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

[anglolawyer]

You should check out some of the cattle mutilation sites.

They follow the same kind of blinkered, puerile thought process. They aren't trying to prove what happened. They are trying to disprove the obvious explanation for what is shown in their photos, which is scavenging by rodents. No no no! It's gotta be something else, something complicated and mysterious, and here are all the many (stupid) reasons why...

Cattle what?

I have great difficultly taking the opinion of a man that believes in an invisible sky daddy seriously.

I've never met her but I have watched quite a bit of her testimony, interviews and written letters and writings. (I have not read anyone's book)
I have my own opinion of her. I believe her to be a narcissist.
Being a narcissist doesn't make her a murderer, and I excuse much of her "inappropriate" and odd behavior and affect.

I can't get around her lies, her callousness and her rehearsed answers & waste of time interviews and false statements.

All well and good. What about the actual evidence though? And that timeline I think someone asked you for.

Every square inch wasn't tested.

I believe RS left a trace on that clasp.

Why is there no trace of Rudy in the room he allegedly entered into? None on the window sill or frame.

How do you know there wasn't and why would there be?

And I wait for the amendment to the MA which requires a theory before commenting in this thread.

Nice one. I love unintended humour.

 

[Desert Fox]

More on implicating others in false confessions

In his little booth on the top of Keen Mountain, Joe Dick says he never should have named Eric Wilson and Derek Tice. He says he’d like to apologize to Wilson and that he was going to tell the truth at Tice’s second trial but that Ford told him he would face the death penalty if he changed his testimony. For his part, Derek Tice, whose conviction was overturned but who remains in prison awaiting a third trial, says he feels “horrible” that in “trying to save my own life” he brought “three innocent people” into the case. “If I could talk to them, I would ask their forgiveness and hope that they would understand.” Senior Chief Michael Ziegler, now based in Nevada, says he regrets he didn’t do more to save Joe Dick. “I wish I’d gone and forced someone to listen to me — Joe’s lawyer, the police, the D.A. — to say something’s wrong here.” Ziegler says: “My biggest mistake was I trusted that the justice system was going to do the right thing. I couldn’t conceive that someone who was obviously innocent was going to go to jail. That’s where I was wrong.”

 

[kcoh]

HotNostril,

I know you said you can't take the priest seriously because he believes in the "invisible sky daddy." Then why would you take Mignini seriously? He proposed that Knox is a "she-devil" and that she had been touched by the hand of Satan. The priest, who has spent hours with her, has never said something so ludicrous.

Of course it does not matter what the priest thinks, but I found it strange for you to comment on his beliefs, as if that discredits his opinion on Knox, when you put faith into Mignini and his prosecution.

You claim it is possible for AK and RS to have selectively removed their DNA from the crime scene as well as the victim's body whilst leaving only Guede's. Can you cite something credible that shows how it is possible for one to even do this? Because, as far as I know, it is impossible.

 

[davefoc]

...
I don't believe it was a premeditated murder.

Does this mean that you believe that the idea to help Guede murder Kercher just sort of popped into AK & RS's minds? They saw Guede killing Kercher and thought they'd help him?

The only scenario I come up with is it was to be a Halloween prank. Perhaps they ran into Rudy on the way.
Men do some stupid things in hopes of "getting some"
and the downstairs guys stated Rudy was interested in Amanda.

So your theory is that RS and AK ran into Guede, a person that Sollecito seems not to have known at all and that AK had only trivial interactions with prior to this hypothetical meeting and they all agreed to some sort of Halloween prank to be played on Kercher? Then what? The Halloween prank was a fake rape and Guede took it too far? Do you have any specifics in mind for your theories that you think provide sufficient reason to believe RS and AK took part in the murder of Kercher? Do you have any evidence in mind to support your theories about this?

I don't like to speculate on motive. It's not required here in the US. And considering murder hardly ever makes any sort of sense to me..and I have no idea what goes on in a murderers head...

So no speculation on motive except that it might have been a Halloween prank gone wrong or that somebody (RS or Guede?) might have been looking to get some?

I am typically comfortable without a clear concise logical motive.

I figured that out based on your previous comments. Still no clear concise motive or any evidence of a motive at all and a complete lack of reliable physical evidence against AK & RS and a staggering array of physical evidence against Guede might lead some to think that Guede acted alone. You clearly have been able to look beyond the obvious here to find something that completely eludes me.

People tend to kill for jealously, greed, revenge, thrill or to cover up another crime...that's my understanding anyway.
Why people chose to kill their spouse as opposed to simply getting divorced, or kill their own children ..I will never be able to wrap my head around.
And when people somehow convince others to help them, it makes it all the more baffling to me.

