlie and Bill have been reading Machiavelli's posts for 4, 5, maybe 6 years.

Charlie in particular is probably more involved in this case than as anyone with the exception of maybe Mary who is a Knox family friend. Kaypea or Karen Pruett is also a family friend although I haven't seen her post on this site in a
while.

I'd agree with you that Machiavelli is articulate but it is easy to make arguments you make up the facts which he has done since day one. Bill, Charlie, Dan O have been debunking his stories since the beginning. One of the big problems we have with with Machiavelli, is that he almost never provide actual cites. Although he claims that he has transcripts etc. (I believe that)..but he almost never shares the info.

For example, he has claimed over and over again that Amanda's phone number was in the phone of a drug or cocaine dealer. But HE HAS NEVER shared the documentation that proves this little defamation that has nothing to do with the murder.

You must make up your own mind Dave. But you might give some of the old timers a break when they tire of the battle with this Italian sophist.

Please note the word monotonic in my post. I am in no position to judge the quality of Machiavelli's posts over the long term or to judge the quality of Machiavelli's posts based on my knowledge of the case which is inferior to that of almost everybody else that participates in this thread. I was making the almost worthless point that there was evidence which I presented that led me to believe there were days when Machiavelli's posts were better than on some other days and that the day to day quality rating (as judged by me) was not always down.

 

[LondonJohn]

Last post for now, I promise. THIS^^^^ is hearsay. Someone told someone... Unless Tavernese saw it himself or unless a defendant told Tavernese out of the defendant's own mouth, it is hearsay through and through (at least in the U.S.)

It's hearsay in ANY jurisdiction. Machiavelli may or may not actually know/understand this, but one would imagine that all the professional judges related to the case know it. In England, if prosecutors tried to introduce this sort of hearsay evidence, the judge would immediately a) call a temporary halt to proceedings by placing the court in recess, b) call the prosecutor to the judge's chambers and admonish him/her severely for his/her actions, c) immediately instruct the jury that they must disregard what they had just heard. If the hearsay was sufficiently prejudicial to the defendant, the judge might even dismiss the jury and declare a mistrial.

 

[LondonJohn]

This discussion about pornography is ridiculous. Italy has a very prolific pornographic industry and many italian directors produce films with a sadistic bent.

I mean, there was even a famous italian pornographic actress who was a member of the italian parliament. How much mainstream can you get?

And this is ignoring the popular "giallo" movie genre, where violence is eroticized and the killer is usually a woman. Coincidence? You decide.

And this Machiavelly guy is trying to paint Rafaelle as a sinister person for watching porn? Don't make me laugh. Italy is drenched in porn. He himself admited has much earlier in this thread.

Yes. It's now known and understood that exposure to extreme violence and/or violent pornography is in no way an indicator of a propensity to commit violent and/or sexually-violent crimes.

What IS known is that many people who do commit such crimes HAVE had extensive exposure to such material. But many who commit such crimes have not had any such exposure at all. And of course the overwhelming majority of people who have exposure to this sort of material never go on to offend in a related fashion.

So one can have a debate over whether violence and extreme pornography might be causative factors in some people's offending, but what one CANNOT say is that evidence of a defendant's prior exposure to such material is probative evidence supporting the guilt of that defendant in a violent or sexually-motivated crime.

British readers might just remember the furore in the aftermath of the murder of 2-year-old James Bulger in the 1990s by two boys that were barely ten years old themselves at the time of the crime. After the convictions, there was a lot made of the claim that the two boys had watched a lot of violent horror movies on video, and that this was a precipitant factor. However, this was essentially tabloid hysteria. It's not (as I said) supported - in fact, it tends to be contradicted - by any serious academic study. In fact, I think one of the senior police officers said that it was about as relevant to the crime as the children's' classic (and entirely warm and non-violent) story "The Railway Children" (the murder took place on or near a railway line). It's also worth pointing out that there was no attempt by prosecutors to introduce this sort of evidence in the trial itself.

 

[acbytesla]

Please note the word monotonic in my post. I am in no position to judge the quality of Machiavelli's posts over the long term or to judge the quality of Machiavelli's posts based on my knowledge of the case which is inferior to that of almost everybody else that participates in this thread. I was making the almost worthless point that there was evidence which I presented that led me to believe there were days when Machiavelli's posts were better than on some other days and that the day to day quality rating (as judged by me) was not always down.

I agree with that. Mach was actually better the last couple of days. BTW You're entitled to your opinion, so I wasn't really trying to correct you, I just thought I'd sort of point out that Charlie getting tired of Mach is understandable.

 

[Matthew Best]

Imagine if Berlusconi or one of his friends of a mafioso had to be judged by a jury of common people. They would hang them without even knowing what's in the case files, they wouldn't even open it, to avoid the risk of being influenced by it.

