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

[Charlie Wilkes]

Can anyone find the very first report abc's nightline did on the case? I want to see it again.... I can't quite remember it. It was presented as a story of how technology spoiled a murder plot. I wish I could find it and see it again.

I'm not sure which one you want. I uploaded one to my Google drive that is not the first by far, but it includes a comment by Greg Hampikian similar to what you describe.

See if you can make this link work:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gMitBj7xeKdC1mV2MxZXJnbTA/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Mary_H]

I don't know. They convicted Rafay and Burns in Seattle, and they are innocent, or at least, the only evidence against them is bogus. They used the Canadian "Mr. Big" technique to get confessions, which is illegal in the US for good reason, but the state court system has ruled that the evidence thus obtained is OK for this case.

The US court system convicted Claus von Bulow, who is clearly innocent, despite his elite social status and access to the world's best lawyers, and he had to fight like hell to get out from under the charges.

Nobody is safe, if they fall into the wrong circumstances.

I suppose so, but the crimes you mention above are not so far out of the realm of reality that the suspects would be charged without further investigation, as they were in Perugia. Also, when we talk about "this couldn't happen here," we are often talking about one step or another of the case. For example, maybe the arrests could have happened here, but Massei's motivations couldn't have happened here, etc. It would be interesting to find out whether as many people have ever said "it wouldn't have happened here" about another case as have said it about this case.

P.S. I believe Rafay and Burns are guilty.

 

[Samson]

Realistically, what happened in this particular case to Amanda in Perugia would not happen in the same type of case to Amanda in Seattle (if this case has a "type"). Trained, veteran police officers are familiar with the criminal element and can readily identify as "scum" the type of people they are used to dealing with. Many police are racist and many go overboard, but it would be difficult to arrest and detain people like Amanda and Raffaele here because of the checks and balances that exist, both legally and culturally. Young, attractive, verbal, intelligent, white American girls who have judges and lawyers for friends do not remain locked up for long.

Obviously, this is the argument the pro-guilt side has hung its hat on for six years, that Amanda's "privilege" gained her misplaced support. As Machiavelli has shown us many times, though, to be Amanda in Perugia is to be something "bad," whereas to the police in Seattle, to be Amanda is something "good."

Amanda's personal traits -- young, attractive, verbal, intelligent, white American girl with judges and lawyers for friends -- seem to arouse resentment in those who are culturally apart from her, whether (in the case of the PGP) because she is "privileged" or (in the case of PLE) she was maybe too autonomous, uppity and sexy. Some Seattle police might like to do to her what the Perugians did, but I don't think they could get away with it.

Sometimes I feel like trumpeting the last post and disappearing, Mary H, this observation is so true, but who can abandon this cause? This prosecution would be completely impossible in New Zealand.

 

[anglolawyer]

I suppose so, but the crimes you mention above are not so far out of the realm of reality that the suspects would be charged without further investigation, as they were in Perugia. Also, when we talk about "this couldn't happen here," we are often talking about one step or another of the case. For example, maybe the arrests could have happened here, but Massei's motivations couldn't have happened here, etc. It would be interesting to find out whether as many people have ever said "it wouldn't have happened here" about another case as have said it about this case.

P.S. I believe Rafay and Burns are guilty.

There are some very specific things that couldn't happen 'here'. Stefanoni's evidence could not stand up in an English court. No proper disclosure, no chain of custody, obvious lies and incompetence. Kaosium posted the case of the FBI lab technician who had got sloppy about one particular control (i.e. she had been secretly omitting it) in a couple of hundred cases. She was dismissed and all her work re-done. That's more like it. The pro-guilters deal with this crap by ignoring it or refusing even to attempt to understand it as if that is adequate.

Mind you Rolfe (I think) has a Scottish fingerprint case that might disturb my complacency. Even so, I think Stef would be roasted alive here.

 

[Kaosium]

The US court system convicted Claus von Bulow, who is clearly innocent, despite his elite social status and access to the world's best lawyers, and he had to fight like hell to get out from under the charges.

