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

[syllogism]

No? It would seem unexpected. On the other hand, is wrongful imprisonment in a place where she was subjected to sexual assault not inhuman and degrading treatment? All she would be doing is asking the ECHR to maintain the status quo until it rules on the merits of her pending application, which might well have some legs. Do you think that the ECHR lacks authority to do so, or just wouldn't want to do it?

They lack the authority because interim measures require that there is an immediate risk of irreparable harm, which is clearly not the case here as it would just mean the applicant would move from a non-signatory state to a signatory state.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the dingbat NYC prosecutor needs to review the evidence he's talking about. I don't think the best explanation for this debacle continuing is because Rudy was a police informant, which I'm not sure of myself. I think there's a number of parties whose best interest is seeing that Raffaele and Amanda are considered guilty because the way Mignini perverted justice in this case is embarrassing to their system because it shows how easily kooky nonsense can be 'proven' in their courts and the deplorable state of forensics in Italy.

I have not exactly abandoned that thread. I saw your post and was going to say something but had to go do something else and subsequently forgot about it.

Personally, I think that Steve Moore is going way too far in placing any alleged "Guede-as-police-informant" theory front and centre.

While I think that it certainly cannot be ruled out as a possibility, and while it certainly fits with certain key evidence regarding how Guede was treated in the days and weeks prior to the murder, there's currently no positive evidence that Guede was a Perugia police informant.

And what's much more important is the simple fact that the "Guede-as-police-informant" theory is totally unnecessary to a cogent, coherent explanation of how/why Knox and Sollecito were wrongly charged and found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher. In addition, there's no evidence that the police/authorities made any effort to "protect" Guede after the murder, and there's also no evidence that they even suspected Guede of involvement at the time when they arrested Knox and Sollecito.

As many of us have outlined here and elsewhere before, there's a depressingly simple explanation to what happened to Knox and Sollecito in November 2007 and thereafter: a rush to judgement, tunnel vision, confirmation bias, groupthink, deference to senior authority figures, a group "circling of the wagons", and personal/collective hubris. None of this need have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not Guede was a police informant.

 

[Diocletus]

They lack the authority because interim measures require that there is an immediate risk of irreparable harm, which is clearly not the case here as it would just mean the applicant would move from a non-signatory state to a signatory state.

Well, that might not be such a big deal . . .

However, moving from freedom in a non-signatory state to jail in a signatory state would seem like pretty irreparable harm to me, especially if we assume that being in jail is the consequence of an ECHR violation (or two or three).

What moral authority does the ECHR have to prevent European citizens from being extradited to other countries, if it can't even prevent its own members from importing foreign citizens to be wrongfully imprisoned as a consequence of the member's human rights violations?

 

[Kaosium]

Personally, I think that Steve Moore is going way too far in placing any alleged "Guede-as-police-informant" theory front and centre.

While I think that it certainly cannot be ruled out as a possibility, and while it certainly fits with certain key evidence regarding how Guede was treated in the days and weeks prior to the murder, there's currently no positive evidence that Guede was a Perugia police informant.

Plus there's another likely reason that Guede received leniency: he was 'fostered' by the richest guy in town.

And what's much more important is the simple fact that the "Guede-as-police-informant" theory is totally unnecessary to a cogent, coherent explanation of how/why Knox and Sollecito were wrongly charged and found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher. In addition, there's no evidence that the police/authorities made any effort to "protect" Guede after the murder, and there's also no evidence that they even suspected Guede of involvement at the time when they arrested Knox and Sollecito.

As many of us have outlined here and elsewhere before, there's a depressingly simple explanation to what happened to Knox and Sollecito in November 2007 and thereafter: a rush to judgement, tunnel vision, confirmation bias, groupthink, deference to senior authority figures, a group "circling of the wagons", and personal/collective hubris. None of this need have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not Guede was a police informant.

The problem is that takes too long and thus doesn't make a good soundbite. You only get minutes if not seconds to make your point on those shows, which is why I stopped watching them years ago.

