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

[Bill Williams]

It may seem silly, but this is what AK and RS are up against. Six year's later and the Italian press still cannot get basic facts right....

See: http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2013/11/25/Prosecutors-demand-Knox-Sollecito-declared-guilty_9679721.html

This from a report on today's "prosecution's case" against AK and RS....

Crini also pointed to what he said were contradictions in Knox's account of the morning following the murder.

Knox said she returned to the flat to take a shower after spending the night at Sollecito's house, but failed to notice Kercher's room had been broken into and was a mess.
This part of her testimony is "not convincing", Crini maintained. Knox's attorney Luciano Ghirga said he had heard "nothing new" in the prosecutor's arguments.

Sollecito attended Monday's hearing, while Knox has opted to stay in the US.

However, there is a lot of info here from the defence, where even Ansa English concedes the DNA evidence has all but, again, fallen apart.

The pair's chances of acquittal were recently seen to have been boosted when DNA evidence on the alleged murder weapon were cast into doubt.

New court-appointed experts said a kitchen knife found in Sollecito's kitchen did not in fact have Kercher's DNA on it, contrary to previous findings. Traces of DNA from Knox were found.

Knox and Sollecito's lawyers said her DNA was bound to be on it since they used it to cook and that destroyed the prosecution's case.

Finally.... Raffaele is quoted, as well as Knox.

Knox, in umpteen statements including in a best-selling book about her experience in the Italian justice system, has said the prosecutor who "invented" a picture of her as a sex-and-drug-crazed murderer had no evidence for his theory.

 

[Antony]

Rather than an animation, there is ample information to assemble a (non-animated) serious documentary using publicly available photos, videos, testimony, tabloid headlines, etc. to tell the true story of the investigation and prosecution. With a narrated voice-over.

How long would it take to assemble visuals and accompanying commentary for a two-hour documentary? A month? With a dozen people contributing? I lack the technical skills and software to assemble it but will contribute by identifying materials and submitting materials to be included.

If Mignini is ultimately indicted and struck off for abuse of office, I daresay the TV networks will be falling over themselves to screen documentaries like this. Until and unless that happens, he still seems to have considerable powers to stop any such film from getting any kind of exposure.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Rather than an animation, there is ample information to assemble a (non-animated) serious documentary using publicly available photos, videos, testimony, tabloid headlines, etc. to tell the true story of the investigation and prosecution. With a narrated voice-over.

How long would it take to assemble visuals and accompanying commentary for a two-hour documentary? A month? With a dozen people contributing? I lack the technical skills and software to assemble it but will contribute by identifying materials and submitting materials to be included.

It could certainly be done. In particular, it would be possible to do an accurate reconstruction of the murder itself, one that maps precisely to the bloodstains and other physical evidence in the room as well as Meredith's injuries.

There really is only one way to explain this evidence credibly. I have gone through it many times. We see some blood over by the bed/nightstand, but not very much. That means she was injured there, but in such a way as to cause limited bleeding. This is consistent with the puncture wounds on the right side of her neck, inflicted by someone holding her from behind with a knife in his right hand, probably trying to control her.

Then we see signs of a disturbance over by her desk and window, more limited bleeding, bits of hair on the floor, and streaks of blood on the tiles, from scuffling. She tried to break free, but could not.

Then we have the extensive bleeding on the floor in front of the closet, and the spray of aspirated blood on the doors of the closet. This shows she was on her knees in front of the closet when she sustained a massive wound that cut into her windpipe, inflicted by someone who was behind and on top of her, who plunged the knife into the left side of her neck and pulled up and from left to right. That is the nature of the wound shown in the autopsy photos.

None of the documentaries about the case have drilled down into the physical evidence to show what obviously happened. They all focus on the competing claims, the people at the center of the case, and the drama surrounding the trial. This reflects the understanding of commercial producers as to what interests an audience. It's also what is easiest for them to do - go out and interview people.

