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

[Bill Williams]

More positive coverage of Amanda in the UK, including face on the cover of the Guardian Weekend

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/08/who-is-amanda-knox-interview

I was going to post this.... but it seems that the literate world is waking up to how wrong all these convictions are. All except for Rudy Guede's.

My own less than charitable assessment is this - guilters think in cartoon-like caricatures.... which exp[lain why they deal in ad hominem, short pity character attacks and assertions-without-proof.

People like Simon Hattenstone qrite in paragraphs and connect the dots.

My favourite from Hattenstone's piece:

Much has been made of Knox's Seattle-based agent David Marriott, hired by the family to deal with the media. But in all the years we have corresponded, I have never heard from Marriott.

But it certainly makes a better story to say that the 2011 acquittals were because of an intense PR Supertanker!!!

The only question is, really, is this turn of public/press opinion too late? The way I see it, unless the current investigation of Nencini's unethical/prejudicial after-trial conduct does not bear fruit, things do not look good for the medium term.

Above all, the kerchers deserve better than this. In life love, in death truth.

 

[Antony]

It seems far more reasonable to me that Amanda thought by pointing the finger at another, she would be off the hook. She was wrong.

But the pro-guilt claim is that she, Guede and Sollecito were the killers! So why would she name a 4th person, knowing that he wasn't there, when she was allegedly in a position to name 2 men who (allegedly) were both there?

While you're at it, answer this question as well: what did police chief Arturo de Felice mean when he said "she buckled and gave us an account of the facts which we knew to be correct"?

 

[Bill Williams]

I think she was more than happy to volunteer up her false accusations. I don't believe she was hit or tortured.

It's my opinion she believed she was smarter than everyone else and the bare bones of the story she concocted with RS would hold up. She was wrong. Their story rapidly unraveled under ordinary police interrogations.

She was not a stupid young woman but... like many before her...she overestimated her intelligence and ability to manipulate.

That's it, isn't it: you "think" this; you "don't believe" that; it's your "opinion". It's all articles of faith without any evidence or facts to support it. How about a few details of how the crime went down?

• what time in the evening or night was Meredith killed?
• what time did Knox and Sollecito allegedly go over to the house (having been seen by an independent witness at his flat at 8:40pm)?
• how did they allegedly meet up with Guede?
• what was it that led to the confrontation with Meredith?
• what time did each of the 3 alleged attackers depart from the house?
• how did Knox and/or Sollecito and/or Guede allegedly go about the clean-up and staging of the break-in?

You must be aware that the various prosecutors, convicting judges and anti-Knox campaigners either can't answer the above questions or give completely different answers. Isn't it reasonable to conclude that Knox and Sollecito have been convicted of a crime with no facts to support it?

Look at HotNostril's last sentence. This, for me, is typical of guilter double speak.

She's not stupid. Yet she is. I mean, how can one engage that style of argument, when in one breath they're arguing she's smart-devious, and the next they're arguing she's clumsy-stupid? And they trot out this opinions, these factoid-traits of Knox's, at the most convenient of times - just to scuttle something other people find obvious.

But you've hinted at something else.

Notice how the present crop of guilter posters here always lead with, "It's my opinion that..."?

That frees them from actually having to present evidence. I mean, who can argue with a belief? Good for them, they have a belief!!!

How do they, though, reconcile that in a context where everyone is agreec - there does not need to be a proven motive to convict someone of a crime, that they (and prosecutors and convicting judges) offer so many of them!???

And contradictory ones to boot.

Satanic rituals.
Day of the dead rituals.
Sex games gone wrong
Dispute over rent money
Dispute over toilet cleanliness
Personal jealousies
No motive, just a "choice for evil"
Pooh in the toilet (a variation of #5, except this time it was a dispute about the OTHER bathroom, the one that didn't belong to Meredith and Amanda)
Boy's Night Out (*to be seen if Nencini writes this one up)​

And no one in the court process, really, has strongly made the point, that this had no motive at all - save for Mignini at the Hellmann trial as his case was falling apart,who also moved Knox out in the hall to explain no forensic presence of her in Meredith's room.

