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

[Bill Williams]

Does anyone know how many if any recorded calls and conversations between A and R between the 1st and 5th were made where they didn't slip Rudy's name in? Are there transcripts?
Assuming innocence, these would be of great interest to the defence, (useless to the prosecution), but I have not heard them mentioned.

All of them.

If there'd been even one, that would have been a smoking gun. And I would be a guilter.

 

[moodstream]

They are guilty because the police nore anyone else could fabricate that set of evidence, nor it is reasonable to assume that anyone fabricated any part of it.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I believe you have a strong bias towards guilt that is not a conclusion from fact. I say this based on the evidence you offer:

The most obvious piece of evidence to me was:

Knox and Sollecito's lies,

the repeated false accusation including Knox's memoriales,


What you consider lies, and your assertion of a false accusation, and your view of anything Knox wrote, cannot be used as evidence of guilt because they only have meaning as evidence of guilt if she is guilty.

Please pay attention to this point: This so-called evidence of guilt is wholly dependent upon her guilt for its validity. It is not circumstantial evidence as the luminol footprints or the bathmat print might be. The evidence of what you perceive to be lies and false accusations are indirect reports about the crime, from a source you consider to be guilty. The reason you think they are lies is because you think she is guilty. You are not reasoning to the conclusion that she is guilty from this evidence. It cannot be done.

the autopsy report,

You made this assertion just a little while ago, and when asked to say why the autopsy report led you to this belief, you instead relied on other sources to help you reconstruct a version of how the killing might have happened. This is not evidence it is conjecture.

the autopsy report does not name either Knox or Solecito. The closest you get to evidence is the assertion that more than one person had to be involved. This assertion is far from a necessary fact, no matter how unwavering you are in making it.

A typical inexperienced murderer tries to strangle the victim, but it's a lot harder than the movies make it appear ( or so I am given to understand). Victims of an inexperienced killer often have signs of both strangulation and stabbing.

the luminol footprints,

This at least is evidence. The problem of course is that Knox lived there. Her DNA should be everywhere. Finding it, even alongside of Meredith's is not surprising.

What is surprising is that the best theory you have requires a very special thinning so that its negative for blood but still blood. This is mere conjecture. This puts that evidence in the "it could be, under a very unusal circumstance " level of validity. That is to say, weak.

the bathmat print,
This is evidence. Just not clear evidence. You choose to believe it. I choose to believe that you choose to believe it because fo your strong bias against Knox and Sollecito. The bathmat has been argued here by you and others down seemingly to the molecular level. It doesn't look like Sollecito's to me. Even the prosecution stops at compatable. What's compatable?

the staged burglary.
This is hardly a given. Many objective, experienced professionals conclude it is not staged. They could not do this if it were obviously staged. Time was when the main assertion for the staging was the difficulty of entry. Now that this assertion has been blasted out of the water, you just carry on as if it never mattered. This is one reason I think you are biased and not reasoning to the conclusion of guilt.


I also consider Capezzali and Monacchia obviously credible,

As others have pointed out, objective testing in both US and UK news shows proved a scream from Ms Kercher could not be heard. To bad for the Italian justice system that they have to rely for a fact on things everyone around the world can see via objective news reporting to be false.



Filomena

Filomena reported no fighting, hostility, or friction between Ms Kercher and Ms Knox. Filomena's testimony favors Knox's innocence.

and Anna Donnino credible as well.

How about the rest of the interrogating crew? Didn't they all sue Knox's parents ( and Knox herself?) for slander about the cuffing to the head remark, and didn't they all to a one refuse to show up in court to make the allegation before a judge?

And isn't one of them suspected of carving a phallic symbol on her ex husbands car, and slashing a psychologists tires? There someone you can count for the truth.

And isn't at least one other in trouble for looking up personal dirt on people at the behest of someone else in the department. I think two are involved with this.

Oh, these are trustworthy people alright.

 

[Samson]

All of them.

If there'd been even one, that would have been a smoking gun. And I would be a guilter.

I realise I worded the question badly, I know the proof of no mention of Rudy is intrinsic. But is there a number of calls known about, eg 0,1 or many? If I were a defence lawyer I would be introducing their content in spades, if it is accessible, as their content would be exculpatory. What I imagine is the details are mysteriously completely unavailable.

