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

[Samson]

Pick a subject any subject. I tried to get Briars and others to translate Curatolo where he clearly says he saw them from 9:30 until just before midnight.

How about the lawyers saying it must have taken someone sophisicated to disarm the alarm at their offices.

How about the mischaracterization of Amanda's noise ticket and the rest of the bs in the DM story I just posted.

How about the fact that none of the luminol prints matched Amanda or Raf.

So let's discuss - pick a subject.

It was clarified by the lawyers. The alarm was not set the night of the burglary, it had just been installed.

 

[jhunter1163]

Thread closed for cleanout. Infractions will follow as a mod-box was previously placed and disregarded. Do not attempt to continue this discussion elsewhere.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Kaosium]

The interesting thing is that he... Giacomo played such a minor role in either trial.

That's a good point from a great post, and not something I've ever seen brought up in this discussion, which at this juncture must be nearly impossible!

I would be very interested in what Giocomo Benedetti had to say, he obviously suspected Rudy for some reason, it may be he had good reason outside what was said in the Skype calls to be suspicious.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini's abuse of office charge for wiretapping a La Stampa journalist is scheduled for March 18. Just days after it expires because of statute of limitations. Coincidence?

It's a good thing I am not prone to conspiracy thinking.

More news - the 4th charge was a conviction over Abuse of Office to do with the wiretapping of the La Stampa journalist, set over to March 18 as the second level trial - Machiavelli can correct me if I am wrong about the nature of the March 18 hearing.

But here's the thing - the statute of limitations DOES expire a few days before, but if it expires then Mignini is guilty without that second trial. Mignini has the option to wave the statute, which he probably has to to fight the conviction.

But as of now, Mr. Mignini is a convicted criminal. If I have details wrong, please correct.

 

[Samson]

That's a good point from a great post, and not something I've ever seen brought up in this discussion, which at this juncture must be nearly impossible!

I would be very interested in what Giocomo Benedetti had to say, he obviously suspected Rudy for some reason, it may be he had good reason outside what was said in the Skype calls to be suspicious.

Hopefully RandyN reposts , I saw briefly before it disappeared.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two translations of the CSC motivations report

Thanks, Chris. Those are seriously differing translations, purportedly of the same paragraph. Obviously, they cannot both be correct and it is entirely possible that neither is correct. Can you advise who did the 'translation' of each of those versions?

LashL,

The first of the two translations from my previous message came from a pro-guilt website and was the work of multiple translators. Here is the paragraph from the other translation, which was the second of the two translations from my previous message on the subject:

"The outcome of this assessment will be crucial not only to osmotically demonstrate the presence of the two defendants in the locus delicti commissi, but possibly to delineate the subjective position of the co-conspirators of Guede, in the face of the range of hypothetical situations, ranging from agreement on genetic option of death, to the modification of a program that initially contemplated only the involvement of the young English woman in an unwanted sex game, to the forcing of an erotic game pushed by the group, which blew up out of control."

The second of the two translations from my original message (above) is from a pro-innocence translator, and it appeared at Injustice in Perugia. I would be grateful for your interpretation of the passage, as well as how you think that they differ (I did not perceive a great difference between them).

 

[Planigale]

That's a good point from a great post, and not something I've ever seen brought up in this discussion, which at this juncture must be nearly impossible!

I would be very interested in what Giocomo Benedetti had to say, he obviously suspected Rudy for some reason, it may be he had good reason outside what was said in the Skype calls to be suspicious.

The moderation appears to have altered 'history' but I think this may be referencing my comment last night. Sorry to be repetitive, but in essence I said that that Guede's friend was sufficiently suspicious to report him to the police. (He must have had good reasons to be suspicious as we know that there are penalties for wrongly accusing a person.) This enabled the police to identify the palm print as they were able to reference the palm print on record for Guede. He co-operated in the recording of the Skype conversation in which Guede admitted his presence. Unfortunately because of Guede's abbreviated trial he never seems to have given evidence, he must have had good reasons for thinking Guede was guilty of the murder of AK.It would be interesting to know those. If I was a journalist I would be pursuing an interview with him. He reported Guede as guilty not Guede plus others.

The anti-Knox party seem to try to minimise Guede participation, he seems an embarrassment to them, and especially embarrassing that his friend who knew him well thought he was capable of the crime unlike those who knew AK who think she is not.

 

[michellesings]

If the person had assets in the UK then the court could order them to be seized to pay any damages awarded but some judge in the UK has no authority to force an American citizen to hand over money cause they lost a defamation case in the UK. How could such an order even be enforced and at what cost trying to pursue it?

