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

[Chris_Halkides]

Sara Scazzi murder

They are not experts at catching the bad guys. They are however, experts at catching the wrong guys. See the MOF and Kercher cases.

Let's not forget about Sabrina Misseri and her mother being arrested for the murder of Sara Scazzi. That is even more absurd than the present case.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Wow, Amanda's replies to the haters on her blog are just incredible. Warm, clear, direct, responsive, intelligent.

To read them, and then to happen here upon frothy insistence that she's a lying sociopathic narcissistic party girl is to see through the looking glass. I'm getting a better-than-textbook education in how strong self-delusion can be.

Most people who are interested are getting a clear sense of what she is like. She's not locked in a cage any more. She can say whatever she wants. They can convict her, but it won't make the problem go away. The controversy will continue to fester. She will continue to sap the credibility of her persecutors.

The magistrates could put a stop to it, and they should for their own sake, but I fear they are too stupid and they view their interests too narrowly.

 

[Dan O.]

I am glad that Machiavelli posts here because his information on the Italian legal process is valuable to understand the court. His comments on the people, evidence, motivations are useful to read because he is the closest we have here to see into the mindset of the prosecution. Mignini won't post here; Machiavelli does and he is a surrogate into Mignini's mind.

You are bamboozled when he talks authoritatively about the Italian league system which you know little about. But he uses the same authoritative speech when he talks about subjects that we do know. How can he be trusted on the one when he so totally blows it on the other?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

They could come from the authoritarian follower being forced into illogical beliefs in order to support their chosen father figure.

I think that perfectly sums up what we are seeing here. The magistrates can't ever be wrong to someone who perceives them as being like the magistrate in Z, and who perceives that they are on the just side of the political struggle within Italy.

 

[kwill]

Most people who are interested are getting a clear sense of what she is like. She's not locked in a cage any more. She can say whatever she wants. They can convict her, but it won't make the problem go away. The controversy will continue to fester. She will continue to sap the credibility of her persecutors.

It reminds me a little of the savaging of Anita Hill. Her ordeal was of course much briefer, and she was a grown woman and a respected professional, but still there were many public figures -- and thousands of private ones -- ready to call her "a little bit slutty, a little bit nutty."

Her great crime was to speak honestly about being sexually harassed in her job, so it was necessary to attack her sexuality, her character, her motives, and her past. Today she's still a dignified, respected professional. There was a film about her last spring at SIFF, which I happened to catch just a few weeks after listening to Amanda's book. I wouldn't be at all surprised if -- years from today -- Amanda becomes the same sort of determined, dignified, quiet role model.

And the people who said all that hateful nonsense will be exposed for what they are.

 

[JREF2010]

The controversy will continue to fester. She will continue to sap the credibility of her persecutors.

I think Maresca will continue to sap his own credibility too. Crini just seems to be reading the script he was given and Pacelli has the effect of an old news article.

Controversy festering in Florence maybe....

1)Crini did add his own twist to the motive, and that did bring attention to the inability of the prosecution in making a logical motive and timeline. The "poop motive" was powerful. The "poop motive" made everyone think about the other 500 motives.

2)The other news interest was Amanda speaking up in her letter. This time the Judge didnt have Mignini press charges for mentioning the "slap" word.
It was read, but he didnt have to read it. Nencini maintained a poker face.

Everything else seems to be unchanged.
Maresca still selling the 2007 mantra and trying to convince us the Earth is still Flat.

The Defense states the same response, like a scientist trying to explain DNA to someone who has never heard of RFU and EDF's. The Defense still struggling to respond to all 5000 Motives.

Will Florence Judges have to decide on a verdict, as if rating a movie after seeing the advertisement clip? This trial seems to be nearly over already, the short version. Like squashing a six year event into a three paragraph resume'.

The ignorance and stupidity is the fear.
Would you rather be judged by C&V who spent many hours in the lab, with the prosecution DNA experts there, or have the DNA judged by someone who doesnt know anything about DNA really, because maybe they are more into Soccer.

 

[Grinder]

Unfortunately it seems that the lawyers for Amanda are once again missing the boat.

The keys to the prosecution need to be attacked and clearly motive isn't a key as the prosecution has no problem making up as many as possible.

I hope that Raf's lawyers will attack the confession head on asking how the police could have known that her statement was correct when in fact it wasn't. They need to pint out that the only way Amanda could have told them what they knew was if they led into saying exactly what they wanted her to say.