Apparently not so baffling that you can't speculate that Guede convinced AK & RS to cooperate with him in a murder while not knowing Sollecito previously at all and having only trivial interactions previously with Knox and in a meeting for which there is absolutely zero evidence. Do you know of any other cases where two young lovers without any known history of violence or group sex agree to cooperate in group sex and murder with somebody that the young lovers have only a trivial acquaintance with and have known for only a few days?

Do you have any thoughts on why Guede, if he had accomplices was so sure of their loyalty that he went dancing after the murder and stuck around town for a few days after that? Guede must have been a pretty trusting guy to assume that people that he barely knew would not turn on him and just claim that he was responsible for the murder alone.

 

[Strozzi]

What makes a priest's opinion more relevant that any other person in the street? He heard her confession. Big deal.

Quoting a priest as an authority isn't going to go down well in this forum.

The priest had more personal interaction with Knox than anyone else over a four year period except other prisoneers such as cell mates. I'd say he knew her pretty well over a four year period. He also has a different value set than a prison guard has. He worked there for a reason other than a pay check.

 

[Strozzi]

Originally Posted by HotNostril ( Referring to the Catholic priest who knew Knox well over her four years of false imprisonment at Capone prison)
I have great difficultly taking the opinion of a man that believes in an invisible sky daddy seriously.
HotNostril, I see you are a woman of science.

Tell me what scientific evidence you go by that tells you the victim was killed later than about 9:30 pm? Tell us, Oh Wise One, so the scientists here who understand the state of the victim's digestion and digestive transit time can learn from you.

 

[Desert Fox]

The priest had more interaction with Knox than anyone else over a four year period except other prisoneers such as cell mates. I'd say he knew her pretty well over a four year period. He also has a different value set than a prison guard has. He worked there for a reason other than a pay check.

I would have to agree that is hardly a good argument.
Far better to just stick to the physical evidence and the absurdity of the case.
Granted, in a Catholic nation like Italy, the argument might hold more sway.

 

[NancyS]

I am not a guy.

It doesn't make sense to me that she would basically move in with a guy she had just met. But that's just me.

I don't believe it was a premeditated murder.
The only scenario I come up with is it was to be a Halloween prank. Perhaps they ran into Rudy on the way.
Men do some stupid things in hopes of "getting some"
and the downstairs guys stated Rudy was interested in Amanda.

I don't like to speculate on motive. It's not required here in the US. And considering murder hardly ever makes any sort of sense to me..and I have no idea what goes on in a murderers head...

I am typically comfortable without a clear concise logical motive.

People tend to kill for jealously, greed, revenge, thrill or to cover up another crime...that's my understanding anyway.
Why people chose to kill their spouse as opposed to simply getting divorced, or kill their own children ..I will never be able to wrap my head around.
And when people somehow convince others to help them, it makes it all the more baffling to me.

That's all completely wrong - the reason that most people kill is because they can't control their emotions/anger at periods of great stress. This would fit the profile of a lone man caught during a burglary

Most people that kill their own children have come from backgrounds of horrendous neglect and abuse - and killing your spouse is usually following breakdown of relationship, domestic abuse and spiralling violence.

There is never an excuse for killing, but there is usually something within the past of the murderer that shows why it happened

A new couple with no history of violence, suddenly teaming up with someone they barely know/have never met (and for Amanda could barely converse with) - to violently kill and sexually assault, makes absolutely no sense and would be unlike any other crime in history. Even more unlikely is that instead of turning on each other to save themselves, they protect each other for the next 6 years. I would require some fairly convincing evidence to believe this - and yet people want to convict them based on 1) inadmissable statements without lawyers, 2) DNA that has been widely discredited by independent experts 3) Amanda's DNA being found in the place she lives 4) dodgy forensics and trying to claim footprints are blood, when they tested negative with TMB for blood 5) inconsistencies over the time they remember earing dinner 6) behaviour of Amanda reported in tabloids following their arrest

It's not about whether you like Amanda or find her TV interviews credible (this is not Big Brother) - it should be about reasonable doubt

 

[Strozzi]

I would have to agree that is hardly a good argument.
Far better to just stick to the physical evidence and the absurdity of the case.
Granted, in a Catholic nation like Italy, the argument might hold more sway.

I wasn't citing the priest as a forensic expert. I was citing him as someone who knew Knox well over four years in a highly stressed situation and found her to be a credible and caring person.

For me, I go with what the scientific experts here state is scientific certainty about digestion transit times.

The 9:30 time frame limit is crucial. The victim's British girlfriends testified that they began eating between 6 and 6:30 pm. The autopsy revealed the state of the victim's digestion - no food had begun to transit from her stomach into her duodenum, which proves she was dead by about 9:30 pm at the latest. You can hang your hat on that, unless you need it to cover up for the PLE.

