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

[Charlie Wilkes]

I would say he is innocent.... But I hardly know anything about the case... He could be guilty. The fact that sticks out to me is... Why would he not name the accomplice in the confession? I think he is too dumb to be thinking of protecting someone....

But not a conspiracy though.... It's just a confession is a trump all. It's so unbelievable to us that someone would just admit to killing someone.

But it seems to be all the prosecutor did was find a border line retard and completely wreck his mind..... After seeing the frontline episode "the confessions".... It makes a lot more sense then it did.

I listened to several hours of the interrogation tape. Cope denied, denied, denied that he had anything to do with the murder, that he ever hurt this child, or that he had the slightest reason to be upset with her. And there was no evidence he was abusive. (He was negligent in some respects because he was such a low-functioning person.)

The cops did not listen to a word he said. They refused to consider the possibility that he was telling the truth. They kept telling him they knew he was lying and repeating their accusation. Eventually, he capitulated and gave an account of killing the kid because he was angry with her.

Then they found out it was a sex crime committed by a serial rapist who was a stranger to Cope.

It is an utterly ridiculous case. It's a bit like the Jerry Hobbs case, where the cops got him to confess to killing two kids in a fit of anger, and then it turned out to be a sex crime by a known predator. Here is Hobbs's confession:

http://www.nytimes.com/video/magazine/100000001188108/jerry-hobbs-confession.html

Play that to a jury, and you get a conviction. Hobbs was lucky though because he could more or less prove he could not have known the guy who really did it, so he was never tried and walked free after five years of detention.

 

[NancyS]

I just want to know more about it, Dan. I have read Burleigh and understand there are reports of some strange behaviour. I would just like to have an idea of what dissociation might be.

This is a Bruce Perry article, which talks about dissociation - I think there will be more up-to-date information

http://www.trauma-pages.com/a/perry96.php

 

[anglolawyer]

This is straight from Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry - The separation of unpleasant emotions and memories from consciousness awareness with subsequent disruption to the normal integrated function of consciousness and memory.
A Fugue is a dissociative reaction to unbearable stress, following a severe external stressor - the affected individual develops global amnesia and may wander to a distant location. Consciousness is unimpaired

Dissociation is usually associated with traumatic events in childhood - Bruce Perry (Child Psychiatrist), writes a lot about dissociation and how it can present, it is a really interesting read - and he talks of one case that presents as an unexplained coma

It would also be associated with an inability to control your emotions at times of great stress - and it is possible that his memories of what happened are not that clear.

This was the piece from Nina Burleigh


I'm not sure who assessed these behaviours and came to this conclusion (did Guede see a psychiatrist?) - however, there does seem to be evidence to suggest that he was a troubled young man

Thanks. That's interesting.

 

[LondonJohn]

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 think that this is illustrative of one of the interesting things that's come out of the media circus surrounding this case. It's apparent that journalists, commentators, and even legal experts (as in this instance) have routinely misinterpreted, distorted or invented elements related to the case, in order (seemingly) to be "quotable" and "provocative". This behaviour, incidentally, applies to those on both "sides" of the case - there have also been several pro-acquittal/pro-innocence media commentators who have been guilty of similar failings.

It is apparent to me that for a large section of the media community (particularly in mass media, and especially in broadcasting mass media), the cult of personality, quotability, memorability and "provactiveness" matter far more than a sober analysis. It's a pretty potent illustration of the Marshall McLuhan maxim "The medium is the message". I think that people such as Dershowitz and others make a conscious choice to abdicate their powers of balanced analysis in favour of a deliberate adoption of a powerful, trenchant position when it comes to their media personas. It's sad, but it's probably an inevitable outcome of the cult of personality and the increasing fight for attention in a 24-hour multi-media age.

 

[NancyS]

I don't quite follow the second paragraph. But suppose it takes five minutes to get from Raffaele's house to Amanda's. (I vaguely recall that figure from the early days but I will gratefully accept correction if it is wrong.)

So the scenario is Raffaele hits a button at 21:10 then they both run out the door immediately for no reason anyone can reconstruct, get to Amanda's house at 21:15, high-five Rudy, murder Meredith without leaving any traces, and then get back out the door again by 21:21 so they can be home at 21:26 to watch Naruto. It's not impossible if they were part of a premeditated murder plan carried out with military precision, but it looks impossible to me if we have to fit a prank gone wrong, Satanic ritual, argument about poo, momentary choice for evil or whatever the hell it is this year in to the timeline.

I guess it's not a problem if you "don't accept" the 21:26 Naruto event as real but you can make any theory work if you get to selectively "not accept" any facts which get in the way. You could have the Easter Bunny do it if you are allowed to do that.