 

[Grinder]

I realise I worded the question badly, I know the proof of no mention of Rudy is intrinsic. But is there a number of calls known about, eg 0,1 or many? If I were a defence lawyer I would be introducing their content in spades, if it is accessible, as their content would be exculpatory. What I imagine is the details are mysteriously completely unavailable.

At least they should point out that in all of these thousands of calls and the recordings made in the police station the only thing introduced was the "I was there" statement. If they were aware that they were being recorded from the beginning and had enough discipline not to say anything for days right after the murder, it doesn't make sense they "forgot" after being warned by their attorneys.

 

[charlatan]

Spot on. I do think the PIP somehow can't admit that Amanda comes across as less than a dean's list student and her choice of words, well let's say they don't always make sense.

In fact, it is a little like the PGP and Curatolo. They should admit he is not credible and the PIP should admit that Amanda at best tries to use words she doesn't understand or use correctly. I can just imagine how she came across when being interviewed by the police.

The sad part is her demeanor hurts her case because many could perceive her stilted style as a cover for guilt.

I can't go in for this sort of victim blaming. People should not have to be especially diplomatic or clever or well-spoken to avoid police and judicial harassment, full stop.

 

[billyryan]

Does anybody Know who this is

 

[Antony]

I can't go in for this sort of victim blaming. People should not have to be especially diplomatic or clever or well-spoken to avoid police and judicial harassment, full stop.

Heartily agree. I find Grinder's constant criticism of the 2 wrongly-prosecuted students quite perplexing.

 

[platonov]

Leave Britney alone

Dotty stuff snipped

I don't get it.

Apparently.

top notch legal stuff snipped

Note also that I am guessing that Knox would have found another communication from Maresca sufficient, provided that he made it clear that he was acting on the instruction of the Kerchers. My guess, therefore, is that she did not mean that she needed the Kerchers to contact her directly (i.e. not through an intermediary). But those who think she's a "psycho control biatch" can continue to convince themselves that she was further "taunting" the Kerchers, if it makes them feel better about their own sad, sorry lives. It doesn't matter to me, and it shouldn't matter to Knox, what these broken individuals think or write.

Well what can I say in response to this and other replies except express my relief that ..

A - neither you or ‘Amanda’ are upset by my observation.
B - the quality of debate here has not suffered as a result of Supernaut’s absence.

As to the ‘evidence’ – there is none.

It’s a vast conspiracy against Britney – haven’t you guys heard.

 

[davefoc]

Everyone makes a mistake now and then.

* At least one word above was intentionally misused for affect

And one in that very sentence!

Oh, I see. You thought people were going to read that far down. Carry on.

Ugh, I don't have much interest in this particular aspect of the discussion and I did in fact skip over Grinder's entire post on this, but thanks to this comment I thought I'd give it a shot to see if I couldn't find the misused word.

For the record I missed:
1. convoy instead of convey (found by Diocletus)
2. affect instead of effect (found by Grinder)

So maybe the misused word has already been identified? All I found was to (hee hee) grammatical mistakes and a confusing sentence:
3.

Well i didn't say she owed anybody anything. It is my impression that she isn't as savvy as she thinks she is.

4.

I was also pointing out that the writing she does seems to filled with dramatic attempts and the usage of words beyond her knowledge.

This one was interesting. Was "to be filled" intended or "too filled" intended?
5.

The videos of her in [a] "natural" setting have her a giggly her but difficult to judge based on those reports.

This sentence wasn't clear enough for me to figure out what was incorrect or misused. The clarity apparent in most of Grinder's posts left us here, but I think I might know what he intended.


OK, I think I have failed to find the misused word. But maybe I found it in issue five, above? For the record, despite a few stumbles by Grinder in this post, his writing and grammar are sufficiently skillful that I don't think he is a murderer.

 

[Strozzi]

All of them.

If there'd been even one, that would have been a smoking gun. And I would be a guilter.