 

[Desert Fox]

I wasn't citing the priest as a forensic expert. I was citing him as someone who knew Knox well over four years in a highly stressed situation and found her to be a credible and caring person.
For me, the 9:30 time frame limit is crucial. The victim's British girlfriends testified that they began eating between 6 and 6:30 pm. The autopsy revealed the state of the victim's digestion. She was dead by 9:30 pm. You can hang your hat on that, unless you need it to cover up for the PLE.

For me, the idea that Knox was at the murder scene and not left any traces is the impossibility.

One lone assailant seems easy, fits everything, is reasonably common.

To me, it is just an application of Occam's razor

 

[acbytesla]

Let's be truthful about Hot Nostril. She's not going to offer anything in the way of a coherent argument. She'll call Amanda a liar but really not offer anything in the way of proof.

What really blows me away is that Hot Nostril will never really present any evidence. Even of the so called "lying" she insists that Amanda and Raffaele id. She ignores the fact that there is a huge communications and translation issue. None of this matters because somehow she can "tell".

I always wonder where I was during mind reading class in school. Because I don't think that class was offered when I went to high school and University. You know, I can sometimes tell when people I know are deceptive and not telling the whole truth. But I find it difficult, if not impossible.

How can you Nostril, honestly say that you can tell that Amanda is not being truthful?

I think if you're honest, you will admit that you can't.

 

[acbytesla]

For me, the idea that Knox was at the murder scene and not left any traces is the impossibility.

One lone assailant seems easy, fits everything, is reasonably common.

To me, it is just an application of Occam's razor

I know. What kind of police detective or prosecutor seizes on the most complicated theory without any evidence instead of the simple, common theory with a mountain of proof?

Maybe detectives that told the whole world the WRONG THING and now don't want to admit that they got the whole thing wrong???

 

[Samson]

I would have to agree that is hardly a good argument.
Far better to just stick to the physical evidence and the absurdity of the case.
Granted, in a Catholic nation like Italy, the argument might hold more sway.

I think the Don Saulo comments are hard to dismiss as unimportant. I have no doubt we can expect an article from Peter Quennell saying he can look forward to a lengthy jail sentence for being so brazen as to publicly support a convicted killer from his position, but....
There is a growing list of odd facts, roughly chronological, and for simplicity leaving Raffaele out for the moment
1. Amanda immerses herself in the crime scene and its aftermath.
2. She writes an extended narrative that gives a detailed description of her close experience.
3. She never mentions Guede in tapped conversations with Raf.
4. She never compares notes with Raf to get their story straight.
5. She allegedly "volunteers" the name of a man who has a certain alibi, he was at his pub as she knows from the text message. This alibi will cause her grievous trouble.
6. She is accused of using a shotput weight with great effect, though slight in stature.
7. After being convicted of carrying a knife, killing, staging a crime scene and theft without motive, an Italian judge spends a full year studying these convictions and declares her innocent and sends her home.
8. She writes a 400 page book which has publishing house support and serious remuneration.
9. An American senator effectively says she is innocent.
10. A range of American scientists and judiciary declare her unequivocally innocent.
11. An Italian priest declares her innocent and likens her to Mandela.

Remarkable testimony, unprecedented I believe.

 

[e740JPH]

I know. What kind of police detective or prosecutor seizes on the most complicated theory without any evidence instead of the simple, common theory with a mountain of proof?

Maybe detectives that told the whole world the WRONG THING and now don't want to admit that they got the whole thing wrong???

Ahh, "La Bella Figura". Strutting around like peacocks, fanning tail feathers that have been lost long ago. When you point out they lost those lovely "embellishments", the calunnia charges start flying. The Italian version of "The emperor has no clothes". Ignore facts if it protects the image. No wonder proof of a crime is only a minor inconvenience, easily "re-arranged" at will.

All dished out with abandon by a judicial system without legislative oversight burdened by it's own intellectual inbreeding. A society that has more lawyers per capita than any other western society. Trotting along on a legislative framework that has never truly been cleansed of it's fascist heritage.

No wonder the ECHR is being kept so busy .

 

[Strozzi]

I know. What kind of police detective or prosecutor seizes on the most complicated theory without any evidence instead of the simple, common theory with a mountain of proof?
Maybe detectives that told the whole world the WRONG THING and now don't want to admit that they got the whole thing wrong???

The detectives, Mignini, and Commodi cannot see that they got it wrong. They are incapable of recognizing it. The only one I think who probably recognizes that she made terrible errors is Stefanoni, who probably has enough understanding of science to NOW realize what a terrible job she did now that she has seen it critiqued. She had to have realized that as the court erupted in laughter while watching videos of her and her subordinates marring the evidence at the crime scene.