I think that both Anne and Doug would have their own libel suits they could bring up at the same time. Especially Anne. Maybe that's why Doug is so angry with him.

I don't think that he would state something like this if he didn't have proof to back it up though.

 

[AmyStrange]

The 40 wounds

-

Meredith was quickly surprised and cornered by her bed by Rudy. He had his knife to her throat in no time and there was not much of a struggle. She did not "almost kick his ass".

The Kercher family would like to believe that Meredith, who had had some Karate lessons, could defend herself. Maybe in gym class, but there is no evidence that she was able to do so against a knife to her throat. Forensic engineer Ron Hendry analyzed this in detail. Please see it at http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry7.html

-

Ok, I went and read the analysis, which wasn't much of an indepth analysis really, but anyway here is the list of wounds suffered by Meredith:

3 isolated bruises on the right side of the chin
2 isolated bruises on the left side of the chin
2 wounds under the left ear
3 small stab wounds near the neck crease line under the right ear
3 large stab wounds slightly left of the center of the chin

The number of the following wounds were not counted in the article so the number of each is not known (by me anyway), but it looks like there were (maybe) at least 27 all together including the ones in the chin area, but there may just have been as many as 40 wounds all total:

bruising to nose and lips
bruising on the inside of her lips and gums
shallow horizontal cut on left cheek
Rear scalp trauma
mid-upper right forearm
both elbows
hips
right leg
rotator cuff of the right shoulder
small superficial cuts on the hands

If there were any more wounds, I'm sure someone will fill in the blanks for me.

Even the original Medical Examiner (ME) or pathologist (Lalli) said all these wounds were consistent with one or more assailants.

Ron Hendry, at the end of the article, writes this:

"All told, the horrible injuries to Meredith Kercher were fully consistent with an assault by a strong man who swiftly overpowered her."

I gather Strozzi that this is where you got the idea that there was no struggle. Swiftly doesn't mean immediately and even Hendry says:

"The bruises on Meredith's elbows suggest strong handgrips during the struggle. Bruises on the legs and hips were probably caused by contact with furniture,"

which also told me that there was indeed a struggle and it might have been short as the attacker, after throwing her against the wall or furniture, then knocked her to the ground face first which could have caused the bruising of her nose, lips, and gums (and which also might have resulted in her going unconscious for a second or two). The attacker then yanked her head back by the scalp which caused the trauma to her rear scalp line.

Also, many wounds don't mean many attackers. Hell in my mind, the bruises to the elbows might have been caused by Meredith slamming one elbow (more than once) into the attackers hip instead of the stomach. This might have loosened the attackers grip of her other elbow just enough so she almost got away, but as she did, the attacker grabbed her forearm and slammed her against the wall which is what caused the bruising on the hips and knees and also the trauma to the rotator cuff (from the violent swing towards the wall and ground), then the attacker grabbed her by the elbow or forearm and slammed her against the ground knocking her unconscious for a second. Which gave the attacker time to grab her scalp with the left hand, pull the knife out of his pocket with the right and put it against her left cheek (hard enough to cut her and get her attention) and told her to stop struggling. When she continued to struggle, the attacker then put the knife under her chin (under the right ear) and as she continued to jerk her head, the knife was displaced three times leaving three cuts under her chin and when she still didn't stop struggling (she might have just been jerking her head away because of the pain of being cut); the attacker put the knife down, grabbed her violently by the chin and looked her in the eyes and told her to stop or he would kill her, and when she didn't, he pulled her hair back even harder, picked up the knife off the bed and stabbed her three times closer to the left of center of her chin. The third stab cut deep enough so he knew he had hit a major artery which is what caused her to slowly drown (suffocate) in her own blood for ten minutes, two of which were while she was still conscious.

The knife wounds are consistent with a right-handed attacker.

That's my take on the 40 wounds which are consistent with at least one attacker, and I really didn't see or read anything that proved absolutely that there were two or more attackers instead of one,

d

-

 

[Mary_H]

-- <snip>Also, many wounds don't mean many attackers.<snip>
d

-

Some women can get half a dozen bruises just from falling down. Meredith would have been bruised whether she struggled or not. This guy stabbed his girlfriend 30 times, all by himself. A few years ago in Seattle, an individual man raped and stabbed two women in the same episode, killing one. The idea that it takes three people to kill one woman is a fantasy. If Meredith were up against three attackers, she probably would have struggled less, particularly if she knew them, because she would not imagine they weren't going to let her go.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Some women can get half a dozen bruises just from falling down. Meredith would have been bruised whether she struggled or not. This guy stabbed his girlfriend 30 times, all by himself. A few years ago in Seattle, an individual man raped and stabbed two women in the same episode, killing one. The idea that it takes three people to kill one woman is a fantasy. If Meredith were up against three attackers, she probably would have struggled less, particularly if she knew them, because she would not imagine they weren't going to let her go.