I remember reading that the PLE lost (i.e, did not produce) the transcripts of 20+ phone conversations made by Amanda and Raffaele before they were arrested late at night on Nov 5/6. I do not know if these were ostensibly calls between the two of them or if it included calls either of them made to third parties, such as Amanda to her mother or Raffaele to his sister Vanessa.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can't go in for this sort of victim blaming. People should not have to be especially diplomatic or clever or well-spoken to avoid police and judicial harassment, full stop.

While I totally agree with what you say, I also think that people can sometimes do/say/write things that may have unintended negative consequences.

And in this instance, I do think there's a grain of truth to what Grinder is saying (although I think he is overstating the situation). I think that Knox and Sollecito would both have been best served by issuing no (ZERO) public pronouncements about the case itself. I don't think Sollecito should be on facebook talking about elements of the case. I don't think Knox should have her blog discussing elements of the case. I don't think that either Knox or Sollecito should have published their books before a total conclusion of the case.

I think that so long as the case against them is/was ongoing, Knox and Sollecito should have restricted their out-of-court communications to purely statements issued through their legal representatives. They could have vigorously protested their innocence in this way, and got across most of what they might want to convey to a wider audience. I think that the way they are communicating directly can only be neutral or negative to them in regard to the court process. I know that if I were sitting in judgement on someone, I probably wouldn't be overly impressed at the levels of public pronouncements coming directly from the mouths/pens of those I was trying. And I can't help wondering whether the Supreme Court judges might in some small way have been negatively influenced by the book publications etc (they shouldn't have, of course, but even Italian SC judges can take personal umbrage that can affect their decision-making).

And I think that Knox's email/letter to the court probably didn't achieve much at all, and in fact only served to highlight the fact that she wasn't there in person. I personally think she would have been better served by having CdV say something in his closing argument along similar lines: "My client Amanda Knox is not here in front of you. She cannot afford the cost of constant trips to Italy, and she is afraid. But she wants me to tell you that she categorically protests her total innocence. She had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Meredith, whom she considered a friend..... etc etc"

On that note, I reiterate my personal belief that the retention of dalla Vedova and Ghirga as Knox's lawyers has been a dreadful disaster for her. Dalla Vedova seems totally out of his depth, and his closing arguments appeared to be totally unfocused and largely irrelevant. STOP GOING ON ABOUT MOTIVE! Mention it, of course, but sometimes people kill other people for no discernible motive whatsoever! I am, frankly, frightened, at dalla Vedova's trial strategy. I think Ghirga appears to be a better criminal lawyer, but he's undynamic and uninspiring.

I think that an incredible amount now rests on Bongiorno's closing. To me, it's blindingly obvious that she needs to a) debunk the "multiple attacker" issue; b) show how there's zero credible, reliable evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's participation; c) show how all the evidence is in fact completely compatible with Guede acting alone; d) go into more detail on attacking or explaining certain specific crucial items of evidence/testimony (Curatolo, Capezzali, ToD, phones, computer activity, blood and DNA evidence, footprints, break-in evidence, Quintavalle, actions of Knox/Sollecito after the murder.)

It seems very clear to me now that Knox will again need to rely on Sollecito's lawyer to obtain her acquittal. Her defence - and that of Sollecito as well - would, in my view, have been enormously enhanced if she had retained an experienced criminal defence lawyer with a strong track record in defending murder or other serious crimes against the person.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well what can I say in response to this and other replies except express my relief that ..

A - neither you or ‘Amanda’ are upset by my observation.
B - the quality of debate here has not suffered as a result of Supernaut’s absence.

As to the ‘evidence’ – there is none.

It’s a vast conspiracy against Britney – haven’t you guys heard.

I'm sorry - I hardly understood a word of this. And it doesn't on the face of it appear to be addressing my post in any substantive way at all. Could you rephrase it in language that an idiot like me might understand? And who is Britney?


ETA: In an on-topic advancement of the topic, what might you have as any kind of evidence that, as you wrote, "the victim’s family ask via their lawyer that Knox remove the link to the MK donation fund from her website"? I don't see the Kerchers' instruction mentioned anywhere in Maresca's outburst. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[Strozzi]

Please recognize that Knox and Sollecito each needed to sell their books to earn income to help pay their legal bills and family living and support costs. They had no choice but to publish and get paid as soon as possible.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please recognize that Knox and Sollecito each needed to sell their books to earn income to help pay their legal bills and family living and support costs. They had no choice but to publish and get paid as soon as possible.

