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

[HotNostril]

It alone in not a good argument. In fact it is a poor argument. On the other hand, so is the quality of all the guilt arguments. Look at all of Nostril's posts. She doesn't actually present an argument. She doesn't discuss the evidence.



She doesn't discuss the witnesses. It's all about "her beliefs". She has no desire to comb through the evidence and "think about it". I'm actually shocked that she discounts the priest because he "believes in a sky daddy:. It seems as if Nostril's "Sky daddy" is her belief in Amanda and Raffaele's guilt.



Its all, she doesn't trust A and R rubbish. It borders on the same kind of religious zealotry.



I'm a lot like Nostril. I don't believe in "sky daddies" either. Never the less I grew up living nest door to a sizable Catholic Church. In fact the rectory was less than 50 yards from my back door. Several of the priests were great friends with my parents and me. They had dinner at our table at least two dozen times over the years. I don't believe in a sky daddy, but for the most part, I believed in them. They know people and humanity.



Granted it's not evidence, but my bet is that priest knew and understood the prisoners in a way that virtually none of the guards would ever know them.



Nostril wants to believe in something concrete. I get that. But then why does she believe in this case?

Like it or not.
I'm your typical American juror.
I'm not a doctor, lawyer or scientist.
I admit to some bias as I tend to favor the prosecution.

I've read the court decisions, watched some testimony, read the writings of AK & RS and have reached my own opinion. I don't care what the priest's opinion is. I don't care about John Douglas's opinion either. Or the retired FBI dude that loves to speak about it, I don't care about her mothers opinion.

And I realize my opinion doesn't matter.

 

[kcoh]

Someone argued that there was "beauty" in the Italian justice system because of this case. I do not see it.

Why did Galati order a retrial? I was told that it was because Hellman was incompetent to judge. Is this true?

 

[Strozzi]

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.[/QUOTE]

Casper, Kestrel refers above to cameras operated by local shops that happened to record people and vehicles passing in front of the establishment. The police looked at these to see if Raffaele or Amanda were recorded passing by as the areas covered are areas that they would have passed through if they had gone from Raffaele's to Amanda's flat that evening. As Kesrel points out, the authorities denied the request to preserve the videos as evidence.

Retired Chicago police detective Paul Ciolino, working as a consultant for CBS News, went to Perugia to investigate the crime. Ciolino talked with various rank and file police involved in the investigation including one who looked at the videos of the street, did not see the suspects, and therefore did not save the videos. Ciolino pointed out to the Perugia police officer that from what the officer said the videos are relevant as they show the suspects did not pass through the camera's coverage area and therefore DID NOT transit that route - the common route - from Raffaele's place to Amanda's flat that evening. According to Ciolino, the Perugia police offer was quite surprised when he realize this.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Based on? Can you piece the evidence together and say what it leads you to believe? An essay is not necessary. Just a couple of paragraphs. If you can't answer then you have not reached a reasonable conclusion. You are in the dunces' corner with Lionking saying the MA does not oblige you to have a theory in order to believe in guilt.

Likewise, if you have a reasonable doubt, can you say what it is?

 

[Antony]

Yes, thank you. That was the point I was trying to make.

Seems possible to me that RS and or Amanda wielded the knife and wasn't much involved in the struggle. I believe Rudy capable of restraining Meredith alone whilst the others tormented her.
Perhaps at some point Meredith lunged forward to break free and in doing so suffered the first significant injury to her neck.

If it were completely intentional why would Rudy make two trips to get towels?
If you believe him and his tale that he tried to help her, realized he couldn't then fled?

The problem is, without DNA and traces from Amanda and Raff in the murder room there is no prosecution case - or wouldn't be in any rational investigation. Yes, the crime scene does include the whole cottage - but Meredith wasn't killed in the corridor nor the bathrooom, so DNA evidence found there is only marginally of value.

It's no good saying "oh, they could have done the murder and still not left DNA in the bedroom"; that's just speculation and not evidence. Amanda and RAff cannot be found guilty in a court of law without it and without equivalent evidence. The fact that they have been found guilty just shows that the Italian courts are not a properly functioning institution.