 

[Strozzi]

The witness (Alessandra Formica) took the stand and said the person who she saw was not Guede.

She is a credible witness. She was in the company of someone else who also saw this person. She also saw the people with the broken-down car. She went to the police immediately.

The timing wasn't right for this person to have been Guede. It was around 10:30, well after Guede would have fled the scene, after the time when Meredith's phone received a text message from a tower that does not usually serve the cottage.

I think it's a red herring. But it may explain why the police seem to have been looking for a black suspect from the outset, before the physical evidence led them to Guede.

Thank you for clarifying that. I want to be accurate.

But I am surprised because Machiavelli suggested that there are so few black men in Perugia that the handsome man Amanda mentioned meeting once near her school when she first arrived in Perugia is probably Rudy.

 

[kwill]

It could certainly be done. In particular, it would be possible to do an accurate reconstruction of the murder itself, one that maps precisely to the bloodstains and other physical evidence in the room as well as Meredith's injuries.

There really is only one way to explain this evidence credibly.

. . .

None of the documentaries about the case have drilled down into the physical evidence to show what obviously happened. They all focus on the competing claims, the people at the center of the case, and the drama surrounding the trial. This reflects the understanding of commercial producers as to what interests an audience. It's also what is easiest for them to do - go out an interview people.

It's also terribly upsetting to think closely about what happened to her during those moments. People don't want to do it if they don't have to. I know that it's a home truth for guilters that there HAD to be multiple attackers, but this is not in fact what the physical evidence on her body and in her room shows. How to talk about that without forcing people to witness (in their minds) a horrible, senseless act of violence? You can't.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It was Crini.

I think it wasn't a good day for the prosecution. I'll wait for Tuesday, he will cover DNA issues and then Maresca and Pacelli will speak. As people said at IIP, hopefully they both will be ranting about Amanda, The Witch as they used to at last trials. This way we will move even further from the discussion about evidence, which is something that Crini started today. He, in fact, did talk about the knife, bra clasp, luminol prints,TOD and witnesses but there was no scenario, no timeline, no story, no version. There was nothing that could be regarded as a credible or reliable scenario as to what happened.

That is the supreme irony of the prosecution/high court stance on this. They say the evidence must be examined as a whole to reveal the story it tells, rather than having its value scrutinized piece by piece. Fair enough - except they cannot come up with a plausible story and timeline. Maybe Meredith was killed before 10 pm, or maybe it was after midnight, but hey, Curatolo says he saw Amanda/Raffaele so surely that must mean something... and don't forget the knife... that must mean Amanda plunged it into Meredith's throat, although why she would have had this knife in her possession at the cottage is baffling... and the bra fastener... it shows Raffaele was in the room, although we don't know why... choice of evil and all that.

Meanwhile the defense long ago came up with a completely plausible scenario that fits all of the meaningful and reliable evidence, and is in fact what happened that night.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rudy almost collided with a woman and her escort as Rudy was fleeing the scene. Does anyone recall what time that happened?

Machiavelli appears to believe that the black man that Amanda saw and described as "handsome" must be Rudy because there are so few black men in that neighborhood. Does the same logic apply that the black man running up the steps from the murder scene must be Rudy on the basis that "there are so few black men in that neighborhood"?

To me, the inclusion of the qualifying adjective "North" in Formica's description of the man in the collision as "North African" is very important.

That Formica consciously included that adjective tells me only one thing: that she knows - or think she knows - the difference in ethic appearance between "North Africans" and "Central Africans" (or "Sub-Saharan Africans"). Otherwise she would surely have just described the man in the collision as "African".