Funny you mention him, I was thinking of him the other day. The only thing I really know about that case is from the movie, "Reversal of Fortune," but one thing that struck me at the time and stuck with me is it looked to me like he was clearly innocent too, however at the end they had Dershowitz claim he thought he was guilty of something and they got him off anyway as it was important to legal principles.

If I recall correctly that movie was made off a book he wrote, so I'm guessing that part at the end where they have him claim von Bulow was guilty of something comes from him. I saw a while back where he said something about OJ being an example of a guilty man who was framed, and Dershowitz was part of that legal team too that got OJ off.

However he looks at the Amanda Knox case and becomes an advocate for extradition. If that actually happens it would make this case probably the best known miscarriage of justice in modern American history. He'll have backed police misconduct and legal principles that cannot ever fail to register (in the long run) and he'll have completely overlooked because he came across a website which completely duped him.

Having abandoned anything resembling principles and totally undermined any claim to good judgement he'll face the legacy of being a whore for the guilty and a fool for the fascisti. Unlike some of you, I used to like the guy, he made brave arguments sometimes and was interesting to listen to. Now I just want to puke, like I found out he was diddling little kids on the side.

 

[Mary_H]

Funny you mention him, I was thinking of him the other day. The only thing I really know about that case is from the movie, "Reversal of Fortune," but one thing that struck me at the time and stuck with me is it looked to me like he was clearly innocent too, however at the end they had Dershowitz claim he thought he was guilty of something and they got him off anyway as it was important to legal principles.

If I recall correctly that movie was made off a book he wrote, so I'm guessing that part at the end where they have him claim von Bulow was guilty of something comes from him. I saw a while back where he said something about OJ being an example of a guilty man who was framed, and Dershowitz was part of that legal team too that got OJ off.

However he looks at the Amanda Knox case and becomes an advocate for extradition. If that actually happens it would make this case probably the best known miscarriage of justice in modern American history. He'll have backed police misconduct and legal principles that cannot ever fail to register (in the long run) and he'll have completely overlooked because he came across a website which completely duped him.

Having abandoned anything resembling principles and totally undermined any claim to good judgement he'll face the legacy of being a whore for the guilty and a fool for the fascisti. Unlike some of you, I used to like the guy, he made brave arguments sometimes and was interesting to listen to. Now I just want to puke, like I found out he was diddling little kids on the side.

I hope he reads your post, Kaosium.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I suppose so, but the crimes you mention above are not so far out of the realm of reality that the suspects would be charged without further investigation, as they were in Perugia. Also, when we talk about "this couldn't happen here," we are often talking about one step or another of the case. For example, maybe the arrests could have happened here, but Massei's motivations couldn't have happened here, etc. It would be interesting to find out whether as many people have ever said "it wouldn't have happened here" about another case as have said it about this case.

P.S. I believe Rafay and Burns are guilty.

I generally agree that much of what happened in Perugia could not have happened in the US. For example, I don't think US prosecutors could bring Guede into the courtroom and put him on the stand to confirm that he wrote a letter accusing Amanda and Raffaele, and then shield him from cross-examination. I doubt a US prosecutor could introduce what amounts to a crime reconstruction exhibit during a closing argument.

If there's a case against Rafay and Burns that doesn't involve the Mr. Big tapes, I'd be glad to hear it. As far as I can tell it's an unsolved case with no reliable evidence pointing to any known suspects.

 

[davefoc]

What is the basis for denying that human interaction was required to start the Naruto ep 101.avi cartoon on Sollecito's computer?

Without that the TOD arguments seem not to be as strong. As I understand the TOD evidence:
0. 8:40 Eyewitness claims to see Knox at Sollecito's apartment.
1. 9:05 -Kercher arrives at her apartment. Based on CCTV videos and an estimate of how long Kercher would take to walk from where she was last sighted. (assumes CCTV time error was as defense argues it was)
2. 9:10 - last human action with Sollecito's computer accepted by both sides (I think)
3. 9:20-9:30 - time that Guede reported hearing a scream in a Skype call. A file of the Skype call was turned over to the police.
4. 9:26 - Start of Naruto ep 101.avi cartoon on Sollecito's computer, but this evidence is not accepted by the prosecution?
5. 9:48 - The time that the ep 101.avi cartoon would have ended if nobody did anything to stop the 22 minute cartoon from playing.
6. 10:00 PM - Failed call from Kercher's phone to her bank. Probably failed because caller didn't use country code which suggests Kercher was not the caller and that she was already dead by 10 PM
7. 10:30 - latest time it was possible that Kercher was alive using the latest possible time for the start of her dinner (6:00 PM to 6:30 PM) and the longest possible time provided by Lalli for Kercher's last meal to begin to enter her duodenum (2 to 4 hours).