I realise that this was an issue, given the glacial nature of the Italian criminal justice system. I still think they would have been best served holding back if they possibly could have done. It's an insidious* (sic) position to be placed in, I understand.


* Just my little joke, a propos another post dialogue above......

 

[Grinder]

I can't go in for this sort of victim blaming. People should not have to be especially diplomatic or clever or well-spoken to avoid police and judicial harassment, full stop.

Well it isn't victim blaming. As mentioned both Amanda and Raf stated themselves that their behaviors attracted the attention of the police. The FOA/PIP made a big deal about her being an honor student and on the dean's list. Her writing doesn't seem to substantiate that.

One more time, I'm not saying she needs to be "especially diplomatic or clever or well-spoken to avoid police and judicial harassment". I'm saying that her flair for the dramatic and choice of words doesn't help her at this point.

I was a in jury panel for a murder trial. The victim defendant wore a turtleneck and a suit jacket. He most assuredly had a neck tat and was trying to look like someone he wasn't by wearing those clothes. He was following good advice.

Saying they did or are doing things that hurt them is not implying quilt or anything else. Full stop!

For the record, despite a few stumbles by Grinder in this post, his writing and grammar are sufficiently skillful that I don't think he is a murderer.

Dear me - thanks for the support - I was just trying to have a little fun and don't use an editor (obviously) and as Mary has pointed out, not even the preview function.

My point remains she should have people review what she makes public including legal review.

 

[LondonJohn]

Pahahahaha!

A pro-guilt "citizen journalist" has revealed IMPORTANT BREAKING NEWS regarding Knox's application to the ECHR. It's a stock reply from the ECHR to his request :

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your mail and your interest in the Court.

An application lodged by Amanda Marie Know (sic) has indeed been registered by the Registry of the Court on 6 December 2013. The Court will examine it in due time.

With best wishes,

ECHR – Press Unit

And there's a second one confirming that Knox is representied in the application by..... GASP!!..... none other than....... her lead criminal defence lawyer, Carlo dalla Vedova!!!! Breaking news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, by the way, interesting isn't it that the press unit of the court refers to itself by the initials "ECHR". I seem to remember a particularly sanctimonious fake-lawyer pro-guilt commentator constantly attempting to grab some moral high cround by pompous insistence on writing "ECtHR". It turns out that the people who work for the court don't use that term! Who'd a thunk it?! VERRRRRY undude!

 

[charlatan]

While I totally agree with what you say, I also think that people can sometimes do/say/write things that may have unintended negative consequences.

No one should take my commentary to mean that I wholeheartedly endorse Amanda's and Raffaele's actions as a strategy -- I have very different ideas about what I would (hopefully) do in either of their shoes -- my point is simply that it's unfair to criticize them for behavior that, while perhaps not being strategically optimal, is nonetheless well within normal bounds even for people who aren't facing the constant stress of having their lives under a microscope. To listen to some people here you'd think Amanda was Damien Echols (now there's a polarizing exoneree!).

After enduring so many grueling years of this process I'm not going to begrudge them self-expression without excessive filtering. What's their freedom worth otherwise?

 

[LondonJohn]

And another "by the way":

Six calendar months from 13th June 2013 (the publication of the motivation of the SC) is........

13th December 2013



(Knox filed her ECtHR ECHR application on 25th November 2013, and it was registered by the court on 6th December 2013. Well within the six-month limit, in other words......)

 

[LondonJohn]

No one should take my commentary to mean that I wholeheartedly endorse Amanda's and Raffaele's actions as a strategy -- I have very different ideas about what I would (hopefully) do in either of their shoes -- my point is simply that it's unfair to criticize them for behavior that, while perhaps not being strategically optimal, is nonetheless well within normal bounds even for people who aren't facing the constant stress of having their lives under a microscope. To listen to some people here you'd think Amanda was Damien Echols (now there's a polarizing exoneree!).

