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

[RandyN]

Dan O.,

I recently finished reading the Massei report, which is why I brought up the fabrication of the break-in being staged. The prosecution did not come to this conclusion based on logic. It was based on the imagination of the prosecutor and it scares me that this is what suffices to sentence someone to prison for. 25-28 years.

People claim that they would have been convicted in an U.S. court as well, but I doubt there would have even been a trial. Not to mention, dubious behavior on behalf of the prosecution as well as law enforcement and jurors admitting they watched T.V., read newspapers, in order to come to a conclusion would be enough to get it thrown out, IMO.

Pretty good observation for a newbie. If you think the imaginary staged break-in is a gross injustice unproven by facts, photos, or logic then wait until you delve more deeply into the other equally bizarre police and prosecution shortcomings.

Did you know that 3 defendants ...AK,RS and PL were all denied legally required attorneys? Did you know that in Italy it is impossible to waive the "right to an attorney"? (quotes due to the Italian propensity to simply ignore defendant rights either in the police station or in the courts)

There are at least a hundred...maybe a thousand equally offensive problems with this case besides the so called "staged" break-in which makes this case seem like something out of bizarro world...which apparently what Italy modeled its judicial system after. Bizzaro World.

 

[Samson]

But this is not one of those cases.

This case has been closely monitored all along by the US State Department. The spokesman for the State Department, after the first trial , stated that Knox got a fair trial.

The case has gone through a 3 step trial process.

This trial's procedures have been studied by the Supreme Court of Italy.

This trial cannot be compared to those listed above.

That is correct. In none of the above cases am I aware a de novo trial lasting a year was conducted and declared any of the above innocent. Such a trial took place for AK and RS.

 

[Dan O.]

As far as moving the body, he may not have moved it much if all he was doing was positioning her or searching around her for more money.

Like I said, it's just an opinion I have,

d

-

********!

Nobody is going back to the cottage where they know that a girl has been murdered. Rudy is highly motivated to get out of there as quickly as possible and get as far away as possible. He doesn't know when other roommates might return. He tried once to walk out and was turned back because he needed the key. He had to stop and think, does he go out through the window (an act that might draw suspicion and the police) or does he risk searching for the keys. (This stop created the three overlapping shoe prints in front of the couch at marker H, the end of the bloody print trail.) Once he found the key he is out through the front door and doesn't even stop the make sure it is locked.

 

[acbytesla]

But this is not one of those cases.

This case has been closely monitored all along by the US State Department. The spokesman for the State Department, after the first trial , stated that Knox got a fair trial.

The case has gone through a 3 step trial process.

This trial's procedures have been studied by the Supreme Court of Italy.

This trial cannot be compared to those listed above.

Really? They were acquitted by a jury once. The DNA evidence was refuted by some of the world's most renowned DNA experts including independent experts as well Italy's biggest crime lab. The RIS.

Yes it is different.

 

[Desert Fox]

People claim that they would have been convicted in an U.S. court as well, but I doubt there would have even been a trial. Not to mention, dubious behavior on behalf of the prosecution as well as law enforcement and jurors admitting they watched T.V., read newspapers, in order to come to a conclusion would be enough to get it thrown out, IMO.

Twenty years ago (maybe even ten), they might have been convicted but the US has been rocked by a number of major cases involving false confessions and no good evidence. It has hopefully shaken the court system.

 

[Strozzi]

This is a skeptics forum where people are expected to posit an argument and then demonstrate how it is true. Not make an assertion, like "there is a God? Or "global warming is a myth" and then leave it without posting evidence. You can expect that your assertions to be challenged here.

Why don't you try and actually prove something instead of taking a dump in the the punch bowl and then smile about it.
.

HotNostril has made about 60 posts here since yesterday. Blank assertions of guilt, but no effort to prove anything.

She has also made some recent posts in another JREF forum about her New Jersey governor, Chris Christie. HotNostril, I think Christie needs your help again.

 

[RandyN]

Why wasn't it the key argument if it was so strong? The defence obviously didn't think it was so strong. Why?

The defense were cowering silly fools far out of their range of ability. They should have realized that after Massei and stepped aside or sought more experienced help. It is noteworthy that like the police and prosecution and judges that they are all Italian so that may explain some of that decision making process. EGO can be a fatal, foolish weakness.

 

[RoseMontague]

But this is not one of those cases.

This case has been closely monitored all along by the US State Department. The spokesman for the State Department, after the first trial , stated that Knox got a fair trial.

