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

[bri1]

It doesn't imply that the complaint needs to be from the child themselves, though; presumably it can from the child's parent or someone else (as was probably the case here).

True enough, katy, although that doesn't help alot if the child's abuser is their guardian. But yeah, it does improve things somewhat.

 

[katy_did]

True enough, katy, although that doesn't help alot if the child's abuser is their guardian. But yeah, it does improve things somewhat.

That's true, you'd hope there would be some kind of safeguard for situations where the parent is the abuser (especially as those are the situations where a child's emotions are most likely to be manipulated), but who knows... I'm not completely sure what "making a complaint" entails, whether it can only be the child's guardian or whether it could be someone outside the family, like a social worker (possibly not very helpful in this case!).

 

[Bill Williams]

Does it not trouble you that the ISC would require the defense of Amanda and Raf to explain who the accomplices of Rudy were?

Do you not understand that when any evidence and in particular LCN DNA is used to convict someone that the authorities must show that the evidence was handled in such a way that contamination or other mistakes can't happen rather than the other way around?

So far the Caribinieri have published their results and prosecution and civil parties have laid out their case against Raffaele and Amanda, I have found it difficult to reconcile what folks believe the Supreme Court motivations stated with what is actually taken place in the appeal.

With all due, this is not a reply to Grinder's question.

But getting back to the nub of at least one issue you do raise....

I have found it difficult to reconcile what folks believe the Supreme Court motivations stated with what is actually taken place in the appeal.

The ISC clearly stated that one of the reasons for overturning the Hellmann acquittals, was because Hellmann (and perhapps Massei, too, since Massei did not see this as relevant either) did not consider the "sex game gone wrong" theory of the crime as fully as he should have.

And, as you note, what is it that is "Actually tak(ing) place in the appeal"? Prosecutor Crini, like Massei and Hellmann before him, is also taking issue with the ISC's motivations. No one, not Crini at least, has even talked about "sex game gone wrong". Why? Prosecutor Crini is talking about Rudy's pooh in Filomena's/Laura's toilet triggering some sort of murderous response from Knox towards Meredith!!!! Not the sex-game gone wrong.

So you're not the only one finding it difficult to reconcile the Supreme Court motivations with what is actually taking place at the appeal.

Prosecutor Crini is also bringing up something else completely unconnected. It is that Raffaele's kitchen knife, formerly known as the double-DNA knife, is now a supposed match for the bedsheet outline of what can only be some other, obviously smaller knife. This was something NOT mandated by the ISC, yet Crini finds he has to do it, for some other reason, doesn't he!

(The discrepency in size between the two is the reason why Mignini floated the two-knife-theory. Crini is at odds with Mignini on that one, too!)

The Kerchers petitioned the Nencini court to relook at ALL the evidence, which I assume means the evidence not tested at all. The Nencini court took the ISC's directive to do a retest of the DNA found on the kitchen knife, and discovered that the only untested piece available for either test or retest is 36i. 36i turned out to be Knox's DNA, meaning that there is now no connection between that knife and the murder, given that Knox had used the knife at Raffaele's while cooking.

Which is why, I assume, Crini is now desperate to make that knife now a match for the bedsheet outline. Because if it isn't then what is it that places that knife at the scene? The wounds?

But be that as it may, we are now very far from your observation, an observation I agree with, by the way.... and we are also very far from the Kerchers' stated intent, given that the presumed semen stain, now in the third trial, is going untested... and all guilters can do is to find some reason to blame the defence for it going untested!!!!

I have found it difficult to reconcile what folks believe the Supreme Court motivations stated with what is actually taken place in the appeal.

Perhaps you could help by saying what you believe the "Supreme Court motivations stated". You might also try a summary of what you believe about, "what is actually taken place in the appeal."

This is where, for me, the issue of the Supreme Court throwing back to a lower court the conviction of a 60-year old for interference with a child is relevant. There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to what goes on in the three levels of Italian criminal procedure.

Your two observations are right on, as far as I am concerned. Yet you seem to find the fault with the commenters here, rather than the ISC. I'm not sure what else could be observed to convince you otherwise.

 

[Grinder]

Coulsdon,

What could the ISC do that would cause you to question their rulings in the Kercher related cases?