The above was derived mostly from Dan O's timeline here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9773909#post9773909

Based on the above it doesn't seem like the duodenum argument helps the defense that much. Even if the start of cartoon evidence is accepted there is still time for AK/RS to make their way to the cottage, help Rudy kill Kercher for some completely unknown reason before the duodenum evidence indicates the latest time that Kercher could have been killed.

I know that has been discussed endlessly, but up until now I've been a passive observer and I just don't remember all the arguments. My apologies for that, but what have I got wrong here?

Is the issue here that the arguments have been based on different information about the time that it takes before food begins to pass into the duodenum than Lalli provided?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Funny you mention him, I was thinking of him the other day. The only thing I really know about that case is from the movie, "Reversal of Fortune," but one thing that struck me at the time and stuck with me is it looked to me like he was clearly innocent too, however at the end they had Dershowitz claim he thought he was guilty of something and they got him off anyway as it was important to legal principles.

If I recall correctly that movie was made off a book he wrote, so I'm guessing that part at the end where they have him claim von Bulow was guilty of something comes from him. I saw a while back where he said something about OJ being an example of a guilty man who was framed, and Dershowitz was part of that legal team too that got OJ off.

However he looks at the Amanda Knox case and becomes an advocate for extradition. If that actually happens it would make this case probably the best known miscarriage of justice in modern American history. He'll have backed police misconduct and legal principles that cannot ever fail to register (in the long run) and he'll have completely overlooked because he came across a website which completely duped him.

Having abandoned anything resembling principles and totally undermined any claim to good judgement he'll face the legacy of being a whore for the guilty and a fool for the fascisti. Unlike some of you, I used to like the guy, he made brave arguments sometimes and was interesting to listen to. Now I just want to puke, like I found out he was diddling little kids on the side.

I have never been impressed by Dershowitz and I don't understand why he has weighed in on the wrong side of Amanda's case now. "She accused an innocent man." Come on. Dershowitz didn't fall off a pumpkin truck like some of these people on the Internet.

The von Bulow case falls apart on the premise. If he had wanted her dead, he could have let her die instead of calling for help, and she would have died. She was suicidal and she took an overdose of drugs, but her family refused to accept that.

 

[anglolawyer]

What is the basis for denying that human interaction was required to start the Naruto ep 101.avi cartoon on Sollecito's computer?

Without that the TOD arguments seem not to be as strong. As I understand the TOD evidence:
0. 8:40 Eyewitness claims to see Knox at Sollecito's apartment.
1. 9:05 -Kercher arrives at her apartment. Based on CCTV videos and an estimate of how long Kercher would take to walk from where she was last sighted. (assumes CCTV time error was as defense argues it was)
2. 9:10 - last human action with Sollecito's computer accepted by both sides (I think)
3. 9:20-9:30 - time that Guede reported hearing a scream in a Skype call. A file of the Skype call was turned over to the police.
4. 9:26 - Start of Naruto ep 101.avi cartoon on Sollecito's computer, but this evidence is not accepted by the prosecution?
5. 9:48 - The time that the ep 101.avi cartoon would have ended if nobody did anything to stop the 22 minute cartoon from playing.
6. 10:00 PM - Failed call from Kercher's phone to her bank. Probably failed because caller didn't use country code which suggests Kercher was not the caller and that she was already dead by 10 PM
7. 10:30 - latest time it was possible that Kercher was alive using the latest possible time for the start of her dinner (6:00 PM to 6:30 PM) and the longest possible time provided by Lalli for Kercher's last meal to begin to enter her duodenum (2 to 4 hours).