After enduring so many grueling years of this process I'm not going to begrudge them self-expression without excessive filtering. What's their freedom worth otherwise?

Oh I agree. I can't begin to imagine what it must be like to be in their position, and I am not criticising their intentions in what they did, especially with the pressures on them. I just think that what they did might possibly have unintended negative consequences for them.

 

[Grinder]

While I totally agree with what you say, I also think that people can sometimes do/say/write things that may have unintended negative consequences.

And in this instance, I do think there's a grain of truth to what Grinder is saying (although I think he is overstating the situation). I think that Knox and Sollecito would both have been best served by issuing no (ZERO) public pronouncements about the case itself. I don't think Sollecito should be on facebook talking about elements of the case. I don't think Knox should have her blog discussing elements of the case. I don't think that either Knox or Sollecito should have published their books before a total conclusion of the case.

I think that so long as the case against them is/was ongoing, Knox and Sollecito should have restricted their out-of-court communications to purely statements issued through their legal representatives. They could have vigorously protested their innocence in this way, and got across most of what they might want to convey to a wider audience. I think that the way they are communicating directly can only be neutral or negative to them in regard to the court process. I know that if I were sitting in judgement on someone, I probably wouldn't be overly impressed at the levels of public pronouncements coming directly from the mouths/pens of those I was trying. And I can't help wondering whether the Supreme Court judges might in some small way have been negatively influenced by the book publications etc (they shouldn't have, of course, but even Italian SC judges can take personal umbrage that can affect their decision-making).

And I think that Knox's email/letter to the court probably didn't achieve much at all, and in fact only served to highlight the fact that she wasn't there in person. I personally think she would have been better served by having CdV say something in his closing argument along similar lines: "My client Amanda Knox is not here in front of you. She cannot afford the cost of constant trips to Italy, and she is afraid. But she wants me to tell you that she categorically protests her total innocence. She had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Meredith, whom she considered a friend..... etc etc"

On that note, I reiterate my personal belief that the retention of dalla Vedova and Ghirga as Knox's lawyers has been a dreadful disaster for her. Dalla Vedova seems totally out of his depth, and his closing arguments appeared to be totally unfocused and largely irrelevant. STOP GOING ON ABOUT MOTIVE! Mention it, of course, but sometimes people kill other people for no discernible motive whatsoever! I am, frankly, frightened, at dalla Vedova's trial strategy. I think Ghirga appears to be a better criminal lawyer, but he's undynamic and uninspiring.

I think that an incredible amount now rests on Bongiorno's closing. To me, it's blindingly obvious that she needs to a) debunk the "multiple attacker" issue; b) show how there's zero credible, reliable evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's participation; c) show how all the evidence is in fact completely compatible with Guede acting alone; d) go into more detail on attacking or explaining certain specific crucial items of evidence/testimony (Curatolo, Capezzali, ToD, phones, computer activity, blood and DNA evidence, footprints, break-in evidence, Quintavalle, actions of Knox/Sollecito after the murder.)

It seems very clear to me now that Knox will again need to rely on Sollecito's lawyer to obtain her acquittal. Her defence - and that of Sollecito as well - would, in my view, have been enormously enhanced if she had retained an experienced criminal defence lawyer with a strong track record in defending murder or other serious crimes against the person.

Well I'm over the top?

Most of this I've been saying with the exception of the total refraining of commenting. I think it was managed poorly and an opportunity was missed. She should on he book tour been less contemplative and more down to earth. And yes people suffer for how they are perceived. Just look at poor Grinder

The email achieved little and if sent should have simply stated she had no knowledge about the crime and couldn't add anything for the court because she wasn't at the cottage that night at all.

Motive should only be mentioned in the context of how many the prosecutor has used because none made sense. They've made a murder trial a multiple choice test.

I believe you left out the hammering on the chief's comment about knowing that Patrick was involved before Amanda said it (by implication) and that it is clear they bullied her. That part of the letter was okay.

Multiple attacker need not be debunked and in fact can't be, but just because the defense doesn't have all the answers doesn't make the kids guilty.

Amanda should have used her fame and notoriety to promote videos showing the details of the case (rock climber etc.) whether on YouTube or elsewhere.