It's only lazy guilters who crow about crimes not needing motives. Theoretically, that is true.

Why then do guilters couch things in psychopathology, "I believes", and short cartoon-like assertions?

You would have thought someone had convicted these two. On what?

 

[RoseMontague]

There are two visits/results - first time (11/2) yielded only Meredith's DNA, the second visit (12/18) I think didn't yield any results despite the rubbing and scraping.

Thanks for pointing this out. The first was sample N, and it showed Meredith's DNA and was positive for human blood. Stefi tried a Y and got no result (page 116/117 test results Rep 65). Sample W yielded no results (pg 200 test results Rep 165).

 

[Welshman]

The pro guilt side worships the Italian legal system. As if Jesus himself has been guiding the prosecution on the true path to justice.

There is one question I would like to ask PGP who say Italy has a brilliant legal system. If you were accused of a crime, would you be happy to be tried under the Italian system and do you think you would be treated fairly?

 

[Bill Williams]

Raffaele at a rally in support of him in Italy.

 

[RoseMontague]

Look at HotNostril's last sentence. This, for me, is typical of guilter double speak.

She's not stupid. Yet she is. I mean, how can one engage that style of argument, when in one breath they're arguing she's smart-devious, and the next they're arguing she's clumsy-stupid? And they trot out this opinions, these factoid-traits of Knox's, at the most convenient of times - just to scuttle something other people find obvious.

LOL, It's Captain Amanda all over again....

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.c...17&sid=ee48c98387d368e6ff717452f3a29cf7#p7817

 

[Bill Williams]

LOL, It's Captain Amanda all over again....

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.c...17&sid=ee48c98387d368e6ff717452f3a29cf7#p7817

LOL!!! That was before my time..... Geez Louise, I thought I was being original.

Yes. And the Massei Court's narrative of the case requires that we accept two entirely distinct Amandas.

The first, Captain Amanda, is the mastermind, who thinks of everything. She knows how to stage break-ins to disguise the real motive of her vicious attack. She is brutal and cunning and she thinks ahead. She plies Raphaelle with that well-known toxic combination of marijuana and comic books to get him heated and aggressive. She packs a murder weapon in her oversized bag. At the murder scene she moves glass around, takes rocks from the outside and moves them inside, lays down towels to cover footprints, even scrubs the house clean of her and Raffaele's DNA while cleverly leaving traces of Guede everywhere. Brilliant thinking, to set up the black guy. She even has the foresight to call Meredith's phone to make sure it had not been discovered. She simply thinks of everything, because that's what a ringleader does. She is prepared, chillingly competent, and thorough.

But then, once the crime is discovered, she suddenly and inexplicably morphs into Hapless Amanda. This girl can't do anything right and doesn't have a clue how to protect herself. While everyone else is lawyering up, she hangs around trying to help. Her every move makes her look guilty. She talks when she shouldn't, eats pizza instead of attending memorials, smiles at the wrong times and just doesn't get it that in order to look innocent you have to grieve properly. She even does 'cartwheels' right in front of the police. In fact, she's so dumb that under questioning she forgets that she set up Guede, and implicates her boss instead. She can't even figure out how to dress for court. Somehow, some way, the shrewd, ruthless killer who persuaded a six-day old boyfriend and a virtual stranger to join her in a complex ritual sex crime, now can't tie her own shoes.

It's such an incredible story because...well, because it's such an incredible story.

A truly cunning Knox would have simply clammed up and said, "speak to my lawyer."

 

[HotNostril]

Peg is that you? Cuz it sounds an awful lot like you.

How about your opinion on the abiltity to clean up specific DNA meanwhile leaving other DNA (Guede) ?

Please can we get something from you like facts? We understand you have an opinion. A rather common PGP opinion based on nothing but speculation.