The above was derived mostly from Dan O's timeline here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9773909#post9773909

Based on the above it doesn't seem like the duodenum argument helps the defense that much. Even if the start of cartoon evidence is accepted there is still time for AK/RS to make their way to the cottage, help Rudy kill Kercher for some completely unknown reason before the duodenum evidence indicates the latest time that Kercher could have been killed.

I know that has been discussed endlessly, but up until now I've been a passive observer and I just don't remember all the arguments. My apologies for that, but what have I got wrong here?

Is the issue here that the arguments have been based on different information about the time that it takes before food begins to pass into the duodenum than Lalli provided?

Maybe it just pushes the prosecution theory even farther into the realms of improbability than would be the case without it. From Pluto out to the Oort Cloud. And within that 2-4 hours estimate for digestion I don't think every minute counts equally in terms of probability. Cue the better informed.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What is the basis for denying that human interaction was required to start the Naruto ep 101.avi cartoon on Sollecito's computer?

To quote the Jim Carrey movie Liar Liar, the basis seems to me "Because it's devastating to my case!"

The pro-guilt posters just avoid talking about it as much as possible. Good luck getting any kind of intelligent story from them about how the heck that trace could be left on the computer's hard drive if Amanda and Raffaele were out killing Meredith at 21:26. They just want it to be false so they dance around it with excuses like "Um, the prosecution never accepted that evidence so maybe we all imagined it" or "Nobody can prove that it was human interaction that did it, so I cling to the mere possibility that somehow it just happened".

Based on the above it doesn't seem like the duodenum argument helps the defense that much. Even if the start of cartoon evidence is accepted there is still time for AK/RS to make their way to the cottage, help Rudy kill Kercher for some completely unknown reason before the duodenum evidence indicates the latest time that Kercher could have been killed.

Sure, but the most likely timeline has them at home well after Meredith Kercher was attacked, which rules out any sane narrative where they are involved.

Arguing that Meredith died at, say 10:15 after someone fiddled with her phones is giving up entirely on the fiction that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, and settling for trying to argue that they aren't innocent beyond all doubt. If the pro-guilt side get drawn into that argument they've already lost, and it's just a matter of how badly they lose.

 

[Suffolk Skeptic]

Which trial? Request were made and refused in each trial. Massei lists some of the requests in his motivation report.




I have the 507 request if you want it (Italian)

Yes, this is the sort of thing. We are beyond arguing the toss over the evidence, interpretation of the expert reports, odd/normal in the circumstances behaviour, various statements made by the witnesses. I never much like getting into the whys and wherefors of things said or done because the wild speculation embarked upon just irritates me. Discussing these with a guilter is never going to change their mind, especially at the moment because they can generally return on the position of "the court has looked at all of these and decided/found XY to be true." (and then they can just ignore Hellman, which is obviously irksome for me)

We are currently at the "well, the defence didn't do a very good job for their client then" stage (which I think might be right btw). I would like to show where defence requests have been blocked because this is the most fruitful way of persuading someone that the court process (and thus the findings made) was stacked against the defence. The findings then become more open for debate. The quote you give is helpful but appears to eventually say that the requests are refused as the experts already instructed by the parties are able to give enough information on the issues for the court to make a determination. Which appears to state that the defence were able to instruct experts, who did have access to the exhibits and materials, and who could have therefore provided answers in the fields subsequently requested.

Anyway, I am rambling. Thanks to everyone for replying. The window picture seems to be the inside of the outer shutters rather than the inside of the inner shutters but it is of no matter because this is the sort of argument that is going nowhere with a guilter at the moment. I can see the discussion has moved on to difficulty with the judgments and evidence in English. I'm also surprised that there are no comprehensive English translations out there. I wish the American media would put its money where its mouth is and get them properly transcribed.

I will return to the judgments and transcripts again and try and make better sense of them.

 

[Desert Fox]

I would argue that miscarriages of justice similar to what happened to Knox and Sollecito could occur in the US but not exactly the same.

