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

[Planigale]

One more question. Other than Machiavelli and Briars, all who post here believe without doubt, that AK and RS are innocent. How is it reasonable that you could all come to that conclusion when,

a) you have not read all of the primary source documents for all of the trials for yourself, even those that have not been translated into English (I'm assuming that most of you cannot read Italian)

b) you have not attended court proceedings to understand what has been said by all people, as a jury would have the opportunity to do

What I find amazing, is the level of certainty that people have about this case and who do not fall into one or both of the above categories . . . . just saying . . . .

I am not certain about the level of certainty to convict in Italy but under common law systems it is beyond reasonable doubt. I originally read the first trial justification for conviction there were clear illogical arguments. The biggest of which is the failure to show any relationship between Guede and AK or RS. The second is the absence of any physical evidence for AK involvement. My biggest criticism as a scientist is the forensic science was so badly done, that it seriously disadvantaged the defence and lost the prosecution evidence on which to build a proper case. Examples are the complete lack of fibre analysis. Failure to investigate the 'break in', the glass never examined to show the direction of breakage. The failure to examine knives in the apartment for blood or DNA. Using methodology to compare footprints that has been shown to be unreliable and has been superseded. I am certain there cannot be a safe conviction.

I am also certain that the truth is that the evidence clearly supports a burglary rape an unfortunately common crime, (it has happened to an acquaintancee), which unfortunately extended to murder.

FWIW my belief is that RG was in the toilet (common behaviour in burglars) when MK came home. I suspect she was in the kitchen. She heard a noise she grabbed a knife, RG tried to get out the front door, but could not, there was some confrontation,RG got a defence wound on his hand. As commonly happens the criminal gets the weapon off the householder, and MK is then forced back into her room, there is a second struggle during which she is killed and RG leaves his blood from the cut on his hand around e.g. on purse/handbag. All the physical evidence is compatible with this scenario.

Many people deeply believe AK is a murderer, this is a result of a deeply held intuition based on AK's behaviour. But this is an irrational belief. The problem with irrational beliefs is that people will construct all sorts of arguments to defend their beliefs. A good example is intelligent design, Briars is clearly susceptible to this type of thought, having intuited the truth it is almost impossible to provide evidence or logical arguments to change peoples deeply held conviction. A good question to challenge this type of belief is to ask people what piece of evidence would cause a change of mind.

So I put this to Briars / Mach. what evidence would be needed to convince you that RG was a lone murderer hence AK and RS are innocent.

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry, I can't tell for sure who is 'in' and 'out'. I know that there is a group of people - almost all from Seattle - who knew the Knox family and have always been disingenuous and non-transparent. These people certainly include judge Heavey, the executives and headmaster of the Seattle Prep (which I would call the Seattle Perp), a large number of acquaintences and speakers (when there are people like Tom Wright who are reported to say "friends of the family will defend Amanda independently from the evidence", this does not really need comment). But I do not address just people: also a restricted "culture" these people apparently share, an atmosphere, a shared attitude, which I promptly define racist and mafious.

The other day, you wrote a longer post about this same subject matter, and I replied to it here. Why did you not reply to my post? Why are you repeating the same claims as if no one gave you any food for thought about them? Your indifference doesn't reflect well on your willingness to exchange ideas.

I pointed out to you that many of our local political leaders have been non-white. All of America is racist, but some pockets are much less so than others, and Western Washington is one of them. (Anyway, it's kind of irrelevant for you to be so bent out of shape about Seattle's racism when Italy's is so much worse.) Also, many Catholics are not as devoted to elitism as they once were. Liberation Theology is the new theme and that means scholarships to non-white kids and an influx of priests and nuns from South America and Asia (because the kinds of white Americans who used to do it aren't doing it anymore). Many people want to be like Bill Gates, who puts zillions of dollars into international health care and the poor.

Then there is an enlarged group that has added over time, that started to revolve around the first core - Seattle Prep, Rotary, local masonry, Gogerty Marriott working as original flywheels. Steve Moore for example was an outsider and a late entry. All mainstream media and media circus came in later. Many of these "external" people can well also be qualified as disingenuous.