 

[kwill]

I'm your typical American juror.
I'm not a doctor, lawyer or scientist.
I admit to some bias as I tend to favor the prosecution.

Your typical American juror is presented with evidence. Your typical American juror is then tasked with evaluating the evidence without bias. It's a difficult job sometimes.

If you want to play the part of a typical American juror with respect to this case, you have to start with the facts. There's no other way to make sense of what happened.

It is a fact that Meredith's last meal was ALL in her stomach at the time of her death. It is a fact that A & R themselves called the police and were outside waiting for them. It is a fact that the only place in the murder room where Raffaele's DNA was found was on a metal bra clasp that had been missing for more than 6 weeks -- which should have made that clasp inadmissible as evidence of anything. It is a fact that the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were not recorded, not videotaped, and not transcribed, and that neither of them had lawyers present, and therefore that whatever was said during those interrogations is not admissible in court. You as a typical American juror would never be allowed to hear anything about those interrogations, because they were illegal.

 

[Bill Williams]

I didn't say false witness statements were rare.
I said false confessions were.

Claiming some other dude did it, very common.
Can't keep story straight, very common.

25% of exonerations involve a false confession. I "get" that this is a hard thing for the average person to understand.

But two hours with a skilled interrogator and even you would confess. So would I.

Interrogations are not about fact finding or interviewing. They have one goal - confession. Nothing else. In most jurisdictions an interrogator is allowed to lie and mislead.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

Y-STR testing should have been done, as that's Meredith's blood her DNA could mask a low level transfer. Stefanoni did a number of Y-STR tests on the samples, did she do that for this one?

 

[NancyS]

Like it or not.
I'm your typical American juror.
I'm not a doctor, lawyer or scientist.
I admit to some bias as I tend to favor the prosecution.

I would hope that your typical juror would think it is wrong for suspects to be denied access to a lawyer
I would also hope that your typical juror would expect a high standard of DNA collection and analysis and would be shocked at the conclusions of the independent experts
I would also hope that the typical juror wouldn't have read damning, unreliable and untruthful tabloid stories about the defendants prior to the case being heard in court

 

[RoseMontague]

Like it or not.
I'm your typical American juror.
I'm not a doctor, lawyer or scientist.
I admit to some bias as I tend to favor the prosecution.

No. You are not typical at all. I have served on three juries and all had the concepts of presumption of innocence and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your bias is obvious.

 

[HotNostril]

25% of exonerations involve a false confession. I "get" that this is a hard thing for the average person to understand.



But two hours with a skilled interrogator and even you would confess. So would I.



Interrogations are not about fact finding or interviewing. They have one goal - confession. Nothing else. In most jurisdictions an interrogator is allowed to lie and mislead.

Having watched at least one episode of Law & Order, I know I have the right to keep my mouth shut.

 

[acbytesla]

Like it or not.
I'm your typical American juror.
I'm not a doctor, lawyer or scientist.
I admit to some bias as I tend to favor the prosecution.

I've read the court decisions, watched some testimony, read the writings of AK & RS and have reached my own opinion. I don't care what the priest's opinion is. I don't care about John Douglas's opinion either. Or the retired FBI dude that loves to speak about it, I don't care about her mothers opinion.

And I realize my opinion doesn't matter.

It matters to you. And you are willing to voice your opinion, so you must think or hope your opinion matters to others. Or else, why would you spend your time and energy posting your remarks?

And I'm with you in that I tend to favor the prosecution. They are right MOST of the time. But I want some real evidence, not subjective opinions about evidence.

Frankly, that is all John Douglass has as well. But the difference between him and the Perugia investigators is the mountain of very serious crimes he's investigated. For the Perugia detectives this is a once in lifetime crime. For Douglass, this was a common every day crime. Discounting his expertise so cavalierly yet accepting others seems very shortsighted

All I really want from people is for them to fairly examine the evidence that an actual juror should. That they base their opinion on the normal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Hey, I can understand you viewing Amanda suspiciously, but I cannot see how you or anyone for that matter come to the opinion that the evidence against her rises to that level.

So when you express your opinion so stridently that you think that they are guilty. I expect you to show how it is not reasonable to believe in their innocence. How the EVIDENCE concludes that it any belief in their innocence is NOT reasonable.