So if the above is true, then the only thing to establish is what Formica means by "North African", and how she thinks this ethnicity differs visually from other types of African ethnicity. I personally would suggest that people don't use these sorts of specific qualifiers ("North") unless they are aware of - and recognise - the ethnicity differences. I, for example, wouldn't describe someone as "Southern Afghan" in ethnic appearance unless I knew pretty well (or at least thought I did) how that ethnicity manifested itself visually. I happen to know that Northern/Western Afghans (Tajikis) are ethnically significantly different from Southern Afghans (Pashtun). But if I didn't know that, I'd simply say "Afghan". Actually, I suggest that most people would say "Kind of Asian/Indian". In other words, the level of specificity in the description is itself indicative of the level of knowledge (or assumed knowledge) of the person doing the describing.

So the only remaining question is what Formica thinks a "North African" looks like. I would suggest - based on the reasoning above - that it's very likely that she equates the term "North African" with someone of Maghrebi or Berber ethnicity - that is to say, someone with light brown skin tone and somewhat angular facial features, with an appearance far more closely linked to Southern and Eastern Mediterranean ethnic groups (Turkish, Cypriot, Palestinian) than to any Sub-Saharan-African groups.

On that basis, I think it's very unlikely that the person Formica and her boyfriend bumped into was Guede - who has classic West-African ethnicity of very dark skin, larger lips, slightly flattened nose and pronounced brow.

The way of finding out for certain, of course, would be to ask Formica directly a) what her definition of "North African" visual ethnicity is, and b) whether Guede fits the description of the man she saw.

 

[GreyFox]

Latza crap

Wow. Barbie's new piece on todays events. Notes: drops of blood overlooked in the bathroom by Knox.

Raf not who they really want.


"No other spots on the knife were retested during this appellate trial, and Crini asked that the original findings—that Kercher’s DNA is on the blade—be considered in their final verdict in the new appeal. He said that the new tests proved for sure that Knox was the author of the murder".

So although we find that the test showed no DNA of MK as important. These goons show it as once again Knox's DNA is on the handle.

I'm no Sherlock Holmes but I think I could do a better Job than Barbie and co.

http://http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/25/prosecutor-in-amanda-knox-appeal-knox-is-guilty.html

 

[Strozzi]

It could certainly be done. In particular, it would be possible to do an accurate reconstruction of the murder itself, one that maps precisely to the bloodstains and other physical evidence in the room as well as Meredith's injuries.

There really is only one way to explain this evidence credibly. I have gone through it many times. We see some blood over by the bed/nightstand, but not very much. That means she was injured there, but in such a way as to cause limited bleeding. This is consistent with the puncture wounds on the right side of her neck, inflicted by someone holding her from behind with a knife in his right hand, probably trying to control her.

Then we see signs of a disturbance over by her desk and window, more limited bleeding, bits of hair on the floor, and streaks of blood on the tiles, from scuffling. She tried to break free, but could not.

Then we have the extensive bleeding on the floor in front of the closet, and the spray of aspirated blood on the doors of the closet. This shows she was on her knees in front of the closet when she sustained a massive wound that cut into her windpipe, inflicted by someone who was behind and on top of her, who plunged the knife into the left side of her neck and pulled up and from left to right. That is the nature of the wound shown in the autopsy photos.

None of the documentaries about the case have drilled down into the physical evidence to show what obviously happened. They all focus on the competing claims, the people at the center of the case, and the drama surrounding the trial. This reflects the understanding of commercial producers as to what interests an audience. It's also what is easiest for them to do - go out an interview people.

Obviously, photos of the bloody murder scene are very difficult to watch. That may be another reason why most media did not want to show it.

I do have sympathy for the police officers and prosecutors who had to respond to that very bloody crime scene. For many of them, this may have been the first time in their lives that they have had to personally witness and step through such a graphic scene. They, of all people, should realize that when Amanda accompanied the police into the house the next day and looked at knives in the kitchen she became very upset at the knife-murder of her friend. Rather than recognize Amanda's reaction as being trauma over her friend's murder, the police and prosecutor chose to assign to it a meaning of guilt.