What would cause you to question the Italian justice system?

What would cause you to question the testimony of Curatolo or Quintavalle?


I believe that you have consistently deferred judgment to the court system. You have expressed the opinion that the system should be the final authority and that we peons here should accede to the final verdict regardless.

With that in mind I question the system at this time and ask what sort of system would think a 5 year sentence for a man caught in bed with an 11 year old is too much?

 

[davefoc]

This is ironic coming from the same person who said he couldn't see the connection between the two decisions by the supreme court.

When I go backpacking with my older daughter and her husband we have an ongoing discussion about irony versus coincidence. I think you've opened up a new area of discussion with this comment: irony versus hypocrisy

 

[Bill Williams]

Coulsdon,

What could the ISC do that would cause you to question their rulings in the Kercher related cases?

What would cause you to question the Italian justice system?

What would cause you to question the testimony of Curatolo or Quintavalle?


I believe that you have consistently deferred judgment to the court system. You have expressed the opinion that the system should be the final authority and that we peons here should accede to the final verdict regardless.

With that in mind I question the system at this time and ask what sort of system would think a 5 year sentence for a man caught in bed with an 11 year old is too much?

Grinder - I am not just saying all this because you and I have crossed swords before....

.... but there are only two people in the universe who pretty much HAVE TO defer to the Italian judicial system... namely Raffaele and Amanda.

Raffaele already had this (briefly) put to the test after he addressed the court in Florence. The very airplane he was on, leaving Italy, was halted on the tarmac while they got permission to go off with him on board. That permission came from no-less than the prosecutor himself, Crini.

Crini, apparently, does not deem Sollecito a flight risk (one of the criteria of hold someone in detention) even though he's on a friggin airplane out fo the country!!!!

But to the point, Sollecito and Knox not only have to accede to the final decision of the Italian process, no matter how daffy, but the intervening rules as well.

You, I and CoulsdonUK are not so bound. All CoulsdonUK has done is say he will be bound by what Italy says - I cannot find any post of his which says that we should similarly be so bound.

In a sense, I think he's beating you at your own game of being "devil's advocate". All he's saying is that we here on this obscure posting-service can bleat all we want. In a sense, that's true, but neither yours, nor mine, nor his comments matter a bucket of spit compared to what Italy is going to register about all this according to their laws and (somewhat wacky) practises.

 

[Samson]

Grinder - I am not just saying all this because you and I have crossed swords before....

.... but there are only two people in the universe who pretty much HAVE TO defer to the Italian judicial system... namely Raffaele and Amanda.

Raffaele already had this (briefly) put to the test after he addressed the court in Florence. The very airplane he was on, leaving Italy, was halted on the tarmac while they got permission to go off with him on board. That permission came from no-less than the prosecutor himself, Crini.

Crini, apparently, does not deem Sollecito a flight risk (one of the criteria of hold someone in detention) even though he's on a friggin airplane out fo the country!!!!

But to the point, Sollecito and Knox not only have to accede to the final decision of the Italian process, no matter how daffy, but the intervening rules as well.

You, I and CoulsdonUK are not so bound. All CoulsdonUK has done is say he will be bound by what Italy says - I cannot find any post of his which says that we should similarly be so bound.

In a sense, I think he's beating you at your own game of being "devil's advocate". All he's saying is that we here on this obscure posting-service can bleat all we want. In a sense, that's true, but neither yours, nor mine, nor his comments matter a bucket of spit compared to what Italy is going to register about all this according to their laws and (somewhat wacky) practises.

I am personally grateful for this "obscure posting-service" I stumbled on for conclusively demonstrating in a thousand ways that Meredith Kercher suffered her last moments probably cognisant that she was the victim of a vile but repeated theme in human affairs, but not part of an act of unspeakable treachery by friends.
To surviving members of the Kercher family, please understand this now and withdraw from the active prosecution of your daughter's friends. It is unseemly and tragic, because the evidence you have not studied is all in this thread.

 

[Grinder]

In a sense, I think he's beating you at your own game of being "devil's advocate". All he's saying is that we here on this obscure posting-service can bleat all we want. In a sense, that's true, but neither yours, nor mine, nor his comments matter a bucket of spit compared to what Italy is going to register about all this according to their laws and (somewhat wacky) practises.

