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

[Grinder]

You're right there is a chance that Amanda wasn't at Raffaele's apartment at 20:18. A chance, and nothing more. It certainly isn't evidence of the fact and it would be flat out WRONG to think this is proof that Amanda wasn't at Raffaele's apartment.

I have to say. Your post is exactly what is wrong with the guilter perspective. You immediately take the guilt perspective on a piece of evidence that is incredibly inconclusive. Don't you see, that when the evidence is this suspect that you should say it has zero weight? That it means NOTHING.

There is absolutely no reason why she would lie about this. If she were out at 8:18 and then back at the flat at 8:40, which no one disputes, why would she lie and open herself to criticism and suspicion?

As I've said many a time it makes no sense that the kids didn't put together an account that included all events that would be consistent with them being innocent. If they really stood around in the plaza for 2 1/2 hours why not include it in their story? They must have noticed Curatolo watching them or at least considered that someone might report their presence there and would want to cover that eventuality. They obviously knew that they sneaked down to the cottage and killed her in just a few minutes and were probably not missed in the plaza. They would have timed Curatolo's cigarette breaks and knew when to go and when to return.

 

[anglolawyer]

To what degree does it warp Italian justice to have a judge sitting on the jury? Are ordinary citizens prepared to challenge and contradict a judge in deliberations? Or does the judge pretty much decide the jury verdict?

It mixes up the law and fact parts of the decision-making process. Why would separating them be good? The common law approach of letting a jury decide all questions of fact is a safeguard against state oppression. One is tried by one's peers that way. The judge must retain control of the law because s/he knows the law and the jury does not but the jurors in our system are sole and final arbiters of fact. Is the defendant honest? Is his evidence to be believed? Whose experts' evidence is to be preferred? Ultimately, is there a reasonable doubt? And the jury must reach a unanimous verdict to convict or, in E & W, a majority of 10-2 at least, which is yet another safeguard.

We have mixed tribunals of lawyers and lay people in various spheres (property, mental health, employment etc) usually one of the former and two of the latter, often experts, and the lawyer always chairs the bench and tends to dominate presumably due to knowledge of the law and greater familiar with dispute resolution procedures.

 

[anglolawyer]

There is absolutely no reason why she would lie about this. If she were out at 8:18 and then back at the flat at 8:40, which no one disputes, why would she lie and open herself to criticism and suspicion?

As I've said many a time it makes no sense that the kids didn't put together an account that included all events that would be consistent with them being innocent. If they really stood around in the plaza for 2 1/2 hours why not include it in their story? They must have noticed Curatolo watching them or at least considered that someone might report their presence there and would want to cover that eventuality. They obviously knew that they sneaked down to the cottage and killed her in just a few minutes and were probably not missed in the plaza. They would have timed Curatolo's cigarette breaks and knew when to go and when to return.

(for new lurkers, that last bit was a joke - I hope ).

Seems to me, Grinder, everything you have said you have said 'many a time'

 

[Grinder]

(for new lurkers, that last bit was a joke - I hope ).

Seems to me, Grinder, everything you have said you have said 'many a time'

Lamp, incoming text

Yes I just didn't want you to think I had forgotten...what was I saying...

ETA - right I remember, it seems very important that the PGP point to the inconsistencies of the their accounts of the murder night yet claim that they planned a clean-up, staged a break-in, set-up Filomena to be at the cottage etc., yet they forgot to go over their account of their activities that night, which makes no sense.

ETA - How do you explain how they were always there when he looked up but were able to sneak down to cottage and murder Meredith? Mr. Know it all

 

[moodstream]

On twitter, Dan Abrams responds to inaccuracies in his article with "Factually, we removed one quote that didn't remotely change premise or conclusions"

 

[anglolawyer]

Lamp, incoming text

Yes I just didn't want you to think I had forgotten...what was I saying...

ETA - right I remember, it seems very important that the PGP point to the inconsistencies of the their accounts of the murder night yet claim that they planned a clean-up, staged a break-in, set-up Filomena to be at the cottage etc., yet they forgot to go over their account of their activities that night, which makes no sense.

ETA - How do you explain how they were always there when he looked up but were able to sneak down to cottage and murder Meredith? Mr. Know it all

Funny you mentioning the lamp.

Yours was an excellent forensic point, one of many in your quiver. The one I highlighted was delivered with irony that might have gone over the heads of any newbies, that's all

 

[Grinder]

Funny you mentioning the lamp.

Yours was an excellent forensic point, one of many in your quiver. The one I highlighted was delivered with irony that might have gone over the heads of any newbies, that's all

I know, just kidding. I understand you've been having lower back problems from your overloaded quiver.

It is very good to have you back.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

There's this great thing - I think it's known as a "search engine", called Google. It's amazing! I typed "miscarriage of justice italy" into the little box on the front page, and something incredible happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#Italy


(That's just for starters, of course.....)

Not really that bothered to be honest, just that folks continually mention cases in the US, UK, Canada and Australia, just thought, hey why not Italy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

none so blind

On twitter, Dan Abrams responds to inaccuracies in his article with "Factually, we removed one quote that didn't remotely change premise or conclusions"

Wow, just wow.