But none of them will ever be able to acknowledge their errors. Society occasionally has to remove or go around functionaries like them and correct their mistakes. That is what the court system should do, but in Italy covering for colleagues or protecting the public face of the institution is too important.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think the Don Saulo comments are hard to dismiss as unimportant. I have no doubt we can expect an article from Peter Quennell saying he can look forward to a lengthy jail sentence for being so brazen as to publicly support a convicted killer from his position, but....
There is a growing list of odd facts, roughly chronological, and for simplicity leaving Raffaele out for the moment
1. Amanda immerses herself in the crime scene and its aftermath.
2. She writes an extended narrative that gives a detailed description of her close experience.
3. She never mentions Guede in tapped conversations with Raf.
4. She never compares notes with Raf to get their story straight.
5. She allegedly "volunteers" the name of a man who has a certain alibi, he was at his pub as she knows from the text message. This alibi will cause her grievous trouble.
6. She is accused of using a shotput weight with great effect, though slight in stature.
7. After being convicted of carrying a knife, killing, staging a crime scene and theft without motive, an Italian judge spends a full year studying these convictions and declares her innocent and sends her home.
8. She writes a 400 page book which has publishing house support and serious remuneration.
9. An American senator effectively says she is innocent.
10. A range of American scientists and judiciary declare her unequivocally innocent.
11. An Italian priest declares her innocent and likens her to Mandela.

Remarkable testimony, unprecedented I believe.

I agree that all of those items together point to a picture of innocence but not just the priest testimony.
Some even in isolation point to her innocence.
The priests testimony, if all we had though, would not mean much
Combined with all of the other items, it still only a very tiny iitem.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I am not a guy.

It doesn't make sense to me that she would basically move in with a guy she had just met. But that's just me.

I don't believe it was a premeditated murder.
The only scenario I come up with is it was to be a Halloween prank. Perhaps they ran into Rudy on the way.
Men do some stupid things in hopes of "getting some"
and the downstairs guys stated Rudy was interested in Amanda.

I don't like to speculate on motive. It's not required here in the US. And considering murder hardly ever makes any sort of sense to me..and I have no idea what goes on in a murderers head...

I am typically comfortable without a clear concise logical motive.

People tend to kill for jealously, greed, revenge, thrill or to cover up another crime...that's my understanding anyway.
Why people chose to kill their spouse as opposed to simply getting divorced, or kill their own children ..I will never be able to wrap my head around.
And when people somehow convince others to help them, it makes it all the more baffling to me.

I'm not much of a criminal either, which is why I seek to understand criminals by what they do rather than by trying to guess how they think.

In this case, the crime scene evidence tells the story of what one criminal did. I have studied it exhaustively. I have gone over it in detail with a number of experts, including John Douglas, who has investigated thousands of homicides.

The evidence shows that Rudy Guede broke in through a second-floor window and was in the cottage when Meredith arrived home. He attacked her in her bedroom. He grabbed her from behind and stabbed her in the neck, with a knife in he was holding in his right hand. She tried to break free and a brief struggle ensued. It ended when Guede threw her to the floor and cut her throat, at which point she collapsed. He dragged her into the middle of the room, ripped her clothes off, and sexually assaulted her while she was bleeding to death. He cleaned up in the bathroom, he stole her money, and he fled the crime scene.

This happened shortly after 9 pm. Amanda and Raffaele were several blocks away, watching a romantic comedy called Amelie.

A couple of days after the murder, Guede fled the country, even though no one was after him. Amanda and Raffaele stayed in Perugia, talking to police, trying to help because they were the ones who found the crime scene after all. They didn't bother to get lawyers because they had nothing to hide. They were completely unprepared for the buzz saw that awaited.

 

[Diocletus]

What makes a priest's opinion more relevant that any other person in the street? He heard her confession. Big deal.

Quoting a priest as an authority isn't going to go down well in this forum.

Simple: priests are authority figures in Italy. That's why the newspaper interviewed him.

 

[Samson]

I agree that all of those items together point to a picture of innocence but not just the priest testimony.
Some even in isolation point to her innocence.
The priests testimony, if all we had though, would not mean much
Combined with all of the other items, it still only a very tiny iitem.

It may be a tiny item, yet how many of thousands he has ministered to has he supported this way? That she is American and unique will skew the question, but I find it significant nevertheless. She has been interviewed by Simon Hattenstone, similarly a scarcely impartial observer, but these people are deeply concerned for this innocent woman, I find it heartrending.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Simple: priests are authority figures in Italy. That's why the newspaper interviewed him.

I think the key point is that he actually knows her, unlike the snarling mob on the Internet.

The people who know her well think highly of her. They realize it is utterly absurd to imagine she would stick a knife into her roommate's throat.