As you have often alluded to, this seems above your pay grade.

It is a tautology that only the Italian verdict will mean anything until it gets to extradition. Obviously our debate here means nothing beyond a debate here.

Coulsdon while debating the case here has deferred to the Italian courts etc. as not only the final decider but also implied that they will make the most informed and correct decision.

Today's conversation to my mind puts a hole in the argument that the ISC makes the correct decisions and therefore brings to fore that they erred in the appeal ruling in this case.

If Coulsdon doesn't wish to explain what the courts would have to do to shake his faith in their abilities that is his prerogative.

He, himself, brought this up so one would assume that there was possibility for a 'correct' answer.

If the ISC ruled that the earth is the center of the universe would that shake Coulsdon's faith in the ISC?

Would such a ruling impact the kids' trial in Italy? Probably not, but it would impact most rational people's opinion of their system.

He has made it quite clear that he isn't willing to paint the whole ISC with this ruling and that other work of the ISC is admirable therefore your contention that he is just saying they make the final decision can't be his point.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I am curious whether anyone here can see the slightest connection between this case involving 60 year old and Raffaele and Amanda’s ongoing appeal?

I can see the connection.

The operative principle is that certain people enjoy blanket protection under the court system, because of their political or group affiliations. If a social worker screws an 11-y-o girl, he will be protected. If a prosecutor accuses someone who is completely innocent, he will be protected. It is all driven by the alliances that form within an insular bureaucracy. Laws, evidence and human morality don't enter the equation at all.

 

[Strozzi]

I am personally grateful for this "obscure posting-service" I stumbled on for conclusively demonstrating in a thousand ways that Meredith Kercher suffered her last moments probably cognisant that she was the victim of a vile but repeated theme in human affairs, but not part of an act of unspeakable treachery by friends.
To surviving members of the Kercher family, please understand this now and withdraw from the active prosecution of your daughter's friends. It is unseemly and tragic, because the evidence you have not studied is all in this thread.

Maresca, the Kerscher family's Perugia lawyer, has a lot riding on this case - his professional reputation and status in the Perugia legal community as well as his financial rewards require that he continue in his die-hard civil prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele. He cannot just call the Kerscher family in London and say "I got it wrong" or "we got it wrong." It would require a lot of strength of character for various members of the Kerscher family to separate their case from him.

Although the family sent a letter to the Florence court expressing their wish that all the evidence be examined, they wrote generalities. They could have spoken clearly but settled for remaining ambiguous. They could have itimized specific troubling evidence that has never been properly examined: the pillowcase, broken window glass, audio testing of Nara's flat, et al. The Kerscher family came up short. If she could speak, their murdered daughter would demand severe punishment of Rudy and defend the innocence of her housemate and Raffaele. The Kerscher family has failed her.

 

[Samson]

Maresca, the Kerscher family's Perugia lawyer, has a lot riding on this cases - his professional reputation and status in the Perugia legal community as well as his financial rewards require that he continue in his die-hard civil prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele. He cannot just call the Kerscher family in London and say "I got it wrong" or "we got it wrong." It would require a lot of strength of character for various members of the Kerscher family to separate their case from him.

Although the family sent a letter to the Florence court expressing their wish that all the evidence be examined, they wrote generalities. They could have spoken clearly but settled for remaining ambiguous. They could have itimized specific troubling evidence that has never been properly examined: the pillowcase, broken window glass, audio testing of Nara's flat, et al. The Kerscher family came up short. If she could speak, their murdered daughter would demand severe punishment of Rudy and defend the innocence of her housemate and Raffaele. The Kerscher family has failed her.

It seems to me there are three things that could change the direction of this ship before it hits the rocks on January 15.
1. Rudy Guede makes another statement.
2. The Kercher family withdraw from the prosecution.
3. Bongiorno for the defence pulls a rabbit from the hat.

An acquittal without one of these will satisfy no one unless it is a Hellmann style finding of innocence, which seems impossible.
Slow motion train wreck, a plague on all their houses.
My thoughts only.

 

[bri1]

Happy new year, all. Here's to hoping that 2014 is a better year for Amanda and Raffaele than 2013.

