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

[LondonJohn]

I find it interesting that the knife appears to have dropped off the radar in the prosecution/civil parties closing arguments. It now appears to be a focus on a) the bra clasp; b) the partial print on the bathmat; c (most prominently) the "evidence" that this must have been a group attack.

I would therefore imagine that the defence teams ought to concentrate their closing arguments on comprehensively demolishing these specific areas. The bra clasp should be an incredibly easy one to discredit; the bathmat print may take a little more work, but in my opinion it's clearly possible to successfully refute any link to Sollecito, and to explain how and why it's actually compatible with Guede.

On the multiple attackers" issue, I think this is by far the most critical thing for the defence teams to refute. In my opinion, if the court accepts the idea that the attack "must" have been done by a group, then they are highly likely to reach the attendant conclusion that Knox and Sollecito formed part of this group (even though this would be a strictly illogical inference). I believe, therefore, that the defence must spend time and care explaining exactly how all the evidence is in fact compatible with a single powerful, dominant male wielding a large knife, who can force a smaller, terrified woman into compliant behaviour through threats and the promise that if she cooperates she will not be harmed.

Furthermore, it's critical (in my view) that the defence nails down the autopsy evidence in this area. Meredith Kercher was NOT covered in wounds and bruises, and nor did she show any marks associated with struggling against wrist/hand restraint. The defence needs to show that it's likely that Meredith was involved in a brief physical struggle at the beginning of the confrontation, after which she was forced into compliance - probably with the knife at her throat. If a woman of Meredith's stature and probable fear had a knife at her throat and an adrenaline-fueled powerful man telling her that if she fought back she'd be killed (and perhaps also that if she cooperated he wouldn't harm her at all), then it's easy to see how Guede might have been able to manoeuvre Meredith and himself into a position where Meredith was on all fours with Guede behind her. And all without any need whatsoever to restrain her arms or legs: a knife at the throat and a threatening demeanour would be all that was required.

I hope, for the sake of proper justice, that the defence teams can argue accurately, passionately, relevantly and successfully tomorrow and in January. I've statedmany times before that I've been less than impressed with the defence performances in both the previous two trials. But what's coming up tomorrow and in January is their last shot at getting it right. For the sake of justice, I hope they do.

 

[Machiavelli]

The point is, the case for guilt depends on rumor, gossip and hearsay, while the case for innocence demands rigorous adherence to facts and facts only. If you are not going to refrain from speculation about Amanda, then you should not refrain from speculation about Meredith.

There is nothing more intellectually dishonest than claiming not to be judgmental about private behaviors while simultaneously pointing out differences between Amanda and Meredith's sexual behaviors in a way that supports the prosecution's case that Amanda's sexual behavior is compatible with being a murderer while Meredith's sexual behavior is compatible with being a victim. That is the claim the original case relied on and that is the claim you continue to rely on, regardless of how many times you ask, "Who, me?"

I will point out differences only insofar as you bring up other people (Meredith) to point out "identities".
If you don't pick up Meredith, I won't point out any difference.

I am not going to refrain from speculation on one detail (and only one) of Knox's private life, such as the detail of having a sexal meeting with Rudy Guede, insofar as the speculation has a logical relevance to the case scenario.

I will refrain from speculating on details of Meredith's private life, insofar as the speculation won't have any relevance to the case scenario.

Amanda Knox is the suspect - not Meredith - and not all possible events of her sexual life are logically relevant, but how her personal lifestyle, habits and frequentations as she lived in Perugia may fit with a scenario of a meeting with Rudy Guede, is logically relevant.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why did Maresca tell the court that Amanda told her mother "I was there." ?

Cos Maresca is a dissembling weasel with an ulterior motive, who is perfectly prepared to willfully misrepresent Knox's words in order to try to win his argument?

 

[Strawberry]

Cos Maresca is a dissembling weasel with an ulterior motive, who is perfectly prepared to willfully misrepresent Knox's words in order to try to win his argument?

What did Amanda really say to her mother?

 

[LondonJohn]

I will point out differences only insofar as you bring up other people (Meredith) to point out "identities".
If you don't pick up Meredith, I won't point out any difference.

I am not going to refrain from speculation on one detail (and only one) of Knox's private life, such as the detail of having a sexal meeting with Rudy Guede, insofar as the speculation has a logical relevance to the case scenario.