 

[Samson]

He was a kid. The one thing he and Knox clearly had in common was exceptional naivety.

From a parent's point of view, his behavior was utterly maddening. Unfortunately, kids DO ignore parental advice -- and based on experience, I'd be willing to say are more apt to ignore it in the throes of new love.

Absolutely, the crime was serious. God knows if he'd hired a lawyer, the entire debacle would have been avoided. But don't you see? He did what innocent people foolishly do. It never crossed his mind he'd be charged with murder. If he were guilty, it most certainly would have. If he were guilty, he'd have been mightily concerned with protecting himself.

Dumb, dumb kid! He should have listened to his father. But ignoring good advice doesn't make him a murderer. What he and Knox are terribly guilty of is being caught up in their own little world and oblivious to certain aspects of what was happening around them.

It really was the perfect storm: had they not been gaga over each other they probably both would have behaved somewhat differently and attracted less suspicion. If they hadn't been innocent, they wouldn't have been so blithely unconcerned with protecting themselves.

Thank you, exactly what I have thought from first encounter. Exculpatory in the extreme, but tragically useless as a defence argument in the exotic beguiling Italian state.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Having read most of Dan Abrams' piece, I think PIPs would do well to take a step back from it. No doubt there are errors, but it seems to me to be a healthy exercise in skeptical inquiry. After considering in very thorough detail everything that might conceivably raise suspicions against AK and RS, he ultimately finds the case against them wanting. What he's arguing against is the contention that AK and RS are in trouble for no deeper reason than that the Italian authorities are stupid, which might be good enough for many here, but doesn't satisfy discriminating newcomers to the case. Warts and all, Knox is better served by a piece like Abrams' than she would be by another pro-innocence polemic.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not really that bothered to be honest, just that folks continually mention cases in the US, UK, Canada and Australia, just thought, hey why not Italy.

Your point is somewhat well taken except for......

... the point of all systems is that the theoretically arrive at the same truth by differing routes.

Many believe, including me, that Italy's judicial reputation is on the line here. I think it is therefore appropriate to look at other countries.

It's a bit of a no win situation if we're limited to looking at Italy. True, you're not saying that, but consider this:

If there are more cases like this in Italy, that means there's a systemic issue of injustice within.

If this one is a one-off miscarriage, then other cases in Italy will show that.

It's a no win - only by looking elsewhere can it really be sorted out.

But yes it's true, would be nice to see italian stuff too.

 

[Bill Williams]

Having read most of Dan Abrams' piece, I think PIPs would do well to take a step back from it. No doubt there are errors, but it seems to me to be a healthy exercise in skeptical inquiry. After considering in very thorough detail everything that might conceivably raise suspicions against AK and RS, he ultimately finds the case against them wanting. What he's arguing against is the contention that AK and RS are in trouble for no deeper reason than that the Italian authorities are stupid, which might be good enough for many here, but doesn't satisfy discriminating newcomers to the case. Warts and all, Knox is better served by a piece like Abrams' than she would be by another pro-innocence polemic.

Agreed. What I'm taken with are other pieces obviously by people who are coming new to this who say the equivalent of:

"It's almost impossible to determine whether the apparent complexity of this belongs to the details of the crime, or if it's a simple crime needlessly embellished by a tabloid press and a bungling police force and courts."

 

[Kestrel]

There is plenty of evidence supporting the Italian officials being clueless. The most telling part is the asserting that the case was solved entirely by psychological means. The Italians are claiming the ability to detect guilt and deception by behavior alone. Something people widely believe is true, but science has proved is a myth.

Next we have the matching of a shoe print to Raffaele's Reeboks. Matching a shoe with a print that had a different number of rings in the pattern. A match certified by an expert that any lay person could see was wrong.

Follow that up with the increasingly complex conspiracy needed to maintain the guilt of AK and RS. The break in doesn't fit, therefore it must have been faked. No physical evidence of AK and RS is found in the murder room, therefore they must have cleaned it up while somehow leaving the evidence pointing to Guede.

Then we have the motivation report from the first trail, that claimed that the two committed a violent murder due to the influence of marijuana.

Sorry, but the Italian prosecution team is indeed composed of idiots.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli's claim that Rudy did not commit theft, because one cannot steal from a dead person.....

... reminds some of the old defence in the case of where someone killed his parents. He claimed mitigation because he was an orphan.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is plenty of evidence supporting the Italian officials being clueless. The most telling part is the asserting that the case was solved entirely by psychological means. The Italians are claiming the ability to detect guilt and deception by behavior alone. Something people widely believe is true, but science has proved is a myth.
Next we have the matching of a shoe print to Raffaele's Reeboks. Matching a shoe with a print that had a different number of rings in the pattern. A match certified by an expert that any lay person could see was wrong.

Follow that up with the increasingly complex conspiracy needed to maintain the guilt of AK and RS. The break in doesn't fit, therefore it must have been faked. No physical evidence of AK and RS is found in the murder room, therefore they must have cleaned it up while somehow leaving the evidence pointing to Guede.