-

Exactly. Thank you Mary for that added insight,

d

ETA: Also, Sharon Tate's murderer (Susan Atkins by herself, for example) stabbed Sharon multiple times (around 30 or more times); so once again, multiple wounds don't always mean multiple attackers.
-

 

[Mary_H]

I normally have no interest talking about the personal habits of either Amanda or Meredith, since both are irrelevant to the murder case (the habits of neither of them were any different than those of millions of other college girls worldwide).

However, I thought it might be interesting to note that the part of the "list" post considered most offensive to pro-guilt audiences was disclosed to the public by none other than Barbie Nadeau, in her book, Angel Face. Nadaeu, the hero journalist to the pro-guilt crowd, is the reason we know this factoid about Meredith's personal life. Why Nadeau thought it was something we needed to know, I have no idea.

The police were the ones who first brought up the questions with Amanda about Meredith's sex life, before the arrests. We might not know about them except that Amanda recounted them in her e-mail home:

At the house they asked me very personal questions about Meredith's life and also about the personalities of our neighbors....

2) Was Meredith sexually active? Yeah, she borrowed a few of my condoms.
3) Does she like anal? wtf? I don't know.
4) Does she use Vaseline? for her lips?

The e-mail was written on the 4th, but the autopsy was not released until the 8th, so why the police were interested in this information is a question. As I remember from when we talked about this a few years back, the police found a jar of Vaseline in Meredith's room and didn't know what to make of it. Their minds went to anal sex, while Amanda's went to Chapstick, which is indeed what most women use Vaseline for.

Does Barbie mention anal sex in her book? If so, where did she get her information? If it was from Amanda's e-mail, then I think we should stop assuming it as a given for Meredith, and I agree with Briars that references to it can be offensive.

<snip>I find this microscopic examination of private matters distasteful. I think in terms of understanding the crime that actually took place, it is completely irrelevant. But the prosecution and the online cult have chosen to make it relevant. Either it matters, or it doesn't matter, but you can't have it both ways. Diocletus expressed it perfectly:

You cannot use comparison of Knox-Kercher as a sword against Knox, and simultaneously raise a shield against the comparison.

I agree. Everyone has the right to as much privacy as they want surrounding their sexual activities. If PGP like Briars agree, then they should protest the theft of Amanda's diary, not use the revelations in it against her.

 

[Samson]

Some women can get half a dozen bruises just from falling down. Meredith would have been bruised whether she struggled or not. This guy stabbed his girlfriend 30 times, all by himself. A few years ago in Seattle, an individual man raped and stabbed two women in the same episode, killing one. The idea that it takes three people to kill one woman is a fantasy. If Meredith were up against three attackers, she probably would have struggled less, particularly if she knew them, because she would not imagine they weren't going to let her go.

Here is a "lone wolf" murder that happened very quickly, this from Wikipedia,

At around 12:30 pm on 9 January 2008, Sophie Elliott and her mother Lesley were at the family home in the suburb of Ravensbourne northeast of the city centre when Weatherston arrived unannounced, saying he had a farewell present. A short time later Lesley heard her daughter screaming. A New Zealand Police officer responding to a 111 call from Lesley found Weatherston locked in Sophie's bedroom. When asked what he had done, he told the officer "I killed her".[9] He was then arrested and taken into custody.

Forensic pathologist Martin Sage performed the autopsy the next day, and found Elliott died from blood loss. Two wounds pierced her heart and one lung, with other wounds to her neck and throat severing the main artery and the major vein. In total she received 216 separate injuries, mostly stab wounds from a knife blade, with some inflicted by scissors. Additionally there were seven blunt force injuries. The pathologist found some defensive wounds, and that the attack targeted aspects of beauty and was intended to disfigure.[10]

 

[bri1]

The police were the ones who first brought up the questions with Amanda about Meredith's sex life, before the arrests. We might not know about them except that Amanda recounted them in her e-mail home:



The e-mail was written on the 4th, but the autopsy was not released until the 8th, so why the police were interested in this information is a question. As I remember from when we talked about this a few years back, the police found a jar of Vaseline in Meredith's room and didn't know what to make of it. Their minds went to anal sex, while Amanda's went to Chapstick, which is indeed what most women use Vaseline for.