I will refrain from speculating on details of Meredith's private life, insofar as the speculation won't have any relevance to the case scenario.

Amanda Knox is the suspect - not Meredith - and not all possible events of her sexual life are logically relevant, but how her personal lifestyle, habits and frequentations as she lived in Perugia may fit with a scenario of a meeting with Rudy Guede, is logically relevant.

Yes, but nobody has the entitlement to "imagine" a sexual congress between Knox and Guede when absolutely zero evidence exists that even suggests that this might possibly have been the case.

That's the way it works, you see: one is entitled to look for evidence of such a relationship between Knox and Guede. Because, as Machiavelli rightly points out, if there were any such evidence, it would clearly be highly relevant in the context of the murder. But if no such evidence is forthcoming, then one cannot simply substitute the "speculative theory" that they might well have had a sexual relationship (but that annoyingly there's no evidence to prove it).

If logical reasoning - not to mention judicial reasoning - worked in the manner Machiavelli describes, then we might as well rewind judicial systems to the time of inquisitions. To hell with evidence and proof! She's a witch! Burn her!!!

 

[LondonJohn]

What did Amanda really say to her mother?

She did say the words "I was there" in a prison conversation with her mother, but it's absolutely clear from the context of the conversation that the "there" was Sollecito's apartment, and not the girls' cottage at the time of the murder.

This one small incident is in fact an interesting and instructive microcosm of the gulf in reasoning and scepticism between so many on the pro-innocence/pro-acquittal side of the fence, and so many on the pro-guilt side. Anyone who attempts to argue that the "there" in that sentence was referring to the murder scene is demonstrating either exceptionally low reasoning skills or an unhealthy level of bias. Neither option does their general credibility any good.....

 

[Strawberry]

She did say the words "I was there" in a prison conversation with her mother, but it's absolutely clear from the context of the conversation that the "there" was Sollecito's apartment, and not the girls' cottage at the time of the murder.

This one small incident is in fact an interesting and instructive microcosm of the gulf in reasoning and scepticism between so many on the pro-innocence/pro-acquittal side of the fence, and so many on the pro-guilt side. Anyone who attempts to argue that the "there" in that sentence was referring to the murder scene is demonstrating either exceptionally low reasoning skills or an unhealthy level of bias. Neither option does their general credibility any good.....

Ah, I see. Thank you.

 

[Machiavelli]

Did I miss this entire thing being shown to be real? As I understand it one story in a minor paper is all that this whole kerfuffle is based on.

As I've said before this kind of stuff on both sides has been very frustrating.

Recently Tesla was talking about the gold watch of Rudy's neighbor that was found in Rudy's backpack but disappeared. The problem with that is that the only source that has been found was Nina Burleigh.

If Mach doesn't provide much more than the one article it means nothing. Did Crini mention it? Did Mignini mention it? Is there any official document that mentions this alleged drug dealing friend?(...)

The newspaper article(s) cite the name of the defence lawyers, which is quite enough if you need a verifying of the information and sources.
I also made a personal verification about the information through a few phone calls in Perugia.

To me, it is certainly enough. But if you are not sure and want to get more precse info about the proceedings, you can take contacts with: Il Corriere dell'Umbria; attorneys Aurelio Pugliese, Maria Laura Antonini, Angelo Frioni; the chancellery of the GIP/GUP office in the Perugia and the prosecution office of Perugia.

http://www.umbria24.it/amante-di-amanda-knox-a-processo-per-spaccio-di-cocaina/15156.html

This will be never mentioned by a prosecutor in the Knox-Sollecito case, because their trial was concluded in 2009.
This proccedings for drug dealing are subsequent, they are from 2011.

The prosecution cannot enter this element as evidence in 2011 or 2013, insofar as this does not belong to those evidence chapters that were re-opened on appeal after request by defence or prosecution.

 

[LondonJohn]

So was Knox arranging drug deals (or even drugs-for-sex deals) in these alleged phone calls then? Is there evidence that this was the nature of the phone calls?

I would repeat again for comparison: was everyone had Jimmy Savile's mobile number (and who had telephone contact with him on his mobile number) also involved in Savile's sexual abuse activities?

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, but nobody has the entitlement to "imagine" a sexual congress between Knox and Guede when absolutely zero evidence exists that even suggests that this might possibly have been the case.