 

[Planigale]

It has been suggested that some new physical evidence might illuminate things. One of the key arguments is with regards to the break in. RG was not charged with a break in because there was no evidence that there was a break in. The prosecution allege he was allowed in by either MK or AK. The only people with an interest in faking a break in would be AK. But it seems unlikely that AK would know that RG had a history of burglary. If RS had a confederate, perhaps a drug dealer who wanted access to the flat down stairs where there was the stash of a rival supplier and wanted to pressurise MK into handing over the key to access this. This confederate would know of RG history and know to fake the break in.

I don't believe this but it fits the facts. So we need to look is there evidence of any one else, any unidentified DNA or fingerprints?

I think the defence not only needs to deny the involvement of AK and RS but create alternative narratives that matches the facts. A lone killer is not acceptable so there has to be an alternative that involves RG and others.

The prosecution cleverly avoid details in their scenario. Making it difficult for the defence to rebut. They allege the break in was fake, but provide no evidence. They do not have a falsifiable hypothesis. They do not specify was the window broken by throwing a stone from the garden, from inside against the inner pain with the window closed, or against the outside of the window with it opened to the inside. That the climb was unclimbable is falsifiable. The defence should have put more effort into this. There is poor quality imaging of the outside of the building, the defence should point out the smudges and say they are the footprints of some one breaking in. The poor quality pictures of the window frame and inside show footprints.

I guess it is too much to hope that the glass from the window was preserved and is able to be analysed to show the direction of breaking.

The defence need to utilise the poor forensic analysis to sow doubt. The lack of investigation cuts both ways. So far I think the defence have been too 'gentlemanly', like a good politician being interviewed the defence needs to decide on the message they want to get over and make it regardless.

 

[Kestrel]

A simpler explanation for why Rudy Guede was not charged for his involvement in prior crimes is the dysfunctional Italian legal system. The glacial pace of trials has created a massive backlog. A simple burglary case might take years to come to trial. So the police use a different tactic. They beat up those suspected of minor crimes to teach them a lesson. The courts will look the other way if the suspect objects. It is a serious crime to claim abuse by the police and the cops know that the courts will side with them.

So the cops in Milan beat up Rudy and sent him home, threatening a worse beating if he showed up in their town again. As far as they were concerned, the problem was solved.

 

[LondonJohn]

It has been suggested that some new physical evidence might illuminate things. One of the key arguments is with regards to the break in. RG was not charged with a break in because there was no evidence that there was a break in. The prosecution allege he was allowed in by either MK or AK. The only people with an interest in faking a break in would be AK. But it seems unlikely that AK would know that RG had a history of burglary. If RS had a confederate, perhaps a drug dealer who wanted access to the flat down stairs where there was the stash of a rival supplier and wanted to pressurise MK into handing over the key to access this. This confederate would know of RG history and know to fake the break in.

I don't believe this but it fits the facts. So we need to look is there evidence of any one else, any unidentified DNA or fingerprints?

I think the defence not only needs to deny the involvement of AK and RS but create alternative narratives that matches the facts. A lone killer is not acceptable so there has to be an alternative that involves RG and others.

The prosecution cleverly avoid details in their scenario. Making it difficult for the defence to rebut. They allege the break in was fake, but provide no evidence. They do not have a falsifiable hypothesis. They do not specify was the window broken by throwing a stone from the garden, from inside against the inner pain with the window closed, or against the outside of the window with it opened to the inside. That the climb was unclimbable is falsifiable. The defence should have put more effort into this. There is poor quality imaging of the outside of the building, the defence should point out the smudges and say they are the footprints of some one breaking in. The poor quality pictures of the window frame and inside show footprints.

I guess it is too much to hope that the glass from the window was preserved and is able to be analysed to show the direction of breaking.

The defence need to utilise the poor forensic analysis to sow doubt. The lack of investigation cuts both ways. So far I think the defence have been too 'gentlemanly', like a good politician being interviewed the defence needs to decide on the message they want to get over and make it regardless.

Be that as it may, it's all totally moot now. Unless the SC somehow decides to annul part or all of the Nencini verdict and sends the case back to a third appeal-level trial, there's no more factual presentation or factual arguments to be made in this case in the Italian courts.