You describe these people as if they have a lot of political or financial power. This, as I claimed the other day, is because you get your information from Skeptical Bystander, who is still living in the 1960's, '70's and 80's. If Amanda had any extreme political or financial power behind her, she probably would never have gone to trial.

The terms "mafious," "masonry," and "Rotary" are not household words around here and they play no part in most people's everyday lives. You might as well be accusing us of wearing suits of armor.

But then I assume there must be also a large layer of 'normal' people revolving around this who are not what I would call 'racist' and not intellectually dishonest. I don't know in what degree they share the cultural views of the rotten "core". There isn't a clear demarcation line but I know that some do not, at least some of the innocentisti have attitudes significantly different and far from sharing this common feeling of belonging and 'ethics' (I know this because several have spoken with me privately).

You are thinking the "rotten core" act the way they act because you believe that is how powerful people act when a member of their community is guilty of murder. But the fact is, this is how relatively powerful people act when a member of their community is innocent of murder. If you want to know how people with extreme political and financial power act when one of their children is guilty of murder, then look at Rudy Guede's adoptive parents.

Can you imagine an extremely powerful Bill Gates in the position of Amanda's family, whether his child were innocent or guilty? Do you think he would be going on Oprah to plead his case, or do you think he would be pulling every political and financial string behind the scenes to solve his child's problem?

 

[Bill Williams]

LBR asks how PIP come to the innocence conclusions they do without reading all the court documents.

This is the selling point for McCall's Wiki, which in my view presents a very slanted view of this case, cherry picking evidence, masked as present all the raw evidence.

But that's not what concerns me about it - the way Andrea Vogt promotes the site, as well as others, you'd think the Italian authorities were not doing a good enough job explaining why AK and RS are guilty.

I can see why, then, McCall would take on this project - because, in fact, the Italian judiciary IS NOT doing a very good job putting forward a single case against AK and RS.... a few "cases against them" need to be put forward - heck, even the ISC said that all the motives needed to be dropped except for one: sex game gone wrong.... and then what does Crini do with that!? He ignores it and goes to another one no one had every posited before.

What does one mean by, "a single case"? Well, it seems every time a new prosecutor handles this case, or every time a judge writes a motivations (including the ISC), they have to completely reinvent the case against AK and RS. Apparently they are having trouble settling on a convincing single narrative - no wonder guilters seldom try.

The essence of rights against double jeopardy, extradition issues aside for a moment, is that the State does not get to use its unlimited resources to keep prosecuting someone endlessly - either after they've been acquited, or by another route...

.. by having to keep reinventing the crime, assigning new roles and motives to the two people they are hell bent to convict, regardless of the evidence, even in consecutive courts which convict, but do so with almost mutually exclusive reasons.

So it is strange; some guilters with Wiki skills need to, themselves, put the case against RS and AK.... I thought this was the State of Italy's job? The question is....

Does McCall go with one of Mignini's mnay and ever evolving theories? Does he go with the one Massei adopted - remember, Massei finds that Raffaele called 112 BEFORE the postal police arrive. Does McCall accept this, or does he have another theory. (At the very least this should be a more important issue than an April Fools prank done when Knox was a teenager!)

Does McCall go with Galati and the ISC theory which caused the annulment of the acquittals? Or does he go with Crini and the pooh motive, and household tensions - which, strangely, portrays Meredith as vindictive and so obsessively clean that she would raise a fuss - a fuss in a decidedly non-English manner, I should say?

Or worse still, does McCall simply invent his own?

The very existence of that Wiki is troubling. Why would it be needed if the Italians had simply solved this "case closed" right on Nov 6, 2007? Ooooops, a Wiki developed that day would have had to have made mention of Lumumba as most certainly the killer, because experienced cops closed the case around him!

The very existence of the Wiki requires the question to be asked: how many scenarios does Italy or guilters get to cycle through, until they hit upon one?