 

[acbytesla]

I am curious whether anyone here can see the slightest connection between this case involving 60 year old and Raffaele and Amanda’s ongoing appeal?

The connection is that this is the same court that quashed the acquittals and told the lower court to go back and look at the orgy gone awry. These are both incomprehensible decisions.

 

[acbytesla]

Yup.

What's clear to me is that there is a substantial cohort of people in Cassazione who don't have the intelligence or sophistication to understand the concept of psychological manipulation.
So, the 11 year old girl thinks that she loves this man, then it must be so. She doesn't view herself as being abused? Then she wasn't.
Amanda said something that wasn't true about Patrick? She must be a liar. She placed herself at the crime scene? Then she must have been there.
Jesus. Christ.
I wish we could send Derren Brown over and get him to hypnotise these judges into at least resigning from their jobs, if not their whole lives.
Rolfe, what do you think would happen in the UK if a high court judge publicly outed themselves as a 9-11 truther?

There are some things in a Western society that should be hard and fast rules. I've known some girls of at least close to that age that are well beyond their years. That said, it simply shouldn't matter. Whether or not she should have known better is irrelevant. He should have known better. This is the kind of decision you could expect in Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia, Somalia. This is not the kind of ruling that you could expect out of country like Italy.

 

[Mary_H]

Nonetheless the Italian Supreme Court has also stood up to organised crime (mafia) with numerous magistrates and judge’s assassinated over the years with corrupt politicians (Presidents and Prime Ministers) being convicted.

Is it correct to say that you see this as more valuable work than protecting individual women and children?

I can see the connection.

The operative principle is that certain people enjoy blanket protection under the court system, because of their political or group affiliations. If a social worker screws an 11-y-o girl, he will be protected. If a prosecutor accuses someone who is completely innocent, he will be protected. It is all driven by the alliances that form within an insular bureaucracy. Laws, evidence and human morality don't enter the equation at all.

A common trait I have noticed among PGP is their tendency to project immense power onto powerless individuals, such as this girl or Amanda and Raffaele, and, as a result, characterize the oppressors as victims. It's an interesting phenomenon, probably part of the same psychic system that leads domestic abusers often to claim they are the ones who have been abused.

 

[Bill Williams]

I can see the connection.

The operative principle is that certain people enjoy blanket protection under the court system, because of their political or group affiliations. If a social worker screws an 11-y-o girl, he will be protected. If a prosecutor accuses someone who is completely innocent, he will be protected. It is all driven by the alliances that form within an insular bureaucracy. Laws, evidence and human morality don't enter the equation at all.

A common trait I have noticed among PGP is their tendency to project immense power onto powerless individuals, such as this girl or Amanda and Raffaele, and, as a result, characterize the oppressors as victims. It's an interesting phenomenon, probably part of the same psychic system that leads domestic abusers often to claim they are the ones who have been abused.

I've wanted to put this to Machiavelli, but have never been able to express it as succinctly as you've managed.

It's the "combination" of traits that PGP put onto the two... almost superhuman ability to lie; but not just lie, but on the spur of the moment come up with a surgical lie that hoodwinks seasoned investigators and cuts off at the pass investigative lines.

And the lie is of such magnitude that the investigators cannot possibly be blamed for acting on it.... like going out and arresting Lumumba on nothing other than Knox's confused, more-than-likely coerced statement(s).

And it's always portrayed as if people like Mignini are just blank slates, objective recording devices with no real agenda... who innocently get duped by this cunning femme fatale....

Machiavelli even pushed it to his theory that Knox could choose not to sleep, so that even the stress of a murder of one of her friends would unfaze her.... so that three days later, in the middle of the night, she'd be rested and able to spin spontaneous tales, presumably all with the strategy of not naming Rudy, but throwing the investigation purposely Lumumba's way... and it is all Knox's fault.

Knox and Sollecito have such immense power, that they somehow divined that they were being bugged those three days, so they maintained a superhuman discipline of never once mentioning anything remotely suggestive of guilt.

See... you said it more succinctly.

 

[Strozzi]

I've wanted to put this to Machiavelli, but have never been able to express it as succinctly as you've managed.

It's the "combination" of traits that PGP put onto the two... almost superhuman ability to lie; but not just lie, but on the spur of the moment come up with a surgical lie that hoodwinks seasoned investigators and cuts off at the pass investigative lines.