It's all over now, bar the (in my opinion inevitable) rubber stamping by the SC. But that doesn't mean that it's all over in an overarching judicial sense. I strongly believe that both Knox and Sollecito will have grounds for successful applications to the ECHR, owing to multiple infringements of their rights to a fair trial. If the ECHR does ultimately rule that Knox's/Sollecito's rights were infringed, it will likely rule that the human rights infringements were sufficiently significant as to have a fundamental influence on the convictions. And if that's the case, then the ECHR will order Italy to apply full remedy - which in practice will mean full retrials at the very least (with the exclusion of all evidence pertaining to the human rights infringements), or outright directed acquittals.

So if the ECHR does ultimately rule in Knox's/Sollecito's favour, then we may once more be in a position where the courts are discussing matters of fact (i.e. if there is a consequent new appeal trial). But even if this does happen, it most probably won't be for many years yet. For now, therefore, there's nothing more to argue in a judicial context when it comes to the facts of the case.

 

[platonov]

'broken window perplexity'

It has been suggested that some new physical evidence might illuminate things. One of the key arguments is with regards to the break in. RG was not charged with a break in because there was no evidence that there was a break in. The prosecution allege he was allowed in by either MK or AK. The only people with an interest in faking a break in would be AK. But it seems unlikely that AK would know that RG had a history of burglary. If RS had a confederate, perhaps a drug dealer who wanted access to the flat down stairs where there was the stash of a rival supplier and wanted to pressurise MK into handing over the key to access this. This confederate would know of RG history and know to fake the break in.

I don't believe this but it fits the facts. So we need to look is there evidence of any one else, any unidentified DNA or fingerprints?

I think the defence not only needs to deny the involvement of AK and RS but create alternative narratives that matches the facts. A lone killer is not acceptable so there has to be an alternative that involves RG and others.

The prosecution cleverly avoid details in their scenario. Making it difficult for the defence to rebut. They allege the break in was fake, but provide no evidence. They do not have a falsifiable hypothesis. They do not specify was the window broken by throwing a stone from the garden, from inside against the inner pain with the window closed, or against the outside of the window with it opened to the inside. That the climb was unclimbable is falsifiable. The defence should have put more effort into this. There is poor quality imaging of the outside of the building, the defence should point out the smudges and say they are the footprints of some one breaking in. The poor quality pictures of the window frame and inside show footprints.

I guess it is too much to hope that the glass from the window was preserved and is able to be analysed to show the direction of breaking.
The defence need to utilise the poor forensic analysis to sow doubt. The lack of investigation cuts both ways. So far I think the defence have been too 'gentlemanly', like a good politician being interviewed the defence needs to decide on the message they want to get over and make it regardless.

I see 'broken window perplexity' hasn't gone away !

There are several posters who could explain it to you but as you are a scientist IIRC you can probably figure it out.

Oh, and one other minor point ...

The case is over.

 

[Wildhorses]

From the knife carriers book:

"“Amanda Knox did not leave – could not have left – my house on the night of the murder."

“She didn’t have her own key, so if she’d gone out alone, she would have had to ring the doorbell and ask me to buzz her back in. Even if I’d been stoned or asleep when she rang, I would have remembered that. And it didn’t happen.”

Yet this is Raffles writing in his diary on the 11th of Nov..... a full week after the murder:

"My real concerns are now two: the first one derives from the fact that, if that night Amanda remained with me all night long, we could have (and this is a very remote possibility) made love all evening and night only stopping to eat... it would be a real problem because there would be no connections from my computer to servers in those hours..."

If that night she remained with him?

And this is the knife carrier Raffaele Sollecito writing on the 18th of Nov.... over 2 weeks after the murder:

"Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening."

I think?

Later he writes:

"I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home."

Ok... now he's "convinced". Is he convinced that she didn't go out because because she didn't have a key to get back in?

No. He's convinced because:

"The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt [lei non si era fatta niente]. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one."

LOL.

What the sleazy knife carrier is doing in his diary is telling us that yes, she did indeed have a key.

Of course his self serving book now states ...hey, she couldn't have gone out without me knowing because she didn't have a key!

Right knife boy. Right.