Can anyone say Quadruple jeopardy? That's what the Wiki is about.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thank you. Thanks to Amy too.

Is there hope of acquittal, Charlie? Did the defense do a good job? (Not that the latter is necessarily related to the former.)

One can always hope. I'm not at all optimistic.

At the outset, the court denied all defense requests but agreed to examine two pieces of evidence requested by the prosecution:

- The witness Aviello, who claims his/her dead brother committed the murder, and whom the prosecution hoped would say he/she was bribed for this testimony, which he/she did not.

- A DNA sample from the kitchen knife that C&V deemed unsuitable for analysis, which the prosecution hoped would confirm the 36-B result, but did not.

The rest consisted of arguments and pleas by the defendants and lawyers for both sides.

This cannot be regarded as a meaningful examination of the evidence. Therefore, I have assumed it is a fig leaf for a decision made before the hearings ever started. We know what decision the Court of Cassation wants. Will Nencini disappoint them? I doubt it. Hellmann was on the verge of retiring, and even so, he took the precaution of bringing in outside consultants to bolster his decision. Nencini looks to be a man in the prime of his career. He has nothing to gain by bucking the system in a high-profile case, and perhaps much to lose.

 

[NancyS]

Autopsy and wounds was a main point of evidence i this trial. The fact that you think it wasn't, that it was only prejudicial and not evidentiary, it's just your opinion, and your opinion is wrong.

Francesco Maresca was acting onf the Kercher's behalf and was doing exactly what he had to do in order to discuss with the judges about why their daughter and sister was assaulted and killed by three people, not by a lone killer.

However, the coroner disagreed with this and claimed that either was possible, which makes Maresca a big liar - using the image to tell lies and thus pervert justice for Meredith Kercher is sick

 

[Mary_H]

At least five people were involved directly in the prank, and at least one more person proved she knew it, since posted about it on a forum.
At five or six people means five or six families, and means the close friends of five or six people.
This means a community.
You say that after Knox's arrest, none of these people and their friend ever talked about what they "knew" about Knox, with anybody? It's not credible.
If nobody talks in the open, is because nobody wants to talk. Because somehow feels that talking would look bad, against a tacit social feeling, against a quietly accepted agreement. The person who posted even remained anonymous.
It's obvious that people of this community didn't like to talk about some things regarding Knox. And it's obvious that there is a common implicit agreement about this.

First of all, I doubt the kids' families knew about their prank. As testimonials from several posters here have illustrated, pranks among college students are pretty common and not especially noteworthy.

You're probably right that if anyone knew about this prank, they very well may have thought, "Oops, that isn't going to look good for Amanda if anyone finds out," the reason being that lawyers and other jackals would exaggerate the significance of it and use it against her, as is happening right now.

People do fall silent. There was not much said among the PGP about PQ's proclivities toward ballerinas, and I don't think anybody in the PGP has uttered a single word about Crini's theory of the feces. It doesn't mean there's a big, conspiratorial cover-up; there are just certain things people don't like to talk about. If Amanda had made a habit of such behavior, it might have been worth a look.

-Seattle has a pretty diverse population, but I don't think there's a very large population of Italians here. It used to have a large Scadinavian population, especially in places like Ballard. It's still a significant presence here, but also a very significant Asian and Hispanic population.

Now back East, where I'm originally from (Providence, RI), there's an area there called "Federal Hill" which is "suppose" to be mostly Italian, and at one time it was (Providence has a long list of Mayors that were Italian, anyone who lives there now would recognize the name Cianci), but now it's a little more diverse. Now back there I would believe the Mafioso talk, but here, I just don't see it,

d

-

I went to high school in Seattle with a lot of Italian American girls. They were about as devoted to being Italian as I was to being Irish, which was kind of like, "Oh, yeah, okay, our ancestors came from somewhere else, huh." You don't really sense your heritage, I think, until you become an adult and realize how you were kinda-sorta raised in it.