That's the way it works, you see: one is entitled to look for evidence of such a relationship between Knox and Guede. Because, as Machiavelli rightly points out, if there were any such evidence, it would clearly be highly relevant in the context of the murder. But if no such evidence is forthcoming, then one cannot simply substitute the "speculative theory" that they might well have had a sexual relationship (but that annoyingly there's no evidence to prove it).

(...)

It should be clear that I am not going to "substitute" that evidence. There are elements which allow conjectures (like the fact that Knox said she met the most beautiful black man she ever seen, they promised to meet each other, and remained silent about the name of this acquaintance; or the fact that she had phone contacts with cocaine dealers in Piazza Grimana; etc.) but I have no intent to make a cornerstone piece of circumstantial evidence out of this.
There are three kinds of "evidence", of degrading weight: prove (direct evidence -or "proof": one piece is sufficient for unequivocal conclusion), indizi (pieces of circumstantial evidence) and congetture (elements below the strenght of circumstantial evidence).
This belongs certainly to the third category. It is a third rate pice of evidence.

However, this piece of evidence has anyway a use, since it is sufficient fot two related uses: 1) to counter the specific defence argument that there is valid behavioural/profile evidence opposing a scenario of a meeting between Knox and Guede; 2) to show that a scenario with the presence of Guede and Knox being at home together is possible, reasonable, not something unrealistic.

 

[Machiavelli]

So was Knox arranging drug deals (or even drugs-for-sex deals) in these alleged phone calls then? Is there evidence that this was the nature of the phone calls?

I would repeat again for comparison: was everyone had Jimmy Savile's mobile number (and who had telephone contact with him on his mobile number) also involved in Savile's sexual abuse activities?

No, but let's say that a paedophile, known for being le'ts say a porn trader, not otherwise known for being related to Savile, is caught having Jummi Savile's number in his phone records, well, an investigator might speculate about a connection between the two things.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, but let's say that a paedophile, known for being le'ts say a porn trader, not otherwise known for being related to Savile, is caught having Jummi Savile's number in his phone records, well, an investigator might speculate about a connection between the two things.

Ah yes, because Knox was well-known for the consumption of hard drugs* and for whoring out her body in exchange for free drugs such as cocaine. Yes: I see now that your analogy works perfectly! Well done!




* Rather than the same marijuana that was probably also being used by half the student population of Perugia, plus Meredith, Laura, Filomena and all the boys downstairs (one of whom, Meredith's casual boyfriend, was growing marijuana on a semi-commercial basis)..........

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, was the guy who was prosecuted for drug dealing really an active drug dealer? Could it be that he was not a dealer at all but was investigated because his phone number was in Knox's phone or because he had spoken with her once by phone? Perhaps he was a pot smoker, like half of all younger adults in Perugia, and had the misfortune of having a phone call with Knox against whom the PLE are desperate to discover or create negative evidence for their own vindication.

It reminds me of Curatalo who was arrested on an old drug charge (it was by then several years old, wasn't it?) when the prosecutor needed him to be a pliable witness (on his 3rd serious criminal (murder?) case) and isolate him from contact with journalists or defense counsel - lest he say something that shows the media or defense counsel that he doesn't know what he was talking about. Or had been prompted to construct testimony 8 months after he told the police he saw nothing in the park on the night of Kerscher's murder.

Was arrested by whom? You think a prosecutor arrested him?

Had he been prompted to construct a testimony, he would have provided a compelling one, talking about a closer distance instead of 30 meters and a timing perfectly fit with the prosecution scenario, that does not create any problem.

 

[JREF2010]

The strange thing is that the Nencini court might still very well convict, even if on some lesser charge. True, motive is not a necessary element of "proof", but if anyone is to have confidence that they have convicted the right people...

.... with the DNA evidence now gone:
.... with Crini now saying that the kitchen knife now IS a match for the bedsheet outline (something no one in 6 years has ever dared say for fear of embarrassment!)​

"Motive" simply becomes more key. And the fact that the half-dozen motives the prosecution/Maresca has floated out there are so diverse... it is a matter of losing confidence in the prosecution/Maresca that they know what they're talking about.

I think back to Piers Morgon, on CNN, in the days after the March 2013 ISC quashings happened. Gloria Allred and Jeffrey Toobin were on discussing the ISC rational for quashing an acquittal - one of which was the inexplicable revisiting of the sex-game-gone-wrong theory.