It seems Italians cannot be trusted to behave responsibly in a jury room for some reason. Given that that is the case, why would we expect professional judges (who are also Italians) to be any better?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>....with the exception of maybe Mary who is a Knox family friend.<snip>

This isn't really accurate, tesla. I've never met Amanda; I met Curt Knox once, Edda three times, and have had a few more interactions than that with Chris Mellas. I had no knowledge of their families before the case and I have not tried to get close to them, although they are all extremely nice people whom I like very much.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If by that you mean there is a monotonic increase in the unhingement of Machiavelli's posts, I disagree. Earlier we had the LJ is a criminal meme, the strained rationalizations about the Stefanoni's failure to provide documentation for her DNA testing and the barrage of unsubstantiated anti-Knox speculation. If we are just looking at recent trends his/her posts have gotten much better. His/her recent series of posts have contained some surprisingly well written moments and some reasonable* challenges to what is accepted lore around here.

Of course, his posts are always written from the perspective of an advocate and they do contain advocate style spin, I'm not saying that he has all of a sudden become an introspective truth seeker who reliably confronts the possibility that his biases are obscuring the truth.

* reasonable meaning that they don't look obviously silly or wrong to me, a person with an admittedly much lower knowledge base about the case than many people participating in this thread.

You might be right. I suppose I'm looking at a longer term trend rather than a day-to-day progression.

Machiavelli has always been patronizing and pretentious in the extreme. Five years ago, however, he could afford to be cordial. He rounded a bend during the appeal, when the expert report trashed the DNA evidence. He has become more and more truculent ever since. To my mind, some of his recent comments about Amanda represent a new low.

 

[Mary_H]

It's hearsay in ANY jurisdiction. Machiavelli may or may not actually know/understand this, but one would imagine that all the professional judges related to the case know it. In England, if prosecutors tried to introduce this sort of hearsay evidence, the judge would immediately a) call a temporary halt to proceedings by placing the court in recess, b) call the prosecutor to the judge's chambers and admonish him/her severely for his/her actions, c) immediately instruct the jury that they must disregard what they had just heard. If the hearsay was sufficiently prejudicial to the defendant, the judge might even dismiss the jury and declare a mistrial.

Hearsay, you say? Here is the first mention of hearsay in this thread, from almost four years ago:

Not that what they heard in court was all fact. The presiding judge, Giancarlo Massei, made a broad interpretation of what constituted evidence. Witnesses were allowed to repeat hearsay and to give their subjective assessment of people's attitudes and emotions. This was particularly important for Amanda Knox, because a key element of the prosecution's case was that her apparent lack of emotion after the discovery of her flatmate's corpse was an indication of her hatred of Kercher, and that her hatred of the British student had led her to murder her.

Yet very little evidence was produced to sustain that argument.

It was true then and it will always be true.

 

[Strozzi]

To my mind, some of his (Machiavelli's) recent comments about Amanda represent a new low.

I appreciate Machiavelli sharing his views with us, innuendo and all.

I have believed for a long time that the prosecution has developed a closely-held psychological/behaviorial analysis of defendants and that the analysis is a key driver behind their ongoing prosecution/persecution, and that they necessarily rely on it more and more as the forensic evidence is revealed to be false.

When Machiavelli posted his long comment about 5 days ago combining fact (Amanda walked 150 yards from her house to her school and Rudy hung out in the area) and specious innuendo (she traded sex with Rudy for drugs), I realized I was finally seeing details of what the Magnini school* is using to "connect the dots" to make the defendants guilty of the crime.

* I refer to Magnini and the people close to him who are aware of his thinking and share his views as the Magnini school.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm not thinking of obvious broken glass particles but those tiny ones I'm sure you've encountered when you broke a glass on the floor and thought you had everything cleaned up and then stepped on a tiny shard and felt a slight pain in your foot.

I haven't seen the photo of this evidence, so if it was a big blob then that would render my scenario moot

Why would Rudy go and ring out a cloth in Filomena's room?

Rep.176 – Sample of presumed blood substance, revealed by luminol, carried out on the floor situated in the room in use by Filomena ROMANELLI (sample L1) – page 171 A.F./218 R.;
Rep.177 – Sample of presumed blood substance, revealed by luminol, present on the floor situated in the room in use by Filomena ROMANELLI (sample L2) – page 171 A.F./218 R.;​

These two traces are both described as "amorphous" elsewhere in the case documents.

Sample of amorphous luminol blob (not in Filomena's room): http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/luminol/151.jpg note the size spanning multiple tiles.