And the lie is of such magnitude that the investigators cannot possibly be blamed for acting on it.... like going out and arresting Lumumba on nothing other than Knox's confused, more-than-likely coerced statement(s).

Please note that the interrogation in which Amanda cleverly and willfully misled her interrogators was a midnight interrogation conducted by a team of police officers rushing to develop a case before Amanda's mother arrived the next day. But don't blame the officers. It was midnight, they were working long hours, and were vulnerable to manipulation by the cunning 20 year old. She took advantage of them - at least, that's what the police and prosecutor would like you to believe. Don't the PLE ever look in a mirror?

 

[Grinder]

Although a stupid issue here is the Dean's list from 2007 with Amanda on it.

Now we know the PGP, if nothing else, are aces at tracking down everything on the Net, but somehow this has escaped them.

 

[acbytesla]

Although a stupid issue here is the Dean's list from 2007 with Amanda on it.

Now we know the PGP, if nothing else, are aces at tracking down everything on the Net, but somehow this has escaped them.

From my perspective, this proves that Amanda, at least in 2007 was committed and dedicated to her studies. It means she was responsible. This means a lot and it means nothing.

The PGP have always wanted to paint Amanda as a horrible person in any and every way. Whether she made the Dean's list in 2007 doesn't prove that Amanda didn't kill Meredith, it does disprove the characterization of her as just a party girl only interested in the next thrill. That's what I think many of the PGP think this was. "A thrill kill" by Amanda and her boyfriend who like violent comic books.

I don't know Amanda, and I know I never will, so I can't really judge her except superficially. But she and Raffaele don't appear in any way as the type of people that would kill Meredith. They also don't appear to have any motive either. I know that means nothing to you Grinder. We have fought over that many times.

While it isn't the only reason I believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. I mean if there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that that committed this crime, I'd have to concede to that. But given there isn't, I find it to be very convincing.

There have been convictions of people that I strongly feel are guilty of a crime but am very uncomfortable with the evidence used to convict them. Atif Rafay and Sebastion Burns as welll as Scott Peterson for example. Everything about these 3 screams that they are guilty although the evidence is pretty sketchy.

Amanda is the exact opposite in my book. She not only has very little evidence against her but everything about her screams innocent. She's like Ryan Ferguson and Debra Milke to me. Nothing makes sense.

 

[Samson]

From my perspective, this proves that Amanda, at least in 2007 was committed and dedicated to her studies. It means she was responsible. This means a lot and it means nothing.

The PGP have always wanted to paint Amanda as a horrible person in any and every way. Whether she made the Dean's list in 2007 doesn't prove that Amanda didn't kill Meredith, it does disprove the characterization of her as just a party girl only interested in the next thrill. That's what I think many of the PGP think this was. "A thrill kill" by Amanda and her boyfriend who like violent comic books.

I don't know Amanda, and I know I never will, so I can't really judge her except superficially. But she and Raffaele don't appear in any way as the type of people that would kill Meredith. They also don't appear to have any motive either. I know that means nothing to you Grinder. We have fought over that many times.

While it isn't the only reason I believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. I mean if there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that that committed this crime, I'd have to concede to that. But given there isn't, I find it to be very convincing.

There have been convictions of people that I strongly feel are guilty of a crime but am very uncomfortable with the evidence used to convict them. Atif Rafay and Sebastion Burns as welll as Scott Peterson for example. Everything about these 3 screams that they are guilty although the evidence is pretty sketchy.

Amanda is the exact opposite in my book. She not only has very little evidence against her but everything about her screams innocent. She's like Ryan Ferguson and Debra Milke to me. Nothing makes sense.

It sure meant nothing to Massei, the one convicting judge. This is maybe the point that encourages scepticism about the value of relying on lack of motive to help in what seems effectively a judge only system.
On the other hand if it was a jury trial I was sitting on, it would carry enormous weight for me. If there was a plausible alternative explanation for each item of evidence the prosecution brought, as there is in this case, I couldn't envisage a majority verdict convicting, meaning a new trial or acquittal.
Of particular relevance is the killer already being in jail, unheard of for these controversial type of cases.