The ball is in your court Nostril. Think you can do that?

With all due respect, I don't think you can. There simply isn't that kind of evidence.

 

[RoseMontague]

Y-STR testing should have been done, as that's Meredith's blood her DNA could mask a low level transfer. Stefanoni did a number of Y-STR tests on the samples, did she do that for this one?

Both times according to the test results. Nothing found.

 

[anglolawyer]

Having watched at least one episode of Law & Order, I know I have the right to keep my mouth shut.

And yet in the US and the UK the law requires that suspects be informed of this right. Failure to do so can render otherwise important evidence unusable. Ever wondered why?

Would you keep your mouth shut long into the night while being threatened and shouted at and confused by teams of professional interrogators for hours and struck and refused refreshment or a break to fix your sanitary towel? How do you know how you would cope? How about when you were twenty? How about in a foreign country far from home? How about after showing up having no reason to think anything was going to happen at all?

 

[Kaosium]

I didn't say false witness statements were rare.
I said false confessions were.

That wasn't a confession, it was a witness statement. Not only legally, but in its very composition. Amanda just "confusedly" witnesses something, she takes no part in it. The police 'placed her at the scene' by misinterpreting her text exchange with Patrick (and likely had other reasons to suspect Patrick they'd give before Matteini) and spent all night on her getting her to 'admit' to witnessing it.

Claiming some other dude did it, very common.
Can't keep story straight, very common.

Some other dude did do it, you know that right? His name is Rudy Guede, a burglar who fled the country after leaving his traces inside Meredith, on her clothes, pillow, purse and his shoeprints all over her floor.

 

[Antony]

Like it or not.
I'm your typical American juror.
I'm not a doctor, lawyer or scientist.
I admit to some bias as I tend to favor the prosecution.

I've read the court decisions, watched some testimony, read the writings of AK & RS and have reached my own opinion. I don't care what the priest's opinion is. I don't care about John Douglas's opinion either. Or the retired FBI dude that loves to speak about it, I don't care about her mothers opinion.

And I realize my opinion doesn't matter.

That is a suitably humble and honest account of your position.

Are you here to learn or just let us know that your opinion isn't going to be influenced by any points we have to make?

 

[acbytesla]

Having watched at least one episode of Law & Order, I know I have the right to keep my mouth shut.

I love that you mentioned Law and Order. You do realize that is a fiction don't you? What I like about Law and Order is just how every story comes down to "sweating a suspect in the box". Every one.

But they virtually never do keep their mouth shut on that show do they? Do you ever actually see them reading the suspects their rights? That they run their mouths even when they have a lawyer sitting right next to them.

That the show doesn't even remotely resemble a true interrogation.
Do you know that the vast majority of their interrogations portrayed in that show would be thrown out of court? And in real life suspects hardly ever just break down and confess which happens most of the time on the show. You should watch some of real videos of suspect interrogations.

That's the problem with the Perugian interrogation. It's like they have watched too many episodes of Law and Order.

You should read up on the Reid interrogation method. Which the Perugians readily admit that they were employing.

But here's the thing Hot Nostril. What part of the actual crime did they confirm during the interrogation. What did Amanda say that she couldn't have known without being there for the murder. If you can find something, than I'll quit and say you won.

 

[acbytesla]

25% of exonerations involve a false confession. I "get" that this is a hard thing for the average person to understand.

But two hours with a skilled interrogator and even you would confess. So would I.

Interrogations are not about fact finding or interviewing. They have one goal - confession. Nothing else. In most jurisdictions an interrogator is allowed to lie and mislead.

I wouldn't. Not after all that I have learned from this case. MY mouth would be sewn shut.

 

[bolint]

What did Amanda say that she couldn't have known without being there for the murder. If you can find something, than I'll quit and say you won.

That the murderer was black.

 

[Vibio]

HotNostril:

Re: Knox's DNA in the murder room.

In the majority of murder cases there are no biological traces left by the aggressor. That Knox's DNA was not found in the murder room even with a struggle means nothing.

I posted an example of a recent bloody murder in the US: none of his DNA at the scene... no blood on him.