 

[GreyFox]

New prosecutor or not it looks like he wants to plays another game of screw your neighbor ! I hope like hell the defense shows a picture of this tiny drop of blood on the faucet or at least can describe for how small it really is. I would also show the picture of the pink bathroom that was given to the press. Explain how inflated this case has become.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a mistaken impression that won't go away

Wow. Barbie's new piece on todays events. Notes: drops of blood overlooked in the bathroom by Knox.

Raf not who they really want.


"No other spots on the knife were retested during this appellate trial, and Crini asked that the original findings—that Kercher’s DNA is on the blade—be considered in their final verdict in the new appeal. He said that the new tests proved for sure that Knox was the author of the murder".

So although we find that the test showed no DNA of MK as important. These goons show it as once again Knox's DNA is on the handle.

I'm no Sherlock Holmes but I think I could do a better Job than Barbie and co.

http://http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/25/prosecutor-in-amanda-knox-appeal-knox-is-guilty.html

Great title for your comment, but you need to edit your URL. Barbie wrote, "One of the most curious elements of the case has always been why Kercher’s bra was cut from her body after she was stabbed to death. Whoever removed her bra did so without removing her sweater, which was pulled above her breasts but still on her arms." This misleading statement is a little bit like the unfortunate pilot in the novel, "Lord of the Flies," who was dead but who would not lie down. The removal of the bra took place after she was stabbed but before she had breathed her last, IIUC. Nor is it clear to me that the bra was necessarily cut, as opposed to being ripped.

 

[LondonJohn]

Obviously, photos of the bloody murder scene are very difficult to watch. That may be another reason why most media did not want to show it.

I do have sympathy for the police officers and prosecutors who had to respond to that very bloody crime scene. For many of them, this may have been the first time in their lives that they have had to personally witness and step through such a graphic scene. They, of all people, should realize that when Amanda accompanied the police into the house the next day and looked at knives in the kitchen she became very upset at the knife-murder of her friend. Rather than recognize Amanda's reaction as being trauma over her friend's murder, the police and prosecutor chose to assign to it a meaning of guilt.

Exactly. It was confirmation bias and plain-old bad reasoning. They started with the notion that Knox was guilty, then sought to marry "Guilty Knox" with the evidence. The knife drawer was just one example. As I and many others have pointed out before, Knox's extreme reaction upon being shown the knives is easily as compatible (in fact, in my view, much more compatible) with "Innocent Knox".

This sort of dreadful thinking was apparently going on even today, in Crini's argument to the Nencini court regarding Knox's criminal slander aggravation charge:

Parlando con la madre, Knox disse: 'mi dispiace di aver messo di mezzo Lumumba. E che cosa significa questo - si è chiesto il pg - se non che costei era presente "sulla scena del delitto?"

Trans:

Speaking with her mother, Knox said: "I'm sorry I named Lumumba". And what can this mean - Crini asked - except that she was present "at the scene of the crime?"

http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news...chiedera-ergastolo-per-Amanda-e-Raffaele.html


The logical nonsense behind this assertion - that Knox can only have been sorry for naming Lumumba if she's actually been involved in the murder herself - is not only ridiculous but is also extremely unbecoming for a public prosecutor. Does Crini not realise that it's perfectly logically plausible for an innocent Knox to be genuinely remorseful at naming Lumumba? Does he truly think that only someone who was present at the murder could show remorse in such a circumstance (presumably because only such a person could "know for sure" that Lumumba wasn't involved)?

I trust that Dalla Vedova (and Knox's defence team in general) will have taken note of this, and will be demolishing its logical absurdity in their closing arguments.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the vision thing

Rather than recognize Amanda's reaction as being trauma over her friend's murder, the police and prosecutor chose to assign to it a meaning of guilt.

This needs to be repeated. I have been debating someone elsewhere who is convinced that because Raffaele asked questions of Luca in the car, he is guilty (the guilty want to find out what everyone else knows). Same kind of problem IMO.

 

[LondonJohn]

This needs to be repeated. I have been debating someone elsewhere who is convinced that because Raffaele asked questions of Luca in the car, he is guilty (the guilty want to find out what everyone else knows). Same kind of problem IMO.