Does Barbie mention anal sex in her book? If so, where did she get her information? If it was from Amanda's e-mail, then I think we should stop assuming it as a given for Meredith, and I agree with Briars that references to it can be offensive.



I agree. Everyone has the right to as much privacy as they want surrounding their sexual activities. If PGP like Briars agree, then they should protest the theft of Amanda's diary, not use the revelations in it against her.

It seems that there were two 'initial' sources for this. One is, as you point out Mary, the police, who made their own assumptions about the vaseline. The other was one of the boys downstairs who said in police interview (I think) that Giacomo had told him that he's had oral and anal sex with Meredith. I personally don't think either of these 'sources' are very reliable.
But I do believe there is some relevance to the case- in trying to ascertain how Meredith may have responded to Amanda (if they were living similar 'lifestyles' this undercuts the prosecution's arguments as to motive).
I also think any discussion of these kinds of intimate issues should be carried out in a sensitive manner. But the PGP have to realise that it's not disrespectful per se for us to have some of these discussions, given that the whole prosecution case is built either on differences in attitude and lifestyle between Amanda and Meredith and how these may have led to conflict, or on the supposition that Amanda's sexual history was deviant to the point where she engaged in sexual violence.

 

[Machiavelli]

More news - the 4th charge was a conviction over Abuse of Office to do with the wiretapping of the La Stampa journalist, set over to March 18 as the second level trial - Machiavelli can correct me if I am wrong about the nature of the March 18 hearing.

You are wrong.

There has been no conviction. There was a preliminary hearing on Jan 15th, on which 6 of the 7 charges from the original Florentine investigation were dropped.

3 of the charges (the most serious ones) were dropped because Mignini and Giuttari had proved their factual innocence in the first Florentine trial, innocence meanwhile had become definitive before the SC, and thus now they can't be tried again on those because of double jeopardy.

3 further charges were dropped on preliminar grounds without any assessment in the merit because the legal time period for investigation has expired. Giuttari and Mignini asked for the judge to consider the merits, but they knew the preliminary judge would likely be prevented from doing so. The Narducci investigation case is too complex to give an assessment in one hearing and investigative judges won't open investigations on charges which are time barred from the beginning.

1 charge has been sent to an ordinary judge for assessment, because it's the only one that on Jan 15th had not expired yet, and given the complexity of the case the preliminery judge, as said, could not give any assessment. The beaurocratic iter of this charge is anyway virtually dead too, because by the time a judge will come to assess it, it will be time-barred too, so even the lower court judge will likely refuse to consider it preliminarily.

But here's the thing - the statute of limitations DOES expire a few days before, but if it expires then Mignini is guilty without that second trial. Mignini has the option to wave the statute, which he probably has to to fight the conviction.

There has been no trial. This is an invention, maybe by some of Spezi's lying journalist friends. And if you say Mignini has been found guilty of anything you are parroting a lie.

 

[Mary_H]

That story was written by an independent writer, Antonia Hoyles, that who sells the story. PL was paid. She was never sued by him so I believe he said it.

Can you explain why Lumumba was not sued by the police when Amanda and her parents are getting sued for talking about two cuffs?

It's hard to believe it was okay with the prosecutor that Lumumba said this: “They hit me over the head and yelled ‘dirty black’. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming.”.....“I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me. They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, ‘You did it, you did it.’”

ETA: Never mind. I just figured out why no one wanted that story denied. It was supposed to show the damage Patrick suffered because of what Amanda did to him. Because what choice did the cops have but to treat him that way after Amanda falsely accused him?

I wouldn't doubt the prosecutor planted the story himself.

 

[Diocletus]

Does Barbie mention anal sex in her book? If so, where did she get her information?

Yes, she does:

Meredith met Giacomo Silenzi (that young man) in early September, when she first moved into the house, and both she and Amanda had been to his apartment to smoke pot on more than one occasion.

Giacomo and Meredith began sleeping together about ten days before her death, and Giacomo admitted that they had gone as far as experimenting with anal sex, which Meredith didn't like. Meredith's friends remember that she was upset when Amanda confided that she liked Giacomo, too, but then said, "You can have him." Giacomo later said he never liked Amanda, and he was one of the first witnesses to suggest, during police interviews, that Amanda was involved in the murder.

 

[Diocletus]

Giacomo Silenzi

Giacomo Silenzi is a guy who, it appears to me (i) did not treat Kercher respectfully/used her for sex, (ii) was into drugs somewhat seriously, (iii) hung around with at least one criminal, i.e., Rudy Guede, and (iv) looks like a jerk.