Then they have to go after Curatolo and make the case that he may have sounded credible to some but his testimony doesn't fit with the prosecution's theories and he was never tested for his ability to identify them in a timely fashion. Even had he not been a heroin addict, user that night and dealer waiting for trial, his testimony didn't make sense and had them there the wrong day.

Then show the footprints and ask the jury if they match Amanda or Raf. If it were allowed ala Perry Mason show somebody else's print and reveal that later proving the prints don't match.

I wished they would make a video and if not allowed in court put it up on YouTube.

Show the rock climber. Show the whole Ch5 segment. if Mignini can read into the record the DM story about the noise ticket why not?

 

[Dan O.]

Speaking of footprints, hasn't anybody tried to recreate the bathmat print as I instructed months ago? Such a simple demonstration should effectively shutdown the cleanup requirement for the missing heal.

 

[Onofarar]

Not that I was there, but I think the fact the judge commented that Amanda should be in court is probably a bad sign. It could have been a simple issue of admissibility, but I doubt it. If we're being honest, I would say it's not looking so good for the defendants.

I think Amanda had no choice but stay in the USA. In her place I would not trust or believe ANY assurances by the Italy government, judiciary or police that she could attend the trial, testify and return to the USA. Plus there is the risk of an attempt on her life by some nutjob while in Italy. Look what happen in 2007 when she put her trust in those people.

Do not forget the political aspect here, many (most ?) Italians have not forgotten (1) how some US airmen on a training mission escaped punishment for flying under a cable car - cutting the cable and plunging those in the car to their deaths or (2) the CIA agents who kidnapped a terrorist on the streets of Italy - snuck him out the country and then were convicted in abstentia for violating numerous Italian laws. AK serves as a convenient proxy for anti-American Italians to stand in the dock and serve time for these other crimes. Looking at the actions of the ISC with this in mind is the way I can comprehend how the ruled as they did.

 

[Machiavelli]

I still want to know if Machiavelli understands that the lady's odor molecules are her DNA and that the process by which he came in contact with them is contamination.

No, I don't think the odor molecules are DNA. I think it's completely different substances, comparatively simple molecules; should be a cocktail containing simple compounds as well as hormons and other enzymes. The DNA is a substance confined within the nucleus of a human cell, and must be completely shielded from external contact within the cell. You won't find DNA outside cell nuclei. You need to leave around live cells, not molecules, in order to leave some DNA.

 

[Mary_H]

You are bamboozled when he talks authoritatively about the Italian league system which you know little about. But he uses the same authoritative speech when he talks about subjects that we do know. How can he be trusted on the one when he so totally blows it on the other?

Strozzi didn't say the information was believable. Strozzi said, "His comments on the people, evidence, motivations are useful to read because he is the closest we have here to see into the mindset of the prosecution," which is very true.

 

[Machiavelli]

toto - I am glad that you say that Massei says nothing either way, and then you quote a passage from Massei which says the defendants were rather normal.
(...)

Where - in the quoted paragraph - does Massei say the suspects were "rather normal"?

 

[Bill Williams]

toto - I am glad that you say that Massei says nothing either way, and then you quote a passage from Massei which says the defendants were rather normal.
(...)

Where - in the quoted paragraph - does Massei say the suspects were "rather normal"?

Machiavelli - I get it, that you do not see it. Move on.

 

[RandyN]

Watching AK lawyer hand the judge her statement and his reaction to that reminded me of the scene from Oliver Twist...."Please sir"..... And the judge ...after making a un-rebutted and inappropriate comment about Knox attending the trial....pretend reads the document in court.

Did the lawyer ask the judge if Knox was required to attend in order to be fairly defended? No! Did the lawyer remind the judge that the Kerchers have also failed to attend and yet we have heard no judicial comment about their absence or the fact that they are represented by a lawyer in this court... just like Knox. And that these lawyers are perfectly capable and honest enough to deliver a written statement from Knox. But if there is some law against this then the judge should state that law or else keep his mouth shut and his opinion to himself until the time to consider the case has arrived.

This court is as dishonest and fake as any we have seen so far...and as a reminder I think even Hellmann was a sniveling coward for playing Italian ball and upholding a clearly ludicrous callunnia charge and then adding time so as to reduce Italian liability for false imprisonment.

The mafia looks like the Popes Saint softball team compared to the Italian judiciary. They don't even try to appear just, honest, or follow any logical pattern of laws...they just make stuff up as they go along and no one says boo!!!!