As for the community protecting Amanda, well, Mellas is a Greek name, Knox is a German name, Heavey is an Irish name, etc. Good luck working out all the intricate loyalties.

 

[Dan O.]

I looked at her blog and didn't see it. I didn't look at her Facebook page -- it must be there.

I don't care about the prank. Did she talk about it because it came up in court? People (mach) seem quite emotional about it. I've logged in here several times in the last few days: prank, prank, prank, Koko, prank, prank, prank, brazilian.

Did the defense make strong closing arguments?

Wild hourse, your questions have all been answered here in this thread. I even provided a link to her blog page where the revelation was made. Nothing about this issue should have come up in court since it has never been more than heresay (though that hasn't stopped the italian prosecutors on other issues). The issue came up in the discussion on her blog as one of the few things the guilters on sites like TJMF and PMF have left to discuss. Amanda replied with the one post plus an addendum and that should have put the issue to rest. But it keeps going on and on because people like yourself keep bringing it up.

 

[Dan O.]

FWIW my belief is that RG was in the toilet (common behaviour in burglars) when MK came home. I suspect she was in the kitchen. She heard a noise she grabbed a knife, RG tried to get out the front door, but could not, there was some confrontation,RG got a defence wound on his hand. As commonly happens the criminal gets the weapon off the householder, and MK is then forced back into her room, there is a second struggle during which she is killed and RG leaves his blood from the cut on his hand around e.g. on purse/handbag. All the physical evidence is compatible with this scenario.

I too have been mulling over the thought that Meredith started out with the knife in the kitchen. She may have even been standing in front of the fridge quietly carving and nibbling slices of mushroom when Rudy steped out of the bathroom.

What's missing from this theory is any indication that a knife was missing from the cottage. Filomena and Laura were both brought to the cottage as was Amanda to identify if any of the knives were missing. But is sounds like ILE had mixed all of the knives from the kitchen into one drawer so it was impossible for the girls to identify if any particular knife was gone. There is still one other person that might be able to shed light on this. The person that quite likely was the last before Meredith to use that knife in the kitchen that very afternoon when he came over to meet Amanda and prepare lunch. But if he is smart, he's not going to even think about discussing it until the trial is over one way or another.

A minor issue I have with your theory is the idea that Rudy cut his hand in a knife fight. I just cannot conceive of the possibility of such a wound being inflicted in a hostile fight. What Rudy got was little more than a scratch. A swinging knife that makes contact is going to cut much deeper.

Finally. No blood of Rudy's had been found. His DNA was found in locations where pressured or friction would aid in removing skin cells.

 

[Antony]

With the exception of keeping the calunnia charge, which of course should also have been overturned, Pratillo Hellmann happened to be %100 correct and wise in his judgment of the case. Any opposing view is strictly the province of conspiricists, crackpots and special pleaders.

That's apart from continuing to treat the prosecution "experts" with impunity for their perjury and contempt of court.

 

[Samson]

One can always hope. I'm not at all optimistic.

At the outset, the court denied all defense requests but agreed to examine two pieces of evidence requested by the prosecution:

- The witness Aviello, who claims his/her dead brother committed the murder, and whom the prosecution hoped would say he/she was bribed for this testimony, which he/she did not.

- A DNA sample from the kitchen knife that C&V deemed unsuitable for analysis, which the prosecution hoped would confirm the 36-B result, but did not.

The rest consisted of arguments and pleas by the defendants and lawyers for both sides.

This cannot be regarded as a meaningful examination of the evidence. Therefore, I have assumed it is a fig leaf for a decision made before the hearings ever started. We know what decision the Court of Cassation wants. Will Nencini disappoint them? I doubt it. Hellmann was on the verge of retiring, and even so, he took the precaution of bringing in outside consultants to bolster his decision. Nencini looks to be a man in the prime of his career. He has nothing to gain by bucking the system in a high-profile case, and perhaps much to lose.

Charlie, I thought that the refusal of defence requests signalled determination to eliminate objections by ISC, and affirm Hellmann.