And they also need to be seen in the square by Curatolo at 9:28, meet Guede and go back to the cottage - and allow Guede time to do a poo. It gets more and more unlikely, unless you start disregarding prosecution evidence as well as defence evidence

 

[Strozzi]

And they also need to be seen in the square by Curatolo at 9:28, meet Guede and go back to the cottage - and allow Guede time to do a poo. It gets more and more unlikely, unless you start disregarding prosecution evidence as well as defence evidence

Don't forget the time needed for the clean-up! I think they could have done it the way Kevin Lowe times it (it is somebody else's fantasy) but they had accomplices to get it all done in time to get back to watch Naruto. It was Seal Team 6.

 

[LondonJohn]

Does anybody remember this case?
There was a case where couple in high school murdered another (female) student I believe because of jealousy.
Believe both the boy and girl were slated to go to military academies, one air force and one navy.
Cannot remember enough to get hits off of Google

Edit: Found it
Diane Zamora and David Graham.
Could it be argued that this is a similar crime to what might be argued here
Not that I believe it myself

I don't think this is a fair comparator.

The Zamora/Graham murder a crime of passion and jealousy, with strong sexual undertones. In contrast, there was no indication whatsoever that Knox was sexually jealous of Meredith Kercher, nor that she ever felt that Meredith was competing for Sollecito's attention (and far less that Sollecito had ever had sexual interaction with Meredith).

In addition, it seems that the Zamora/Graham case was one of those instances of a strong, dominant female and a weak, compliant, pliable male who was desperate for attention and for the affirmation of the female's affection for him.

In addition, Zamora and Graham had been romantically involved for around four months by the time the murder was conceived and executed. What's more, their relationship had apparently been extremely intense, since they already had plans to marry. The combination of time and intensity would have created sufficient conditions for the necessary bonds of trust and loyalty that are precursors to any group crime of a serious nature.

In contrast, Knox and Sollecito had been romantically involved for a mere six days, and there was no indication that they were thinking in terms of a longer-term commitment: it appears that for both of them this was nothing more than a university romance.

 

[Antony]

Presumption of innocence is not something as a poster on an Internet forum I'm required to afford twice convicted killers.

Look around..this isn't a court room.

Why should it not be? Among other things we are discussing whether the verdicts were correct. Presumption of innocence, or the ignoring of it, is rather central to that question.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Does anybody remember this case?
There was a case where couple in high school murdered another (female) student I believe because of jealousy.
Believe both the boy and girl were slated to go to military academies, one air force and one navy.
Cannot remember enough to get hits off of Google

Edit: Found it
Diane Zamora and David Graham.
Could it be argued that this is a similar crime to what might be argued here
Not that I believe it myself

It could have been like that... if the facts were different enough.

Back in November 2007, I was thinking along the lines of Justina Morley or Kelly Ellard.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/kid_snuff-38393579.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Reena_Virk

But, I gradually realized the facts don't fit. For one thing, those cases don't fall apart. Once they are solved, they stay solved. The cops figure out exactly what happened, usually because the perps tell them.

Now that I know Amanda and have met Raffaele, it seems ridiculous.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is a Bruce Perry article, which talks about dissociation - I think there will be more up-to-date information

http://www.trauma-pages.com/a/perry96.php

Thanks Nancy

I didn't see anything in there about fugue states. What mental state do you think Guede was in when attacking Meredith Kercher? Tramontano and the Milan school person describe a very cool customer. Someone behaving normally in an abnormal situation. Do you have a mental picture of what may have happened when he followed her to her room?

 

[Strozzi]

. . . In contrast, Knox and Sollecito had been romantically involved for a mere six days, and there was no indication that they were thinking in terms of a longer-term commitment: it appears that for both of them this was nothing more than a university romance.

Raffaele was supposed to graduate in a few weeks. His plans were to go to Milan for a masters degree in IT, although I don't know if his program was to begin soon or much later.

Does anyone know if Raffaele was planning to leave Perugia in a few weeks? If he was, then they knew their six-day university romance was about to end or at least change to a distance relationship. That would be another reason one should not remain loyal to the other if one knew that the other did somethng suspicious the night of the crime.

 

[katy_did]

Speaking honestly, I don't thoroughly understand,with any sort of real confidence, how the DNA found mixed with AK's in the room with the broken window can be dismissed. It's found mixed in more than one spot, correct?

What I've never understood is the pro-guilt theory which would make those spots in Filomena's room incriminating. As I understand it, the spots were blobs rather than footprints. If that's true (not having seen a picture of them) then surely that would necessarily mean the DNA from Amanda and Meredith had to have been deposited at different times - unless, of course, it was inadvertently transferred there by a third party.

For example, take Machiavelli's theory that Meredith's DNA was transferred there from the bloody towels. If that were true, then unless Amanda's DNA were also transferred from the towels (not impossible since she'd certainly used them) this means her DNA had to have been left at a different time. Even if just by a matter of minutes earlier/later, we know it can't have been left simultaneously. Since we therefore know for sure (again, barring third party transfer) her DNA was left at a different time to Meredith's DNA, how can we possibly be certain it's linked to the murder? Had Amanda really never been into Filomena's room in the two or so months she'd lived at the cottage? Hell, maybe she snuck in there from time to time and stole from Filomena's pot stash.