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli has no evidence that Raffaele forced the clasp. In fact, to force the clasp requires a force to be applied to the bra fabric and applying such a force to the fabric with ones bare hands would leave DNA behind. But there was no DNA of Raffaele's found on the fabric if that bra. What was found was the DNA of Rudy Guede on the back band where such force would deform the clasp and tear the bra apart.

No, the fact that the hook was forced is evidence from its deformation, an effect of pulling it, by someone who was unacccustomed to opening bra clasps. And what you say it's not true: you don't need to even touch the fabric in order to force the clasp. You can do it by just grabbing the metal parts with your fingers.

Sollecito's DNA - and no Guede's DNA - was on the metal clasp. And the clasp has been forced.

Guede's DNA trace was instead on a side of the bra, too far from the clasp to be useful point to apply force while attempting to open it. And there is no DNA trace of Guede on the clasp or close to it, remember that.

This fabric had not been cut except at the factory where it was manufactured. The stitch line where it had attached to the sholder strap and clasp are clearly visible. But Machiavelli believes that it had been cut because that permits him to believe that Amanda was involved.

There is no evidence a human hand tore this fabric. As long as the stich line is uncut that may offer an even grater resistence than the metal hook. You would need a considerable, rather extreme force to tear that with your hands. And there is no trace of hand grabbing its extremties. Actually, I think that you need a knife to cut the stiches. That's what a thin knife would easilly do.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - I get it, that you do not see it. Move on.

I also see that you fail to indicate it either.

 

[RandyN]

Where - in the quoted paragraph - does Massei say the suspects were "rather normal"?

It's right by the part where Mignini says this was a satanic ritual sex killing that should have happened on Halloween but was delayed due to a prior dinner engagement...why cant you understand that?

Oh and who was at this dinner? Why the mortal enemies Kercher and Knox...oddly both last names start with the letter K which is the secret Mason symbol meaning Kawitch...so Ka nox is the witch and if the Italians would simply have compared her weight to a duck this whole thing would be long ago solved and over with...

Massei is an idiot...who cares what he said...He said thousands of stupid illogical and nothing to do with the case things...and he was stupid enough to write down these stupid things for the whole world to review...kinda like Stefanoni recording her work...what a moron. She should have stuck to the Italian way....said she recorded it but that somehow the recording is lost, burned up, rusted...whatever. Clowns all defended by more clowns who never remember to remove their red rubber noses. (Especially Maresca

 

[Machiavelli]

Watching AK lawyer hand the judge her statement and his reaction to that reminded me of the scene from Oliver Twist...."Please sir"..... And the judge ...after making a un-rebutted and inappropriate comment about Knox attending the trial....pretend reads the document in court.

Did the lawyer ask the judge if Knox was required to attend in order to be fairly defended? No! Did the lawyer remind the judge that the Kerchers have also failed to attend and yet we have heard no judicial comment about their absence or the fact that they are represented by a lawyer in this court... just like Knox. And that these lawyers are perfectly capable and honest enough to deliver a written statement from Knox. But if there is some law against this then the judge should state that law or else keep his mouth shut and his opinion to himself until the time to consider the case has arrived.

(...)

So Randy explains he intends to lecture judges about law, honesty and legal praxis...

 

[Bill Williams]

No, the fact that the hook was forced is evidence from its deformation, an effect of pulling it, by someone who was unacccustomed to opening bra clasps. And what you say it's not true: you don't need to even touch the fabric in order to force the clasp. You can do it by just grabbing the metal parts with your fingers.

Just a question, Machiavelli.

When do you think in the 47 days that the bra-clasp lay uncollected on the floor was the clasp deformed? I mean, it was not found in the place it was originally photographed.

Can you demonstrate chain of possession of this as evidence to show that sometime in those 47 days some other mechanism did not cause its deformity.

If the defence has to prove contamination, the least you can do is prove it was not deformed by some other means in those 47 days when it's whereabouts was unknown. I mean, we know it was moved at least once by some unknown force in those 47 days. Can you prove it was not moved twice or more, say ten times?

 

[Machiavelli]

It's right by the part where Mignini says this was a satanic ritual sex killing that should have happened on Halloween but was delayed due to a prior dinner engagement...

Which I assume, this is another part of the Massei trial you are about to quote. Because I missed it.
When did Mignini say that?
I think never.