 

[tsig]

Yes Amanda Knox - and let's not forget R. Sollecito - are under trial.

It is also self evident that indeed "the Italian system" is under trial also. In the general sense of the term. Italy (their "system") is undoubtedly being judged. And it is not just a handful of hobbyists on some internet blog. You may not have been in the US at the time of the release of AK and RS, but that event was undoubtedly the biggest media event I have witnessed in a long long time. You can parse that how ever you want, but it is undeniable that there is an enormous interest in the case, and a very large part of the interest comes from the sense that one of "our own" was tried in a small provincial outpost of a country with a reputation for corruption. You may not like that and you may argue against it and you may pretend or claim that English speaking world is misinformed, but it is a fact and it is the source of the magnifying lens under which your "Italian system" is being judged.

You - as a spokesperson of sorts for Italy - have an uphill battle because the "Italian system" has a reputation, and your arguments are many times very tortured and convoluted and do not help in building confidence in said system. I would make a suggestion that you learn to express yourself in fewer words. Perhaps your ideas would take on more cogency. My opinion only.

That being said, your posts are very informative frequently as to your system, and as to your way of thinking. For that I thank you.

I live in the US and I don't see any great interest in this case.

 

[Samson]

I live in the US and I don't see any great interest in this case.

I live in the southern hemisphere and see no interest in this case.
It is an interesting case.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I live in the US and I don't see any great interest in this case.

I have family, friends and co-workers dotted around the States and I would have to agree folks moved on from this case a long time ago, sure there will be the peaks of media interest; this case matters to a relatively small group of people (PIP and PGP) who for various reasons have chosen to follow the case, it’s the same in the UK.

 

[Samson]

I have family, friends and co-workers dotted around the States and I would have to agree folks moved on from this case a long time ago, sure there will be the peaks of media interest; this case matters to a relatively small group of people (PIP and PGP) who for various reasons have chosen to follow the case, it’s the same in the UK.

If only all protagonists could move on comfortably with their lives. I feel strangely unthreatened by Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito being encouraged to resume their productive lives like the children of all posters.

 

[RoseMontague]

One more question. Other than Machiavelli and Briars, all who post here believe without doubt, that AK and RS are innocent. How is it reasonable that you could all come to that conclusion when,

a) you have not read all of the primary source documents for all of the trials for yourself, even those that have not been translated into English (I'm assuming that most of you cannot read Italian)

b) you have not attended court proceedings to understand what has been said by all people, as a jury would have the opportunity to do

What I find amazing, is the level of certainty that people have about this case and who do not fall into one or both of the above categories . . . . just saying . . . .

I only have a few left to get through of the ones Amanda recently posted. If you are thinking the pro-guilt wiki is an accurate summary of those primary sources, think again. I don't believe they even want you to bother reading for yourself.

Here is an example when that wiki says something and cites as the source Curatolo's testimony.

According to Curatolo Knox and Sollecito were in the square from roughly 9:30 pm until 10:00 pm and after that they were gone.[12] Curatolo then saw them return to Piazza Grimana from Via Pinturicchio and he saw them there from roughly 11:30 pm until midnight.[13]

I don't see this in the testimony. What I see is that several times he reports that he looked up and saw them and that they were there continuously until shortly before midnight.

Maybe you can point it out to me where he says they left and where he says he saw them return from Via Pinturiccho (which I don't even see mentioned).

Strange.

 

[Antony]

And of the Supreme Court.

It's fair to say that js202's assessment extends to the Supreme Court judges who illegally cancelled Hellman's acquittals, without giving any recognisable reasons in law.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

If only all protagonists could move on comfortably with their lives. I feel strangely unthreatened by Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito being encouraged to resume their productive lives like the children of all posters.

It’s difficult for any of the families directly involved to move on with their respective lives given the glacial pace of the judicial process.