Morgan is an unabashed friend of John Kercher's. But if you can find that clip on YouTube, pay attention to Morgan's own reaction to the implication that Meredith, too, was somehow involved in a sex-game, BEFORE it went wrong. Remember it's still allegedly a "sex game". But there's always that rider which should offend the Kerchers, as it offended Morgan that night, "which went wrong."

Morgan should never lose that sense of outrage. And what has happened since March 2013?

- Crini has ignored the sex game, gone wrong or otherwise!
- Crini talks about Rudy taking a dump, and this sparking homicide in two others who didn't even use that bathroom!
- Maresca, representing the victim's family, has ignored the sex game, gone wrong or otherwise!
- Instead he talks about a drugged fuelled frenzy, with a drug known for mellowing people!​

Ok folks - motive is NOT something required in a case. Perhaps Maresca is right, the motive might only be known to the perp(s).

Yet it is the Maresca's of the world, it is the Mignini's of the world, it is the Crini's of the world who simply cannot let motive go.... meaning, unless they can rant on about sex and/or drugs there really IS nothing else to talk about.

They don't need to have ironclad proof of each element, but it sure would ne nice if ONE guilter would attempt a detailed, comprehensive timeline which explains this case; while also including RS and AK.

It's been six years and there's been THOUSANDS of posts about this. You'd think ONE of them would be able to manage that.

Maybe the angle of the mountain of different motives is to possibly sway each Judge with a different motive.

Judge 1 says Guilty based on the sex crime orgy satanic theory, while Judge 2 votes guilty based on the non-premeditated accidental theory, while Judge 3 agrees with Crini and the Poop Motive because he doesnt like a picture he saw in the Daily Mail of Amanda and Raffaele, and Judge 4 votes guilty because they read the Massei and think Rudy was the main evil and the two followed his evil....etc..etc..

"Throw enough s*&t at the Judges and see what sticks..." motive for the Persecutors..

Is that how you find the truth and convict the right people? of course not.

 

[Bill Williams]

Was arrested by whom? You think a prosecutor arrested him?

Had he been prompted to construct a testimony, he would have provided a compelling one, talking about a closer distance instead of 30 meters and a timing perfectly fit with the prosecution scenario, that does not create any problem.

What I'm relieved to hear you admit is that Curatolo presents problems. The most basic problem is that he cannot really distinguish between Oct 31 and Nov 1.

 

[Bill Williams]

She did say the words "I was there" in a prison conversation with her mother, but it's absolutely clear from the context of the conversation that the "there" was Sollecito's apartment, and not the girls' cottage at the time of the murder.

This one small incident is in fact an interesting and instructive microcosm of the gulf in reasoning and scepticism between so many on the pro-innocence/pro-acquittal side of the fence, and so many on the pro-guilt side. Anyone who attempts to argue that the "there" in that sentence was referring to the murder scene is demonstrating either exceptionally low reasoning skills or an unhealthy level of bias. Neither option does their general credibility any good.....

All this cycles back to Andrea Vogt's original report of the "I was there" comment. The mitigating factor for Vogt is that she did not choose the headline (which was "I was there") from her otherwise rather suspect reporting in the piece in question.

Still f one goes back into the 6th continuation of this thread, you\ll see Machiavelli's OWN rationale for still assuming some admission of guilt on Knox's part. Machiavelli can speak for himself (!!!) but what I got from his rather skewed explanation was that Andrea's reporting was basically sound; regardless of the obvious meaning when put in context, that she was sticking to what she's always said - "I was at Raffaele's".

Machiavelli would have you believe it was some sort of Mafia code Knox and her mom were engaged in. That explanation was pure dietrology.

 

[kwill]

There are elements which allow conjectures (like the fact that Knox said she met the most beautiful black man she ever seen, they promised to meet each other, and remained silent about the name of this acquaintance; or the fact that she had phone contacts with cocaine dealers in Piazza Grimana; etc.) but I have no intent to make a cornerstone piece of circumstantial evidence out of this.
There are three kinds of "evidence", of degrading weight: prove (direct evidence -or "proof": one piece is sufficient for unequivocal conclusion), indizi (pieces of circumstantial evidence) and congetture (elements below the strenght of circumstantial evidence).
This belongs certainly to the third category. It is a third rate pice of evidence.

My read of this is that lacking any of type one or type two, the prosecution has leaned on shifting emphases on various pieces of type three.