I have a speculation too. You hate Knox because she is pretty, intelligent, and a young woman. Unlike the real Peg who appears and writes as some angry dried up old hag with repressed lesbian hate issues. She actually desires Knox and that is repulsive to her and so she overreaches by stating baseless hate filled opinion...meanwhile ignoring facts that any realistic and honest evaluator would use to determine that it is impossible to conclude guilt of anything at all.

The police told Knox that Lumumba was guilty. She eventually broke and agreed with what the police knew to be true. How hard is that to understand? Duh!

I'm not Peg, I don't know who Peg is.
I am not "old" nor am I a lesbian. Not that there is anything wrong with being either.

I don't believe Knox to be exceptionally pretty. I wouldn't describe her as ugly either, but only slightly above average.

I don't believe her to be exceptionally intelligent either.

I don't hate Knox. As someone else pointed out, I've never even met her.

Some people are simply better DNA shedders. I think some people are grossly overestimating the amount expected to be found, how much was actually tested, as well as what I believe is evidence of a staged scene and cleanup.

 

[HotNostril]

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

I disagree, I don't believe it's a necessity that there is always evidence of something in someone's past that shows why it happened.

I do have doubt. I never claimed they were guilty beyond all doubt.
When looking at the totality of the case and extraneous information, I believe it's a reasonable conclusion that they are all guilty.
Does it rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt" ? That's not my burden to carry.
I believe them to be guilty.
I understand that my opinion means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Dan O.]

There are two visits/results - first time (11/2) yielded only Meredith's DNA, the second visit (12/18) I think didn't yield any results despite the rubbing and scraping.

The first visit they swabbed the thick part of the blood streaks and pulled enough to turn the swab red. (Don't let the disposable tweezers confuse you, they never touched the swab) Meredith's profile alone would be expected from this sample. You have to move down to where the unlubricated fingers are rubbing on the wall to catch he artists DNA.

How did they avoid seeing Rudy's DNA in the second sampling? They swabbed and scrapped in the right place. Something in the paint might be interfering with PCR. This is of course just speculating, one would need to do positive and negative substrate controls to know for sure. Then if they knew there was a problem with the paint they could look at alternative processing to neutralize the problem. But that would be doing science which is forbidden in Perugia.

 

[Bill Williams]

Some people are simply better DNA shedders. I think some people are grossly overestimating the amount expected to be found, how much was actually tested, as well as what I believe is evidence of a staged scene and cleanup.

"Some people are simply better DNA shedders."

What does this mean? How does this account for NO forensic presence?​

"I think some people are grossly overestimating the amount expected to be found"

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion. Yet you say there's no forensic evidence of Guede in Filomena's room, and youhave no trouble claiming he never was there despite one glaring fact - he admitted to being in there. How do you reconcile using the reverse reasoning to claim Knox was in Meredith's room?​

"how much was actually tested"

So let's get this reasoning straight.... a lack of proof because of lack of testing is to been seen as evidence against Knox/Sollecito? Please do me a favour - if I am ever charged with a crime, please do not sit on my jury. If you are ever accused of a crime, I will use this reasoning against you. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", is this tired old saw which has been in guilter-land since 2008.​

"as well as what I believe is evidence of a staged scene and cleanup."

What exactly is that evidence? Or is this another one where an absence of evidence and testing and evaluation works against the accuseds?​

​

You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to the facts.

 

[Antony]

As quoted in Rudy's final SC ruling, Rudy admitted going into Filomena's room and even leaning out the window there. He also admitted being in both bathrooms and the murder room. I am curious why you think he would place himself in these locations in the cottage if he was not in those locations? His story is that he had a date with Meredith and someone came in and killed her while he was sitting on the toilet. How inconvenient for him.

I think the point being made is that if Guede didn't leave traces in Filomena's room, then it's not certain that Amanda and Raff would leave traces in Meredith's room. Of course this ignores the different circumstances: the struggle in Meredith's room left substantial traces of Guede and would have left traces of Amanda and Raff had they been part of the struggle; there was no struggle in Filomenas' room.