Yes, there he is is a full week after being jet rocketed into an inconceivable nightmare. He has no idea what's going on. Until then, he probably hadn't gone a day of his life without talking to his father.

If these kids hadn't been railroaded, you wouldn't even know what's in their diaries. You wouldn't have access to Raff's confusion and self-questioning. But no, his diaries were leaked so tabloids could make money and vultures could pour over them looking for so-called "evidence."

And here you are: happy to assume the role of thought police.

If you're remotely interested in justice, you can't have it both ways. IF these kids were the brazen, conniving, crime-staging, murdering sociopaths you want them to be, they'd NEVER have put that kind of stuff in writing.

How do you think a naive, traumatized kid would act when wrongly accused of a crime, imprisoned, subjected to an unrivaled avalanche of tabloid slander, and told his girlfriend of six days is evil incarnate? You'd have to be blind to every attribute of human nature to not know he'd be in a state of supreme confusion. You'd have to be cruel -- and determined to railroad him -- to hold his confusion and self-questioning against him.

 

[Diocletus]

The case is over.

Over? I predict a minimum of 6 more years of this case. Could be 15.

 

[acbytesla]

Indeed - perhaps we could have a catchy title like say ...

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

It has a certain ring dont you think ?

On a more serious note - I saw RS on CNN ?
First time I have seen this particular primate - one thing struck me.

He had a US lawyer - does he know something the Italian cops dont know.

I don't think the cartwheel has anything to do with it.

I think the police thought Amanda was involved because she was different and they thought that it wasn't a burglary. They jumped on that idea twenty minutes into the police investigation. But this was a wrong assumption. And then they had prejudice involved..seizing on Patrick Lumumba and Amanda. Patrick visited Amanda at the University. They found that very strange, that on top of the text message that said "See you later" made them think that something very strange was going on. I mean, what is a 50 year old black man doing visiting Amanda at her college?

Then they boxed themselves in by announcing to the world that they had caught their murderers, but then that all fell apart. Patrick wasn't there and then they were convinced because of the shoe prints that Raffaele had to be there...

Then the morons held the press conference. They were boxed in and then it was about confirmation bias and saving face.

 

[platonov]

Shouting at the computer

No, he's a dingbat cribbing off the false wiki or what Harry Rag and friends keep bombarding e-mail boxes with.



I don't think Guede being an informant explains enough, so if he is or not that's not why Raffaele and Amanda are still being persecuted.



Do you listen too?

So, no comment on

Is THE FBI MAN correct about the Supreme court being part of the conspiracy.

Listen ? - sure. Why, have you shouted the answer at me?

On a forum you have to type it out I'm afraid.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This is something that has always puzzled me about this case, and maybe even about Italy -- the magistrates and judges are considered to be politically left of center. I think Machiavelli, who loves the Italian justice system, identifies as a communist, right?

Yet the pro-guilt argument is pro-authoritarian, anti-women and anti-science. These are the opposite of what are considered politically liberal values in our system.

Think Leonid Brezhnev instead of Pete Seeger.

These people are not advancing high ideals or promoting humanistic values. They are bureaucratic drones, protecting the entrenched interests that serve them personally in their careers. Those interests include the court system, which they largely control.

They employ whatever means are at their disposal, and whatever invective resonates with the mob that supports them. Anti-American rhetoric is always effective. That is why the "honorary president" of the highest court in Italy is a 9-11 truther.

 

[Kestrel]

Then the morons held the press conference. They were boxed in and then it was about confirmation bias and saving face.

Amanda and Raff are not the only ones damaged by this goon squads attempt to save face. Remember blogger Frank S., authors Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi, reporters from Oggi and at least two Italian newspapers charged with crimes for saying the prosecution was wrong?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>That's peanuts.

I don't know about over by you... but over here by me, it's illegal to carry a knife.

Perugia isn't Camden New Jersey or Newark. It's a city with a low crime rate. So why would you habitually carry a weapon?

Also Raffaelle is wealthy...he comes from a good family. Young well-to-do Italian boys do not carry knives.

Furthermore.... this is the knife, a Spyderco Delica 4. Watch it in action.