Type one, according to the prosecution, includes DNA from the victim being found on a knife that was not the murder weapon, tho' the tests the supposedly resulted in this finding can't be repeated and weren't done professionally. It also includes DNA from one of the defendants being found on a clasp that was out of the police's custody for six weeks, and when found had been moved three feet from where they last saw it. That's the type one total.

Type two, according to the prosecution, includes Amanda Knox's sexual history, Amanda Knox's noise ticket, Amanda Knox's failure to clean a European toilet properly, Amanda Knox's loudness, Amanda Knox's failure to show what they considered appropriate emotion after her friend's death, Raffaele Sollecito's boarding school porn-viewing habits, Raffaele Sollecito's comic collection, and Raffaele Sollecito's habit of carrying a pocket knife.

Type three is whatever sells newspapers.

Those two are innocent.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let's be a little more truthful here.

Gubbiotti opened the knife bag in the police station.

At the time, he was compiling a report of the seized items of evidence. If we look at the Stefanoni's index of exhibits, we can see that there were several reports generated during the course of the examination. When Gubbiotti refers to his cataloging activity, what he means, is that he was compiling a Report of the evidence. So, let's see what he was working with, when he was handling the knife.

Item 36 is indicated as being included in a report of "evidence taken carried out by the Mobile Squad of Perugia report dated 11/06/2007, 11/07/2007 and 11/16/2007." (Note that there is no other reference to a "report" dated 11/06/2007, only to seizures pursuant to a "decree of corporal inspection" dated 11/6. These seizures were of items on the person of Sollecito, Knox and Lumumba at the time of their arrest (e.g., pocket knife, shoes, etc.) and DNA swabs. Rep. 36, taken from Sollecitio's apartment, would not be included within this group of "corporal seizure" items.)

Elsewhere in the index, we see what is likely the same report described as "report of investigation exhibits and seizure dated 11/07/2007 and relative corrected mistakes dated 11/16/2007." So, we have coming from the Mobile Squad a report dated 11/7/2007, which was corrected on 11/16/2007. It appears that this is the report that Gubbiotti was working on, which includes the knife.

So, what else was enumerated in the Mobile Squad's Investigation report dated November 7 (as amended on November 16)? Well, there are a huge number of exhibits from the "murder room".

So, basically, when Gubbiotti unsealed the knife, he was at the time engaged in a process of writing a report enumerating, among other things, many items of evidence from the murder room, including many bloody items. Obviously, he was at the very least handling the evidence bags for those items, which had previously been handled by the police who had collected the evidence items.

Thus, whether Gubbiotti had been in Kercher's room on the day that he handled the knife is irrelevant. He had tansported to his office, and was handling, Kercher's DNA at the time.

Gubbiotti did not transport any item from Meredith's house. Absolutely not.
Someone else transported the items, which were already sealed in bags.

Gubbiotti was at the police station and started working on items as they had been already carried there. They had been carried there separatly (those from Sollecito's apartment and those from Kercher's flats). Gubbiotti did not even touch any item. At best he touched the bags.

But when he dealt with the knife, he put on brand new gloves.
He put on new gloves both to handle the two knifes that day, the small and the big one from Sollecito's apartment.
At the time when he handled the knife, he had handled other five items from Sollecito's apartment.

So he handled the kitchen knife with clean new gloves, and without wearing any bloody clothes or anything that kind.
And in fact, he did not transfer any DNA of Meredith or of others to any other item. He handled a bag containing boxers worn by Knox - a "bloody item" - but no DNA of Knox was transferred on the other items.

 

[Mary_H]

Was arrested by whom? You think a prosecutor arrested him?

Had he been prompted to construct a testimony, he would have provided a compelling one, talking about a closer distance instead of 30 meters and a timing perfectly fit with the prosecution scenario, that does not create any problem.

Not if PLE helped him out. They tend to provide much-less-than-compelling evidence, because they assume anything they offer by virtue of their authority will pass muster with a public they think of as unobservant and non-analytical.

 

[Machiavelli]

What I'm relieved to hear you admit is that Curatolo presents problems. The most basic problem is that he cannot really distinguish between Oct 31 and Nov 1.

No. Abolutely not. He is perfectly able to distinguish between Oct. 31 and Nov. 1., because of the different things that happened, and anyway that's irrelevant, because the date is derived "ex aliunde" (from elsewhere).

The only problem with his testimony is the 30 meters distance.