 

[Kestrel]

Can someone here explain to me what if anything local survalience video shows?

The only video available is from the parking garage across the street from the cottage. There were other cameras that covered spots between Raffaele's apartment and the cottage. The defense requested those recordings. The authorities denied the request and the tapes were reused.

 

[Bill Williams]

I disagree, I don't believe it's a necessity that there is always evidence of something in someone's past that shows why it happened.

I do have doubt. I never claimed they were guilty beyond all doubt.
When looking at the totality of the case and extraneous information, I believe it's a reasonable conclusion that they are all guilty.
Does it rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt" ? That's not my burden to carry.
I believe them to be guilty.
I understand that my opinion means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Your opinion means something to you.

Dude/dudette.... it may be an idea to see if you're applying your opinions like this to people closer to home. It means something there.

 

[HotNostril]

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.

I don't find her credible or particularly caring. Certainly not very caring over her role in the arrest of PL.

On digestion issue...I am not an expert.

First, there is considerable normal variability among healthy people and animals in transit times through different sections of the gatrointestinal tract. Second, the time required for material to move through the digestive tube is significantly affected by the composition of the meal. Finally, transit time is influenced by such factors as psychological stress and even gender and reproductive status.

Several techniques have been used to measure transit times in humans and animals. Not surprisingly, differing estimates have been reported depending on the technique used and the population of subjects being evaluated.

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/basics/transit.html

Based on that... I'm not hanging my hat on it.

 

[GWCarver]

I disagree, I don't believe it's a necessity that there is always evidence of something in someone's past that shows why it happened.

I do have doubt. I never claimed they were guilty beyond all doubt.
When looking at the totality of the case and extraneous information, I believe it's a reasonable conclusion that they are all guilty.
Does it rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt" ? That's not my burden to carry.
I believe them to be guilty.
I understand that my opinion means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Well, it does mean you need to get more familiar with the actual evidence in the case. As you go along you will notice the PIPs spend most of their time talking about evidence, and the PGPs will often change the subject and just make proclamations like, "It is impossible to climb through that window", or "It took at least three people to kill Meredith". That kind of stuff, which is essentially meaningless, but necessary to make a case in Perugia where the suspects are picked before the evidence is analyzed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Rally in support of Raffaele in Italy, from YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfRzdWPi13g

Manifestazione a sostegno di Raffaele Sollecito. Giovinazzo 7 febbraio 2014. Collegamento in diretta con la trasmissione Quarto Grado di Rete 4.

Demonstration in support of Raffaele Sollecito. Giovinazzo February 7, 2014. Live connection with the transmission of the Fourth Degree Network 4.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't find her credible or particularly caring. Certainly not very caring over her role in the arrest of PL.

On digestion issue...I am not an expert.
First, there is considerable normal variability among healthy people and animals in transit times through different sections of the gatrointestinal tract. Second, the time required for material to move through the digestive tube is significantly affected by the composition of the meal. Finally, transit time is influenced by such factors as psychological stress and even gender and reproductive status.

Several techniques have been used to measure transit times in humans and animals. Not surprisingly, differing estimates have been reported depending on the technique used and the population of subjects being evaluated.

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/basics/transit.html

Based on that... I'm not hanging my hat on it.

Actually, you are. You say you're not an expert, then quote expert like things, then say you're not hanging your hat on it. You actually are... you're dismissing it in what these folks say...

Given all the variations, the experts plot all the variations stuff on a bell curve. Statistically, food would have passed from the stomach by 9:30 pm. It had not, which then puts T.O.D. at sometime before 9:30 pm. This is called an alibi.

Now of course this could have been one of those off chances, like getting hit by lightning and/or being dealt a straight flush. Agreed.

 

[Dan O.]

Some people are simply better DNA shedders. I think some people are grossly overestimating the amount expected to be found, how much was actually tested, as well as what I believe is evidence of a staged scene and cleanup.

There's that old belief thing again.

How do you believe this was cleaned up?