The case has gone through a 3 step trial process.

This trial's procedures have been studied by the Supreme Court of Italy.

This trial cannot be compared to those listed above.

It has gone through 4 steps, one in which they were found not guilty of all charges but the callunia charge.

The latest State Department comment seems to have dropped that "fair trial" meme, now just saying they are monitoring the case closely.

State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf declined comment Friday when asked whether the U.S. has received an extradition request for Knox from Italian authorities, saying that information is "private and confidential." She said the State Department is monitoring the case as it works its way through the Italian legal system but refused to provide further details, such as whether Secretary of State John Kerry would make the final decision on Knox if Italy asks for her to be returned.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/amanda-knox-heading-extradition-fight-22320430

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Why wasn't it the key argument if it was so strong? The defence obviously didn't think it was so strong. Why?

I have always wondered why the entire crime scene, which tells a story that is wholly at odds with the prosecution, is not central to this case.

The answer is that the case centers on what the prosecution puts forth - Amanda's statements, the bra fastener, the knife, the luminol, the bum in the park, the old lady who heard a scream... all the murky, tainted BS that doesn't begin to explain the crime, but can be used to undermine the obvious explanation and prop up the feeble claim that Amanda and Raffaele somehow played a role. That is what the case is all about. That's what we read about, and that is what the defense must attack, point by point.

Meanwhile, the truth sits and stares. Is is silent. Lawyers can flap their arms and rant about Amanda the lying she-devil and distract people's attention from the truth. But the truth will never go away.

Guede did it. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

 

[AmyStrange]

Adrenalin

-

********!

Nobody is going back to the cottage where they know that a girl has been murdered. Rudy is highly motivated to get out of there as quickly as possible and get as far away as possible. He doesn't know when other roommates might return. He tried once to walk out and was turned back because he needed the key. He had to stop and think, does he go out through the window (an act that might draw suspicion and the police) or does he risk searching for the keys. (This stop created the three overlapping shoe prints in front of the couch at marker H, the end of the bloody print trail.) Once he found the key he is out through the front door and doesn't even stop the make sure it is locked.

-

I'm not so sure he didn't. maybe after throwing away the phones, his adrenalin started to return to normal and he figured since he was gonna probably get busted anyway and he left without any money and decided to go back...

There's no proof, but there's also no proof he didn't.

And like I've said over and over, this is just my opinion,

d

-

 

[js202]

Doing some research on him, he has been criticized on some cases.

Please expand. Which cases, and how do they relate to what he has written with Mark Olshaker and said in interviews about the Knox case?

 

[Kaosium]

Why wasn't it the key argument if it was so strong? The defence obviously didn't think it was so strong. Why?

As Chris Halkides posted above, Mignini did not change the ToD until his closing arguments, and needed to in order to allow for Curatolo's 'evidence.' The 10:30 ToD from Rudy's trial was barely possible, the outlier estimate for an extreme edge of a range.

The Cartwheels thread started at the end of the Massei trial. As soon as his report was complete and being translated the fact that his time of death was impossible became a big issue, as you may recall. The infallibility of the Italian Court System was at issue and some took up the argument that those skeptical of that 11:45 ToD were wrong, as at issue was Curatolo who, among other things, was the 'witness' who broke the alibi. He was 'certain' he saw Raffaele and Amanda standing outside from ~9:27 until just before midnight, when the disco buses that didn't run that night left for the last time.

The defense however knows the prosecution will move the ToD to whenever it feels like to try to convict Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[andreajo]

Would you include career FBI agent John Douglas amongst "some people"? He has put his name and considerable reputation behind his unequivocal belief that Knox and Sollecito are completely innocent.
What are your professional credentials with regard to the assessment of evidence collection, crime scene staging, and the like?

Doing some research on him, he has been criticized on some cases.

I became interested in this case after reading his book Law and Disorder. Aside from his extensive experience, I found him to be credible because he related a story where he had reached a wrong conclusion among the other cases where he felt that he was correct, and was careful to explain the limitations of his discipline. I think he is credible and knowledgeable, but not infallible. The ability to admit errors is a cornerstone of critical thinking, IMO.

 

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by Strozzi View Post
"His posts show he is poorly informed on ..."

No. You're really quite wrong about that.

I quite agree...nothing about Yummi/Machs posts is beneficial for anything at all except to perhaps get a glimpse of an illogical dysfunctional thought process in argument style of the typical Italian.

If you cant dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with BS would be the metaphorical equivalent here.