The point is that even according to pro-guilt theories, Amanda's DNA being in the same spot as Meredith's is pure coincidence. The question isn't whether their DNA being in the same spot is incriminating, but whether Amanda's DNA being in Filomena's room is incriminating. And given that they lived together - Amanda was in Filomena's room that very morning, after all, when she discovered the break-in - it's very hard to see how it can be.

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't forget the time needed for the clean-up! I think they could have done it the way Kevin Lowe times it (it is somebody else's fantasy) but they had accomplices to get it all done in time to get back to watch Naruto. It was Seal Team 6.

Strozzi, pay attention! The clean up was in the morning.

Two problems with that are:

1. As revealed in her book, and this was a big revelation to me, Amanda did not know her room mates' plans for the weekend. That makes it highly improbable they took the risk of just leaving everything to be discovered overnight.
   
2. If they did the clean up in the morning (shopping at Quintavalle etc) why start making calls before they were finished? The bathmat ninnies never seem to think about what Raf's opinion might have been about his bloody footprint being left behind on that mat.

Oh well.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why should it not be? Among other things we are discussing whether the verdicts were correct. Presumption of innocence, or the ignoring of it, is rather central to that question.

It seems obvious to me that there are three separate (but related) questions that are worthy of discussion on forums such as this:

1) Should Knox and/or Sollecito have been found guilty in court of the criminal charges against them?

2) Did Knox and/or Sollecito have any factual involvement in the murder or its aftermath?

3) What really happened: who killed Meredith, how and why?


For Question 1, it's entirely proper to consider the standard of the presumption of innocence. In fact, one cannot even approach this question - far less try to answer it - without understanding and applying the presumption of innocence.

Question 2 is a separate question altogether. It's entirely possible in logic, law and ethics that the answer to Q1 could be "no" and the answer to Q2 could be "yes" (though not the other way round, obviously).

In my opinion, the answers to the above questions are as follows:

1) No

2) Possibly yes, but very probably no.

3) Guede entered the cottage alone, by breaking in through Filomena's window, with the initial intent of stealing money and valuables. Meredith then came home, locking the front door behind her. Guede probably tried unsuccessfully to escape via the front door, then confronted Meredith. The situation escalated as Guede's physical altercation turned to a sexual/power motive, and culminated in Guede stabbing Meredith in the neck.

 

[Rolfe]

The clasp was not collected until the shoe evidence was proven false. Have you watched the video of the clasp being found and handled by dirty gloves? The evidence collection in the cottage was a complete joke.

In the photograph I have seen, the glove is split at the end of the thumb. The tip of the thumb and the thumbnail (which has some random dirt under it) are bare and are touching the clasp. That should be enough to have that evidence disallowed.

Rolfe.

 

[Strozzi]

Strozzi, pay attention! The clean up was in the morning.

Two problems with that are:

1. As revealed in her book, and this was a big revelation to me, Amanda did not know her room mates' plans for the weekend. That makes it highly improbable they took the risk of just leaving everything to be discovered overnight.
   
2. If they did the clean up in the morning (shopping at Quintavalle etc) why start making calls before they were finished? The bathmat ninnies never seem to think about what Raf's opinion might have been about his bloody footprint being left behind on that mat.

Oh well.

Does Quintavalle's mini-market deliver? If so, I would have just called them when they opened at 8 am and asked them to deliver six gallons of bleach and a big plastic bag, size XXL, to the cottage. Nobody would have been the wiser.

 

[anglolawyer]

Does Quintavalle's mini-market deliver? If so, I would have just called them when they opened at 8 am and asked them to deliver six gallons of bleach and a big plastic bag, size XXL, to the cottage. Nobody would have been the wiser.

LOL - can't see a flaw in that.

 

[Strozzi]

In the photograph I have seen, the glove is split at the end of the thumb. The tip of the thumb and the thumbnail (which has some random dirt under it) are bare and are touching the clasp. That should be enough to have that evidence disallowed.

Rolfe.

No wonder Stefanoni is withholding the egrams. Her DNA is on the clasp. One of the male traces could be her husband's. If she shook hands with Mignini that morning, one of the other male traces could be Mignini's.

I hear Napoleoni wants to bring Mignini in at midnight to discuss it.

 

[Diocletus]

No wonder Stefanoni is withholding the egrams. Her DNA is on the clasp. One of the male traces could be her husband's.

Now why would her husband's DNA be on the fingers of Stef's rubber glove?

 

[Diocletus]

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.

This is an interesting exercise.

I agree with Charlie's point that Guede's letter could never be introduced to accuse without allowing cross-examination.

I think that the DNA on both the knife and the clasp would almost certainly be excluded due to failure to produce the back up data and poor reliability, but this one is a little more subjective.

I will add a couple of thoughts:

1) The decision in Guede's trial could never be used in a conviction of Knox and Sollecito.

2) An appellate court would never override the jury's witness credibility determinations in criminal matter, as occurred here.