One trouble I do see is imagine an Italian student in the US with just a semester of English. I think any defense attorney would argue easily that any "confession" would be hard to be taken seriously just because of the language barrier.

Not sure what a US jury would make of their confession. Seems to be a pretty flimsy confession from what I have been able to read.

In addition, I would argue that the defense attorneys would not be hamstrung in each trial. I think even pulling away most of the conspiracy theories, one argues against the cops and prosecutors in Italy at your peril.

 

[Antony]

can't explain away the bare very clear footprint on the bathmat. Let's say for the sake of argument it's Rudy's...how did it get there? Did he fly? It was obviously a naked foot covered in blood. Who cleaned up the other bare footprints going into the bathroom?

Are we to believe he showered? Where were his cloths and shoes when he showered? How did he move from A-B?

So the defence has to explain this if they claim that the print is Guede's, but the prosecution doesn't have to explain it to claim that the print belongs to Raff? Reversal of the burden of proof runs right through your thinking.

(Actually, the print is easily explained by the killer going into the bathroom to rinse blood from his clothes. There is no reason to postulate a missing trail of footprints, and the idea just shows the shallow thinking that pervades this whole case.)

 

[davefoc]

To quote the Jim Carrey movie Liar Liar, the basis seems to me "Because it's devastating to my case!"

The pro-guilt posters just avoid talking about it as much as possible. Good luck getting any kind of intelligent story from them about how the heck that trace could be left on the computer's hard drive if Amanda and Raffaele were out killing Meredith at 21:26. They just want it to be false so they dance around it with excuses like "Um, the prosecution never accepted that evidence so maybe we all imagined it" or "Nobody can prove that it was human interaction that did it, so I cling to the mere possibility that somehow it just happened".



Sure, but the most likely timeline has them at home well after Meredith Kercher was attacked, which rules out any sane narrative where they are involved.

Arguing that Meredith died at, say 10:15 after someone fiddled with her phones is giving up entirely on the fiction that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, and settling for trying to argue that they aren't innocent beyond all doubt. If the pro-guilt side get drawn into that argument they've already lost, and it's just a matter of how badly they lose.

I am with you on this but I would like to understand the TOD argument. It has been argued around here that the duodenum evidence provides an almost unassailable alibi for RS/AK. Right now the evidence as I understand it doesn't support the notion that the alibi is as strong as has been argued.

As a practical matter the alibi argument looks pretty good, but practical considerations aren't driving beliefs in AK/RS guilt. Guede's report of a scream at about 9:30, the phone evidence and the implications that Kercher hadn't taken her coat off yet suggest that Kercher was probably dead by 9:30 but if one only accepts the 9:10 evidence then AK & RS have time time to make it to the cottage to assist Guede in killing Kercher before the hypothetical time of 9:30 that Kercher was probably dead by. The duodenum evidence seems to point to a time too late to provide an alibi for AK/RS even if the 9:26 cartoon start time is accepted, unless different estimates are assumed than Lalli based his estimates on.

 

[Desert Fox]

As I mentioned yesterday Amanda's book is continuing to rise. Here are the rankings for the eBook...


Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #313 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#3 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > Specific Groups > Women
#4 in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Specific Groups > Women
#7 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > Memoirs

I know this is another old one
Right now, replacing my fuel pump has almost wiped me out but will buy her book on Amazon when I get a bit in the clear even if not very good. Have it right now on hold on the local public library.

 

[acbytesla]

True. . .I kind of meant more on average

I know you did and I agree, but it's amazing just how many are in Illinois. There may be significant problem there judging by the number listed for that state in the Registry. But I have to remember that having them listed may not be a bad thing. Since those people were actually exonerated. There may places where there are a lot more wrongfully convicted and yet fewer exonerations

I would say probably but not certainly. You know that in some areas, the Coroner is an elected position?

Coroners really shouldn't necessarily be elected. I prefer that there is an experienced and trained Medical Examiner. Far too many Coroners have little or no expertise and are vulnerable to undue influence. Depends on the jurisdiction.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I am with you on this but I would like to understand the TOD argument. It has been argued around here that the duodenum evidence provides an almost unassailable alibi for RS/AK. Right now the evidence as I understand it doesn't support the notion that the alibi is as strong as has been argued.