 

[Bob001]

It has gone through 4 steps, one in which they were found not guilty of all charges but the callunia charge.

The latest State Department comment seems to have dropped that "fair trial" meme, now just saying they are monitoring the case closely.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/amanda-knox-heading-extradition-fight-22320430

I'm not sure how much anybody can rely on the State Department. To a large degree State's idea of a "fair trial" is that a country treats an American the same way it would treat one of its own citizens, that an American isn't being singled out for unusual treatment (or mistreatment). It doesn't mean that a trial in another country meets American standards regarding legal representation, juror selection, admissibility of evidence, etc., etc. There are Americans around the world doing long hard time on drug charges that might not have looked pretty shaky in the U.S. Amanda and Raffaele were convicted by an eight-person jury that included two judges; that alone is wildly different from the American system. But it's "fair" in Italy; it's how the Italian system works.
http://studentsabroad.state.gov/emergencies/arrestedabroad.php

 

[Kestrel]

Doing some research on him, he has been criticized on some cases.

John Douglas is downright hated in some circles. Mostly because he argues for innocence in cases where so many are invested in guilt. This deeply offends those who believe Amanda Knox is a she devil, the Ramsey's were running a pedophile ring and the West Memphis Three killed those young boys in a Satanic ritual.

 

[Dan O.]

Is it even certain that the bra clasp came from the bra she was wearing that night?

There is enough circumstantial evidence that the clasp was part of the bra that was saturated in Meredith's blood and aspirated drops on the front of the cups (including the lower half of the cups indicating that she was lying on her back when she was choking on her own blood) that I see no point in even considering that possibility. Why would someone fabricate a duplicate of the clasp so they could plant it as evidence when they could just waltz in through the open front door on November 14 and grab the original.

 

[Wildhorses]

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

Yes, I believe people make false confessions. Amanda didn't confess, she accused another. Two entirely different things.

No, I don't believe the only way to obtain a false confession is through the use of torture and the striking of the suspect. That's what Amanda claims happened. I do not believe her.

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.

I don't understand the logic behind these statements. Seems to me if Amanda were guilty, she'd have known perfectly well that accusing Patrick would NOT get her off the hook.

She'd have known Rudy's footprints and handprints were all over Meredith's room, known Rudy touched Meredith and her clothes and likely left DNA. So she’d have KNOWN none of the forensic evidence wouldn’t match Patrick and accusing him wouldn’t get her off the hook.

If she were guilty and had staged a burglary, how would accusing Patrick have gotten her off the hook? Was she gonna say he climbed through the window and messed up Filomena’s room? (And forgot to flush?)

Above all, if she were guilty and wanted to be off the hook, why on earth would she have placed herself at the crime scene? That’s the dumbest move imaginable for someone trying to get off the hook. I can't see ANY reason she'd have happily "volunteered up" info that would require her to explain not only the murder, but the break-in, and why she returned home in the morning and pretended she didn’t know Meredith was dead.

So I don['t see how a guilty Amanda could possibly have thought accusing Patrick would get her off the hook. To the contrary, she would have known she was hooking herself royally.

May I ask you, Ms. Nostril: Why do you think the cops forgot to ask who broke the window? Or why she didn’t report the murder? If she was happily volunteering info, why didn't they ask for clarification of a single detail?

 

[Desert Fox]

Please expand. Which cases, and how do they relate to what he has written with Mark Olshaker and said in interviews about the Knox case?

Let me be clear here that I think his arguments for their innocence are well laid out and I agree with them. I just know that it could be argued that he has been criticized in the past on cases. Mostly of the arguments against him seem to have been organized vs unorganized activity.

 

[Strozzi]

Twenty years ago (maybe even ten), they might have been convicted but the US has been rocked by a number of major cases involving false confessions and no good evidence. It has hopefully shaken the court system.

I wonder how a US judge would rule in a case like this regarding police destruction of evidence.

I'm not talking about all the evidence they destroyed, just the computers. The defense says Raffaele's computer shows their presence at Raffaele's through the night. Amanda's computer had photos of Meredith and her together in friendly relations, which is evidence to counter any allegation that they did not get along.

It may be that a US judge would have dismissed the case purely on the fact that the police destroyed the computers and thereby compromised and violated their right to a fair trial.

I have no doubt that a US judge would have found Stefanoni in contemp of court for not providing all documents related to her lab work, and thrown her in jail for willfully evading his direct order on that. He would have thrown the case out of court for that.