This is the knife Raffles had confiscated from him at police station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaZ1OehNtSQ&feature=player_embedded

BTW... I wonder what would happen to you if you were found to have this on your person inside of an American Police Station. Any ideas?

What difference does it make that Raffaele carried a knife if it wasn't the knife used in the murder? The Spyderco came up clean when they tested it; it's irrelevant to the crime, as are the other knives in Raffaele's collection.

If Raffaele had a knife at the ready for self-defense or murder, he wouldn't have seen the need to advise Amanda to carry a butcher knife in her bag, right?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>If it walks like a dick, and quacks like a duck....<snip>

It's a member of Perugian law enforcement?

 

[Rolfe]

Over? I predict a minimum of 6 more years of this case. Could be 15.

My God, I'm going to win after all!

Some time in the spring of 2011 I rashly bet you lot that I'd get the Lockerbie conviction holed below the waterline before Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted. I was getting ahead of myself - I thought I had found a slam-dunk counter-proof to the prosecution case. However, when the necessary witness statements and passenger movement records were procured to see if I was right, it turned out I was wrong. That was August 2011. Damn, hello square one.

Then when the Hellmann verdict was pronounced in October 2011 I threw in the towel, imagining you guys had comprehensively won. When I heard that the ISC had delivered its judgement, on my car radio while queuing for a car wash, I originally thought I'd heard that the acquittals had been confirmed, so sure was I that that was what was going to happen. I was utterly flabbergasted when it dawned on me what the announcer had actually said.

Now the tables are turned again in my favour. After the abortive 2011 red herring, I was given more evidence that hadn't been seen in public before. The case actually is holed below the waterline now, it's just that it's going to take time to get the authorities to understand what has happened.

I give it a couple of years. Five years tops. So, it's game on again.

Rolfe.

 

[acbytesla]

Over? I predict a minimum of 6 more years of this case. Could be 15.

I just hope that they can keep Raffaele out of prison. The guy has sacrificed too much already.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Yes, there is is a full week after being jet rocketed into an inconceivable nightmare. He has no idea what's going on. Until then, he probably hadn't gone a day of his life without talking to his father.

If these kids hadn't been railroaded, you wouldn't even know what's in their diaries. You wouldn't have access to Raff's confusion and self-questioning. But no, his diaries were leaked so tabloids could make money and vultures could pour over them looking for so-called "evidence."

And here you are: happy to assume the role of thought police.

If you're remotely interested in justice, you can't have it both ways. IF these kids were the brazen, conniving, crime-staging, murdering sociopaths you want them to be, they'd NEVER have put that kind of stuff in writing.

How do you think a naive, traumatized kid would act when wrongly accused of a crime, imprisoned, subjected to an unrivaled avalanche of tabloid slander, and told his girlfriend of six days is evil incarnate? You'd have to be blind to every attribute of human nature to not know he'd be in a state of supreme confusion. You'd have to be cruel -- and determined to railroad him -- to hold his confusion and self-questioning against him.

Raffaele was being advised by his father and sister, for his own reason he chose to ignore them, they both advised him to get counsel, an unnamed police officer allegedly advised him to get a lawyer. He wasn’t alone, does his book cover why he ignored this advice? This wasn’t a stolen had bag or a road traffic accident his girlfriend of six days housemate had just been brutally murdered, it was not an everyday occurrence, well not in my book.

The very points you make about his age (23) the growing media storm is why I don’t understand why he ignored the advice of his then Caribinieri officer sister.

 

[Grinder]

Raffaele was being advised by his father and sister, for his own reason he chose to ignore them, they both advised him to get counsel, an unnamed police officer allegedly advised him to get a lawyer. He wasn’t alone, does his book cover why he ignored this advice? This wasn’t a stolen had bag or a road traffic accident his girlfriend of six days housemate had just been brutally murdered, it was not an everyday occurrence, well not in my book.

The very points you make about his age (23) the growing media storm is why I don’t understand why he ignored the advice of his then Caribinieri officer sister.

IIRC his father called in a lawyer he used and that lawyer advised they had nothing to worry about. On his own Raf just isn't that savvy.