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

[yimyammer]

There is clear CCTV footage of the suspect leaving the victim's home covered in blood. .

Is this true about Rudy? I've never heard or seen this, is there a source where I can see what you describe?

 

[Caper]

Don't be too hard on lionking. I think he/ she really is one of the good guys.

-

Oh... I'm sure in actual reality he's a better guy then I am.... Which probably isn't a big hurdle. But I'm right.

 

[Bill Williams]

It must be such a strange place for the Kerchers to be in, especially now when at least 75% of media coverage favors innocence. I can't imagine what it would be like to be told something by so-called legitimate authorities and then have the rest of the world tell me the authorities and my family are wrong. I think I would feel noble in resistance, too.

I can't help but speculate that the main issue that is keeping them committed to their point of view is the fact that Meredith died while Amanda lives. That's why they don't mention Rudy -- what they really want is another young woman's life in exchange for their daughter's. It's very sad. I don't see how they can break out of it.

I would have thought you were wildly speculating if it were not for....

..... Piers Morgan on CNN putting this very question to Raffaele in October 2013. In an otherwise, exceedingly reasonable interview with Raffaele, Morgan admits to knowing John Kercher, and says this as a run up to asking, "What is your message to the Kerchers?".....

Morgan - "Final question for you, Raffaele: I know Meredith Kercher's father, I used to work with him a bit in England, and they've suffered enormously from what has happened; obviously, to their daughter - and although you describe your life as hellish, and Amanda has used similar terminology for her life now, obviously you're both still alive and you have your lives....."

Sollecito: "I have a lot of compassion for their situation and it is horrible, their daughter is no more in this world, but I'm not responsible of that...."

For the life of me, I do not know why an objective journalist would word a question like that to someone (at the time of the interview) only suspected of murder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFfO2NRfJs

 

[Kaosium]

Is this true about Rudy? I've never heard or seen this, os there a source where I can see what you describe?

That was a hypothetical example to make another point. It got me the first time around too!

 

[Mary_H]

I would have thought you were wildly speculating if it were not for....

..... Piers Morgan on CNN putting this very question to Raffaele in October 2013. In an otherwise, exceedingly reasonable interview with Raffaele, Morgan admits to knowing John Kercher, and says this as a run up to asking, "What is your message to the Kerchers?".....

Morgan - "Final question for you, Raffaele: I know Meredith Kercher's father, I used to work with him a bit in England, and they've suffered enormously from what has happened; obviously, to their daughter - and although you describe your life as hellish, and Amanda has used similar terminology for her life now, obviously you're both still alive and you have your lives....."

Sollecito: "I have a lot of compassion for their situation and it is horrible, their daughter is no more in this world, but I'm not responsible of that...."

For the life of me, I do not know why an objective journalist would word a question like that to someone (at the time of the interview) only suspected of murder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFfO2NRfJs

It's a mixed message from Piers Morgan, that's for sure, given that the Kerchers have said they don't want to hear from Raffaele or Amanda. The question was not very well thought out, but that's a sign of the helplessness everyone faces under the circumstances. Piers might as well have said, "I haven't been able to say anything to make my friend feel better about his daughter's murder. Do you want to have a go at it?"

 

[Kaosium]

I would have thought you were wildly speculating if it were not for....

..... Piers Morgan on CNN putting this very question to Raffaele in October 2013. In an otherwise, exceedingly reasonable interview with Raffaele, Morgan admits to knowing John Kercher, and says this as a run up to asking, "What is your message to the Kerchers?".....

Morgan - "Final question for you, Raffaele: I know Meredith Kercher's father, I used to work with him a bit in England, and they've suffered enormously from what has happened; obviously, to their daughter - and although you describe your life as hellish, and Amanda has used similar terminology for her life now, obviously you're both still alive and you have your lives....."

Sollecito: "I have a lot of compassion for their situation and it is horrible, their daughter is no more in this world, but I'm not responsible of that...."

For the life of me, I do not know why an objective journalist would word a question like that to someone (at the time of the interview) only suspected of murder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFfO2NRfJs

I wonder how Piers Morgan would have reacted had Raffaele said:

'Do you think they'll feel better someday knowing they helped destroy the lives of two innocent families when the person who killed their daughter had already been caught and the price for persecuting the innocents was that the murderer would be walking the streets sooner?'

 

[Bill Williams]

Completely out of the blue, Knox and Sollecito get some support from Northwestern University..