Then we have the motivation report from the first trail, that claimed that the two committed a violent murder due to the influence of marijuana.

Sorry, but the Italian prosecution team is indeed composed of idiots.

Even American profilers do not claim to have "solved" cases through profiling. What profilers do is use the known habits and methods of real-live killers, usually gleaned from interviews with convicted, imprisoned killers themselves....

..... to narrow an investigation onto likely suspects. Once caught, there still has to be evidence to convict - and, no, saying that someone was profiled by an expert is not evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

The only thing at issue, if this CBS piece is true, is there enough bias shown by Judge Nencini in last week's reconviction of Sollecito and Knox to nullify it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/italian-judge-who-sentenced-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-under-fire-for-remarks/

Following the Kercher verdict, four members of Italy's center-right political party, Forza Italia, formally called into question Judge Nencini's ability to be unbiased. The four - Nicolo Zanon, Alberto Albertoni, Filiberto Palumbo, Bartolomeo Romano - have asked a judicial oversight body to investigate "a serious lack of impartiality" by Nencini in the Kercher case.

One Italian publication described "clouds are gathering" over Nencini. The most serious lightning bolt in those "clouds" could be Italy's Justice Minister Annamaria Cancellieri. She has begun a preliminary inquiry into Judge Nencini's behavior in the Kercher case vis-à-vis Italy's code of ethics. It has left, what one Italian commentator calls, "a sinister picture of the Italian justice system."

Judge Nencini's situation isn't helped by the fact the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France has raised questions about the impartiality of Italian justices, in general. Being a member of the European Union, Italy has ceded final authority over its judicial proceedings to the Court of Human Rights. It can throw out any Italian judge's ruling.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok.... from the CBS piece, they are reporting that Judge Nencini is inventing, yet another motive for this crime. It's called the "Boy's night out" theory. Not a sex game gone wrong, not pooh in the toilet, not a Satanic rite, not Knox jealous of Meredith, not an argument over rent money..... BOY'S NIGHT OUT!

Quite unexpectedly, Judge Nencini has added yet another motive: a boys night out. Over the course of 30 meetings, Judge Nencini said that he and the jury had developed "a line of reasoning." Their "reasoning" is that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito "had nothing to do" the night of November 1, 2007 in Perugia. And the idea to kill Meredith Kercher, who was stabbed multiple times, "was born in an evening with the guys" according to Nencini. The Judge did tell the reporters that he was "aware" that this was "most controversial." Nencini also conceded he has no idea what actually happened the night Meredith Kercher was killed.

 

[Dan O.]

Machiavelli's claim that Rudy did not commit theft, because one cannot steal from a dead person.....

Has anyone pulled up the ISC ruling on this? I ask because the theft of the two phones was specifically one of the charges that Massei convicted on.

Of course, Mach is technically correct. Once a person is dead their property becomes part of their estate and ownership transfers to the heirs so the theft would not be from the dead person but from the person that stands to inherit the property. Does the law actually bother with such triviality? Did any of the prosecutors ever say that these were Meredith's phones that were stolen and thus set aside Mach's technical argument?

But this aspect , which is what belongs to me unless of course , because it is the - how to say - technological , then he faces with the other data , which instead belongs to me a little bit more , namely, that in effect, in fact it is certainly that there has been a theft from those who killed the victim , whoever he was , the phones.

One of the phones of course did not actually belong to Meredith as it was borrowed and still registered in Filomena's name. But again, this too is a triviality.

 

[Desert Fox]

How would that even be possible? If more than one person was in the same place at the same time, you might identify, say, shoe prints, but how would you separate fingerprints, blood, DNA, hairs, clothing fibers, etc., etc. and eradicate some but leave others? The allegation that Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up their own traces with a mop and bucket and left Guede's is truly delusional.

You are not the only person to have argued this but you are the latest post on the issue.

To be honest, this is the crux of the case. Almost everything else could point at their guilt but with a crime scene with no real physical evidence that the were there, I cannot see them being guilty.

This is more of a wide argument:
As far as positions, I notice a lot of Europeans from countries other than Italy and the UK jumping on the guilty bandwagon.

They seem to think that because the United States has problems with our system, we have no right to criticize and they see to think that we are criticizing them as a whole. The Italian system is very different than most of Europe.

Had one guy, a moderator on another forum unfortunately tell me that he read the document from the Italian supreme court. I did not read the whole thing but he pointed out two areas that were specifically damning that they were guilty. I read those parts he said were damning and let me thinking that they were nothing of the kind and biggest problem was that they seemed to tell the lower courts "You will find this way."

I think due to shows like the forensic files (not CSI), Americans are generally actually more aware of problems with forensic evidence than people elsewhere are.

Interestingly, I pointed at Mr Moore's writing on the issue. I thought it laid things out in a way that would be obvious to the layman. Unfortunately, I was then accused of "Argument from Authority." (Not the same forum as the argument with the moderator)