You can excuse this sort of poor thinking if it's by ignorant/ill-informed/low-intellect internet commentators. You can't excuse it - or forgive it - if it's by professional journalists, police, prosecutors or judges. That's the way I see it.

 

[toto]

They both slandered on TV and radio as well as libeled but most likely only in England. In the US they would have to prove that statements are lies. In their cases the burden would be higher as public figures and the cost would be significant and the owners of the sites are not wealthy.

I would say there is no way that they will sue unless they just would like to uncover who those people are.

Thanks to you and LondonJohn for your comments. I thought that a legal acquittal would be the proof that any further libel/slander were by definition lies, though I accept a civil case could muddy the waters. Anyway am happy Amanda Knox is taking her slander conviction to the European court as I read on the IIP site just now.

 

[RoseMontague]

From Amanda's blog...

Today, my lawyers filed an appeal of my slander conviction with the European Court of Human Rights. My slander conviction was based on comments I made regarding Patrick Lumumba…comments that were coerced during a lengthy interrogation by Perugia police shortly before I was arrested in 2007. The interrogation took place in a language I barely spoke, without a lawyer present, and without the police informing me that I was a suspect in Meredith’s murder, which was a violation of my human rights. The police were the ones who first brought forth Patrick’s name saying they knew I was going to meet him the night of Meredith Kercher’s murder which was not true. I have stated many times that my original comments about Patrick were coerced by the police and not true.

 

[JREF2010]

Crini did bring some earth shaking perspective to the Florence courtroom today per BN.

“Why leave the toilet unflushed?” he asked.

 

[LondonJohn]

From Amanda's blog...

This is what we have long argued is the correct and appropriate thing for Knox to do regarding the criminal slander element. I am slightly confused about the timing though - there might be some reason why now is the right time to file with the ECHR, but I would have thought in principle that it would be better to wait until the other trial process is over.

As I and many others have argued before, Knox appears to have a strong case before the ECHR on the criminal slander conviction. I'd say that in addition to what Knox says on her blog about being denied her rights, being coerced, and being unable to properly understand what was happening, I think that the fundamental inability to prove the mens rea for this crime is also critical to the ECHR case (the coercion element is intimately linked to this). And in addition, the mistaken decision to try the criminal slander in continuance with, and concurrent with, the murder charges was a violation of her right to a fair trial on (ironically) both the criminal slander charge and the murder charges.

I hope Knox doesn't have to wait too long for at least an indication from the ECHR on whether her case has merit.

 

[Kaosium]

From Amanda's blog...

I think that's very good news.

 

[Strozzi]

I have been debating someone elsewhere who is convinced that because Raffaele asked questions of Luca in the car, he is guilty (the guilty want to find out what everyone else knows). Same kind of problem IMO.

If it is true that the guilty want to find out what everyone else knows, then we should be suspicious of Sophie Purton, Meredith's English friend. Sophie says she and Meredith walked together from the dinner towards their homes. Sophie claims they split up near Meredith's house and went their separate ways. The next day when Sophie came late to the police station she asked Amanda how Meredith was killed. Since the guilty try to find out what others know, we must now ask: Why was Sophie asking about the details of the murder? Is she guilty?

This is a good point for me to comment on what I have read about Sophie. I note that Sophie met Amanda once in Perugia before Meredith was killed. Sophie barely knew Amanda, although as revealed through Mignini Sophie was an easy ear to listen to gossip Meredith passed on to her British girlfriends about Amanda.

Sophie was a late arrival at the police station the day Meredith's body was discovered. Upon arriving she asked Amanda how Meredith was killed. Amanda, possibly then in the anger stage of grief, gave Sophie a blunt answer which Sophie found unsettling.

Mignini played Sophie. Among the several British girls, Sophie became Mignini's pet witness to dis Amanda on the witness stand.