Steven A. Drizin is a Clinical Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the former Legal Director of the Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions. He writes frequently on juvenile justice, wrongful convictions, and false confessions.

I suppose now, like with John Douglas, guilters and haters alike will be trashing Drizin, for expressing a professional opinion

Knox and Sollecito: Victims of a Prosecutor's 'Conspiracy Theories' to Explain Away DNA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-drizin/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-_b_4757435.html

In the annals of false confessions, there are only two other cases that rival the Knox case: the Billy Wayne Cope case and the Norfolk Four case. These three are the only rape-murder cases in which prosecutors continued to pursue convictions against an original suspect who "confessed" even after DNA testing conducted before trial matched to a different person who had little or no connection to the original suspects. When such DNA evidence surfaces before trial, prosecutors almost always drop charges against the original suspects and pursue the man whose DNA is a match. That the prosecutors in these cases didn't and that juries convicted Knox, Sollecito, the Norfolk Four, and Cope speaks to the power of confession evidence to blind them to the truth.

 

[Kaosium]

Completely out of the blue, Knox and Sollecito get some support from Northwestern University..

Steven A. Drizin is a Clinical Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the former Legal Director of the Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions. He writes frequently on juvenile justice, wrongful convictions, and false confessions.

I suppose now, like with John Douglas, guilters and haters alike will be trashing Drizin, for expressing a professional opinion

Knox and Sollecito: Victims of a Prosecutor's 'Conspiracy Theories' to Explain Away DNA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-drizin/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-_b_4757435.html

No doubt Andrea 'Forever Duped' Vogt will be demanding an accounting of his expenditures as well, as per her 'investigation' into Dr. Hampikian for daring to speak up on shoddy DNA work that convicted these innocents.

Here's a couple more paragraphs of interest:

Knox's case is, in some ways, even more outrageous than those of Cope and the Norfolk Four. Those men all gave detailed confessions to police during hours of unrecorded interrogations. Knox, however, never confessed to murder. She told the police -- after more than 24 hours of interrogation in a language she barely knew -- that she had invited her boss, Patrick Lumumba, back to her house and that Lumumba went into Kercher's room to have sex with her. Knox claimed she was in the kitchen and ran out of the house when she heard screams. Knox never mentioned Guede in her statements. In fact, she never mentioned Sollecito. Guede, however, cleared Knox shortly after the murder. While Guede was on the run in Germany after the crime, the Italian authorities arranged for one of his friends to call Guede via Skype. On this call -- which was surreptitiously recorded -- Guede told his friend that "Amanda had nothing to do with it."

Prosecutors in the Knox case could not even settle on a "conspiracy theory." At first, they suggested that Knox orchestrated a group-sex game that got out of control. Prosecutors simply invented this theory to give the jury a salacious motive and the press some sensationalist headlines to print. This became clear when prosecutors abandoned it in later appeals, switching to the equally implausible theory that Knox wanted Kercher dead because Kercher had complained about how messy she was.

Yep, they found that their bungled interrogation had netted them three people who the evidence suggested had nothing to do with the crime, yet when they caught the guy whose DNA did match they still tried to pretend they were right and re-invented anything to keep a group murder with a staged break-in despite the fact they caught a burglar whose DNA is the only one they found in the initial, and only legitimate forensic investigation.

 

[yimyammer]

That was a hypothetical example to make another point. It got me the first time around too!

thanks, I was thinking it was but wasn't sure. (I was kind of hoping there was a video I had never heard of but that would be too good to be true)

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

There's a string in one of the earlier threads with some money quotes from his book. I think Charlie Wilkes and Rose Montague posted some money quotes. Pretty funny stuff.

Amanda breezed through her story again. 'I stayed the night in Raffaele's flat.' She let the image hang there for a second, so the middle-aged officer could salivate, if he chose, over what the euphemism 'stay the night' really meant when it involved a beautiful young student in full flower. The officer looked at Raffaele, the blank expression thinly veiling his smugness.

Coyly, Amanda continued: 'And then I came back home to have a shower.' She let the image hang there, giving the officer a glimpse into a world he could only fantasize about.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Amanda breezed through her story again. 'I stayed the night in Raffaele's flat.' She let the image hang there for a second, so the middle-aged officer could salivate, if he chose, over what the euphemism 'stay the night' really meant when it involved a beautiful young student in full flower. The officer looked at Raffaele, the blank expression thinly veiling his smugness.