In short, Silenzi is what I would call a douche. A terrible choice for a boyfriend. I think that most fathers would recognize the type, and the threat, if their daughter ever came home with someone like this, and would attempt some sort of protective action. Well, at least I know that I would.

Now, there is another thing about douches like this. These people talk in order to make themselves look better, cooler, whatever. I believe that there is a substantial chance that this guy talked with his friends about his sexual exploits with Kercher. Indeed, one of the posts above makes it seem that the friends were aware of the anal sex. Rudy could have been, too.

Not only that, but it is certainly possible that Rudy knew from casual conversation with Silenzi or the other boys downstairs that their apartment would be vacant that weekend, and he could even have known the plans of the girls upstairs. He could have believed that the upstairs apartment was a good target for burglary, and maybe even a sexual attack.

In short, Kercher's vulnerability and death could be an unfortunate and unexpected function of her relationship with Silenzi, because he is a douche.

This all leads me to wonder whether kids of this age, particularly young women, are mature enough to go off to a foreign country and live, essentially, on their own. I think that programs that involve some sort of dorm/family living, with a full-time program advisor/chaperone and formalized structure are a better choice. Definitely would have been better for both Ms. Kercher and Ms. Knox.

 

[Diocletus]

You are wrong.

There has been no conviction. There was a preliminary hearing on Jan 15th, on which 6 of the 7 charges from the original Florentine investigation were dropped.

3 of the charges (the most serious ones) were dropped because Mignini and Giuttari had proved their factual innocence in the first Florentine trial, innocence meanwhile had become definitive before the SC, and thus now they can't be tried again on those because of double jeopardy.

3 further charges were dropped on preliminar grounds without any assessment in the merit because the legal time period for investigation has expired. Giuttari and Mignini asked for the judge to consider the merits, but they knew the preliminary judge would likely be prevented from doing so. The Narducci investigation case is too complex to give an assessment in one hearing and investigative judges won't open investigations on charges which are time barred from the beginning.

1 charge has been sent to an ordinary judge for assessment, because it's the only one that on Jan 15th had not expired yet, and given the complexity of the case the preliminery judge, as said, could not give any assessment. The beaurocratic iter of this charge is anyway virtually dead too, because by the time a judge will come to assess it, it will be time-barred too, so even the lower court judge will likely refuse to consider it preliminarily.



There has been no trial. This is an invention, maybe by some of Spezi's lying journalist friends. And if you say Mignini has been found guilty of anything you are parroting a lie.

As we expected. Of course, no one believes for one second that any of this is legitimate, but that's the result of operating a system that doesn't act legitimately. Carry on.

 

[JREF2010]

Giacomo Silenzi is a guy who, it appears to me (i) did not treat Kercher respectfully/used her for sex, (ii) was into drugs somewhat seriously, (iii) hung around with at least one criminal, i.e., Rudy Guede, and (iv) looks like a jerk.

In short, Silenzi is what I would call a douche. A terrible choice for a boyfriend. I think that most fathers would recognize the type, and the threat, if their daughter ever came home with someone like this, and would attempt some sort of protective action. Well, at least I know that I would.

Now, there is another thing about douches like this. These people talk in order to make themselves look better, cooler, whatever. I believe that there is a substantial chance that this guy talked with his friends about his sexual exploits with Kercher. Indeed, one of the posts above makes it seem that the friends were aware of the anal sex. Rudy could have been, too.

Not only that, but it is certainly possible that Rudy knew from casual conversation with Silenzi or the other boys downstairs that their apartment would be vacant that weekend, and he could even have known the plans of the girls upstairs. He could have believed that the upstairs apartment was a good target for burglary, and maybe even a sexual attack.

In short, Kercher's vulnerability and death could be an unfortunate and unexpected function of her relationship with Silenzi, because he is a douche.

This all leads me to wonder whether kids of this age, particularly young women, are mature enough to go off to a foreign country and live, essentially, on their own. I think that programs that involve some sort of dorm/family living, with a full-time program advisor/chaperone and formalized structure are a better choice. Definitely would have been better for both Ms. Kercher and Ms. Knox.

I agree.

And adding to that it seems instead of feeling remorse for inviting the murderer, Rudy Guede, into the cottage and feeling the loser Giacomo is, he instead slanders others. Silenzi is a sleeze ball most likely, an arrogant male taking no accountability in this murder.

Maybe he and Rudy can hangout as buddys when Rudy gets out, and go harass women and peddle small drugs?