 

[LondonJohn]

Those who "speak" - as you say to "defend" her - have a duty to speak about everything, if they want to be believed, or shut up about everything, without complaining about alleged incorrect reporting, without claiming any credibility when they point out alleged 'lies'. Even less if they should have the chutzpa to jump out to accuse other people (witnesses etc.) or other communities. If they think others have no right to know, they better shut up. About everything.

Do you understand that all what you said, just confirms, just means nothing else but the people from that community are in fact cheaters and have zero credibility?

This is an absolutely ludicrous argument, which falls flat on its face and is - in my opinion - symptomatic of extremely poor thinking and inherent bias.

Suppose I (and a bunch of other people) made accusations that Grinder beat up an old lady in a park once for fun. By Machiavelli's "argument", Grinder would have some sort of obligation not only to deny that this had happened, but also to tell us all the "truth" about any encounters he might or might not have had with old ladies in parks. And by Machiavelli's "argument", Grinder would "lose credibility" if he did not do both of these things!

This is clearly nonsense. In fact, Grinder would have zero obligation to even deny the accusation, if he chose not to. And, by the way, a non-denial would in no way equate to an admission of guilt. Grinder would, of course, also have zero obligation to tell his accusers anything else about what might or might not have happened between him and any old lady in a park.

I am afraid to say that Machiavelli's "argument" on this issue simply doesn't hold any water. It's incorrect, illogical, and fundamentally logically flawed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for this, Briars. The is the closest thing to a genuine "other side of the story" that I have seen from, ah, er, the other side in a long time.

Still, there was no rape prank. The rumour as I always heard it, was of a rape prank, and guilters and haters always spun this as a predisposition for psychopathology for Knox. It's perhaps the very first factoid I ran into when first following this circa Aug 2011.

Well, almost the first - the other factoid was the "sex on a train" thing. Simply put, there was no sex on a train, no matter what Sharon Feinstein wrote....

Still, you bring up an important reminder for all - neither side is a giant monolith... perhaps it's true, for every guilter/hater who tried to spin this prank as a rape prank, there were perhaps three others who read about it and did as you suggest....

Truly though, it's not that big a deal and never was... whereas I can heartily (somewhat) agree with the first sentence... "I like many others was surprised to learn that a robbery prank was confirmed by Amanda," the innuendo of the second sentence, "I can only guess that she was fully aware denial on her public blog might cause others to come forward." is a little silly....

Come forward with what? That they'd done an April Fools prank?

It'd be like coming forward with a story that one had once told an off colour joke in class when they were in grade 12, and got sent to the office.... it's hardly something really to come forward, or not come forward about....

It's an April Fools prank, dude!

The only reason I could possibly see in this context for not coming forward is exactly what as happened, guilters and haters would be all over it like a cheap suit, reading all sorts of nefarious meaning into.....

....... AN APRIL FOOLS PRANK, for pete's sake!

My objective reading of Knox's version of events is that she has made it perfectly clear what took place:

1) Her housemates were away from the house at the time of setting up the prank.

2) She and some friends (who were also mutual friends of the housemates) rearranged items in the housemates' rooms and some common areas of the house, to make it look like there had been a burglary.

3) When the housemates returned to the house, they were confronted by what appeared to be evidence of a burglary having taken place some time while they were out.

4) After some moments, Knox and the friends revealed that it wasn't a real burglary, but rather that it was an April Fools' joke.

5) Knox and the friends apologised for having caused the housemates the short-term shock of thinking they had been burgled.


I can't see any other reasonable way to interpret Knox's version of events. And this version makes it clear that there was never any violence or threat of violence, that there was never even any direct visual confrontation between the "victims" and those setting up the prank, that there was never any hint of Knox or her friends donning masks or costumes of any sort (it wasn't necessary anyhow - the execution of the prank's set-up took place while the "victims" were absent), and that there was absolutely no malicious intent of any sort. The intent was purely to cause the type of short-term shock - which is quickly dissipated when the prank is revealed - that is a classic hallmark of virtually every single April Fools' joke.

 

[Matthew Best]

The interesting question here is why did the Mafia invent April Fools Day in the first place?

Hmmmmm?