As a practical matter the alibi argument looks pretty good, but practical considerations aren't driving beliefs in AK/RS guilt. Guede's report of a scream at about 9:30, the phone evidence and the implications that Kercher hadn't taken her coat off yet suggest that Kercher was probably dead by 9:30 but if one only accepts the 9:10 evidence then AK & RS have time time to make it to the cottage to assist Guede in killing Kercher before the hypothetical time of 9:30 that Kercher was probably dead by. The duodenum evidence seems to point to a time too late to provide an alibi for AK/RS even if the 9:26 cartoon start time is accepted, unless different estimates are assumed than Lalli based his estimates on.

The digestive evidence is rock-solid against a TOD after 11:30 pm, which is what Massei proposed. I suppose it becomes incrementally less solid if one rolls the time back.

I think Rolf's argument is that digestive evidence is particularly reliable in this case because of the circumstances. The time for gastric emptying varies within a certain range, but in this case, Meredith was known to have been alive for much of that range, so she must have been killed very soon after she arrived home.

I tend to focus on the crime scene evidence that shows what happened and who did it. From that perspective, the digestive evidence is merely consistent with the evidence, but is not central to any proof or understanding. If she had been fasting that entire night because she had a medical test in the morning, I would still think she was killed shortly after 9 pm.

 

[Dan O.]

7. 10:30 - latest time it was possible that Kercher was alive using the latest possible time for the start of her dinner (6:00 PM to 6:30 PM) and the longest possible time provided by Lalli for Kercher's last meal to begin to enter her duodenum (2 to 4 hours).

That's what happens when the information is cherry-picked from the hours of testimony. Especially when you are only awake for the prosecution's side. You don't get to hear "the rest of the story":

DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO
QUESTION - Doctor, do you remember having written on February 13, 2008 , may I submit to him , a note to the Public Ministry, which was an errata ?
ANSWER - Yes.
QUESTION - If you can tell the Court what it is ?
ANSWER - Yes , no , it was an errata that was related
with an indication of a ... the time elapsed since the last meal that part of the report was , as I pointed out at least two / three hours , instead properly must be seen as ... should be viewed as no more than two / three hours.
QUESTION - So you're in this note of which ...
ANSWER - In this paper I pointed out that the last ...
QUESTION - I wonder ... also the acquisition, she makes a
correction and says that as a given that she wants to leave on record that this is the death occurred at a distance of no more than two / three hours last meal .
ANSWER - In two / three hours last meal , yes.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, this is the sort of thing. We are beyond arguing the toss over the evidence, interpretation of the expert reports, odd/normal in the circumstances behaviour, various statements made by the witnesses. I never much like getting into the whys and wherefors of things said or done because the wild speculation embarked upon just irritates me. Discussing these with a guilter is never going to change their mind, especially at the moment because they can generally return on the position of "the court has looked at all of these and decided/found XY to be true." (and then they can just ignore Hellman, which is obviously irksome for me)

We are currently at the "well, the defence didn't do a very good job for their client then" stage (which I think might be right btw). I would like to show where defence requests have been blocked because this is the most fruitful way of persuading someone that the court process (and thus the findings made) was stacked against the defence. The findings then become more open for debate. The quote you give is helpful but appears to eventually say that the requests are refused as the experts already instructed by the parties are able to give enough information on the issues for the court to make a determination. Which appears to state that the defence were able to instruct experts, who did have access to the exhibits and materials, and who could have therefore provided answers in the fields subsequently requested.

Anyway, I am rambling. Thanks to everyone for replying. The window picture seems to be the inside of the outer shutters rather than the inside of the inner shutters but it is of no matter because this is the sort of argument that is going nowhere with a guilter at the moment. I can see the discussion has moved on to difficulty with the judgments and evidence in English. I'm also surprised that there are no comprehensive English translations out there. I wish the American media would put its money where its mouth is and get them properly transcribed.

I will return to the judgments and transcripts again and try and make better sense of them.

Missed your request on this one, sorry. I think this is the best picture of what you are looking for...