It's interesting that most of the luminol traces that were photographed were the ones that resembled bare foot prints (the above being the only known exception). It's like somebody had the whole confirmation bias thing going expecting to find bare footprints. It's strange because the only indicator up to that point that there might be bare footprints was Amanda's deposition the day before telling them about the shower in the morning and walking barefoot back to her room.


You would have to ask Rudy about the towel thing. But a possibility is that he was planing to wipe down any finger prints he might have left but remembered he was wearing gloves when he entered that room.

 

[Diocletus]

It seems Italians cannot be trusted to behave responsibly in a jury room for some reason. Given that that is the case, why would we expect professional judges (who are also Italians) to be any better?

Well, look. It took a panel of professional lay judges to come up with the Amanda-carried-the-12-inch-kitchen-knife-in-her-handbag thing. Imagine how ridiculous Giacomo Six-Pack's theory would have been, you know, given the obvious stupidity of the common man (the guys who aren't "Drs.").

 

[Diocletus]

Don't forget November 13/14 when the cottage front Door was discovered open.

Good point. Particularly since they learned on 11/13 that Sollecito's shoes had no traces of blood or Kercher DNA on them.

 

[Diocletus]

The DNA transfer research Halides has posted suggests it could have been anything. It wasn't low template per se, but it was measured in nanograms, billionths of grams, and it's not associated with any specific cellular material that was detected when the item was examined. It was a microscopic, invisible trace.

Raffaele's fingerprints were on the outside of Meredith's door. Did he try the handle, gripping it hard in an attempt to force the latch? If he did, and one of the gloved investigators handled that door knob before handling the clasp, that could do it. If he sneezed or coughed at the cottage, someone could have transferred his DNA from the floor if they stepped on the clasp. It can't be ruled out as a completely random event. But I think it is more likely they did something to put it there.

That's true, but I believe that the part of the DNA representing Sollecito is minimal compared to the overall amount of DNA (the majority being from Kercher).

 

[Dan O.]

* reasonable meaning that they don't look obviously silly or wrong to me, a person with an admittedly much lower knowledge base about the case than many people participating in this thread.

There was a recent experiment where a computer program learned to produce music. It was genetic programming based and after a number of iterations of throwing out the trials that caused people to vomit, it eventually started producing reasonable music. I gusee by this I am saying that Mach is learning to produce reasonable sounding arguments. But the arguments he is attacking have been supported by evidence and documentation. It takes more than just words to knock them down.

 

[Machiavelli]

If by that you mean there is a monotonic increase in the unhingement of Machiavelli's posts, I disagree. Earlier we had the LJ is a criminal meme, the strained rationalizations about the Stefanoni's failure to provide documentation for her DNA testing and the barrage of unsubstantiated anti-Knox speculation. If we are just looking at recent trends his/her posts have gotten much better. His/her recent series of posts have contained some surprisingly well written moments and some reasonable* challenges to what is accepted lore around here. (...)

The quoting and discussing about Vecchiotti's interrogation transcript is no "strained rationalization", it is actualy the most important and factual topic I've posted about in the recent times. I believe it is far more factual and important than all the recent posts which you see as "well written" or "reasonable", which are irrelevant.
What people call "innuendo" about Knox and Guede is something made of absolutely factual elements; but it's marginal, it only relates to a scenario and almost has no probative merit.
But my pointing out a piece of Vecchiotti's transcrit, that is one of the elements (just one of them) from which you can deduce there is a huge problem with Vecchiotti's honesty (as pointed out by the Supreme Court, btw), is instead an extremely important thing, which should be considered as a most objective and relevant topic.
Kaosium has attempted a rationalization of it in response, which is indeed made of denials, twists and basicaly makes up law principles, in attempt to de-fuse its content.
But Kaosium's response is just entirely wrong, it's a re-writing of procedure, an overturning of principles, and also incorporates factual falsehoods.

I pointed out by the way, some other false factual element reported here and there by some other poster, for example Strozzi's reporting about the police picking up one knife randomly among several others in Sollecito's apartment.

The issue with Vecchiotti's cross-questioning, far from being a strained rationalization, is of a kind that would raise maximum alarm in any objective person who knows the system. I believe Vecchiotti & Conti's credibility is really blown down by inconsistencies and violations in their report and their cross-questionings, I believe these things will have a decidning weight in Nencini's decision, and posters should pay the maximum attention to them.
This kind of arguments is the one where I believe the posters "on the other side" should better act as "introspective truth seeker". This seems to de the area where they don't know how things work or should work.
Also the recent question by Ampulla of Vater about what an appeal court should do when they decide to overturn a previous interpretation of a piece of evidence, is a question which shows some introspective seek of understanding the truth, because it is directed on a topic which is extremely important, it illuminates reasons that seem to be invisible to most pro-Knox supporters.