Coyly, Amanda continued: 'And then I came back home to have a shower.' She let the image hang there, giving the officer a glimpse into a world he could only fantasize about.

Oh man. Keep them coming!

 

[Bob001]

The Italian Supreme Court, which rules on something like 80,000 cases a year, has with clarity directed the Nencini court to examine and pursue the sex orgy theory.
.....

What does this mean? Did the Supreme Court direct the lower court to examine the orgy theory objectively, with the possibility of rejecting it outright, or just to seek (and somehow "discover") evidence that will support it?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well in the context of Amanda we will have to wait and see how the American government of the day handles extradition. Duke Lacrosse case, whereabouts in Italy was that case? Dumbass, what do you mean?

A metaphor: There is an elephant in the garden. Anyone with minimally functioning eyes and the inclination to look can see it very clearly.

However there are a handful of people who, for whatever reason, very much want to pretend the elephant is not there.

So they circle around the garden saying things like "If I crouch right down behind this bush I can't see any elephant, how do you explain that?" and "I heard this court-appointed elephant expert said that maybe on every third Shrove Tuesday when the moon is blue that elephant might not be there, that's good enough for me". Or they say "There's this one patch of grass which hasn't been crushed by elephant feet. Clearly this casts great doubt upon the theory that there is an elephant".

Now I'm not calling these people dumbasses. They may be very intelligent but unable to revise their beliefs when new evidence arrives. They may be members of a family who stand to make millions if they can convince a court that the elephant does not exist. They may be borderline deranged conspiracy theorists high on unfounded fantasies of their own cleverness. There are all sorts of explanations for their weird behaviour other than plain stupidity.

However I can see why someone might use the term. Their behaviour isn't very clever.

 

[yimyammer]

Amanda breezed through her story again. 'I stayed the night in Raffaele's flat.' She let the image hang there for a second, so the middle-aged officer could salivate, if he chose, over what the euphemism 'stay the night' really meant when it involved a beautiful young student in full flower. The officer looked at Raffaele, the blank expression thinly veiling his smugness.

Coyly, Amanda continued: 'And then I came back home to have a shower.' She let the image hang there, giving the officer a glimpse into a world he could only fantasize about.

what's this?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

what's this?

Darkness Descending.

I think the author needs a girlfriend.

 

[yimyammer]

I wonder how Piers Morgan would have reacted had Raffaele said:

'Do you think they'll feel better someday knowing they helped destroy the lives of two innocent families when the person who killed their daughter had already been caught and the price for persecuting the innocents was that the murderer would be walking the streets sooner?'

At this point, I'm ready for them to drop the politically correct talk and take off the gloves.

I would have loved to hear him reply by saying something like:

"Is that a question?

Well I have a question for you, what would you expect me to say to Mr Kercher if you and Mr Kercher discovered with absolute certainty I had nothing to do with this crime?

Would I still owe him some commentary on this horrible crime?

An apology?

Or maybe its you, the Italian judicial system, Mr. Kercher and everyone who wrongly accused me of this crime that owes the apology because I am innocent and I have nothing to be sorry for."

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda breezed through her story again. 'I stayed the night in Raffaele's flat.' She let the image hang there for a second, so the middle-aged officer could salivate, if he chose, over what the euphemism 'stay the night' really meant when it involved a beautiful young student in full flower. The officer looked at Raffaele, the blank expression thinly veiling his smugness.

Coyly, Amanda continued: 'And then I came back home to have a shower.' She let the image hang there, giving the officer a glimpse into a world he could only fantasize about.

Was this conversation in Italian, or did the cop speak English and know its idioms?

 

[Poppy1016]

Great Article

https://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/t...-raffaele-sollecito-nightmare-italian-justice

 

[RandyN]

Possibly. The question is should she file in Italy or the US? A US court may reject such a suit on jurisdiction grounds but it will result in great media attention. Lawyers will be interviewed. Forensic scientists will be asked for sound bites and perhaps be given more face time to discuss forensic issues in more detail.

Maybe Amanda should seek $20 million damages just for being hit in police interrogation. Name the police woman who hit her. Whether the case proceeds or is rejected on jurisdiction grounds by a US court, more Americans will learn she was hit in police interrogation. Americans don't like police assault. Gin it up! The State Department will have to contend with that when they consider an extradition request.

I have a vague recollection of reading something about Mignini saying maybe Amanda got bumped accidentally from behind. Anybody else remember reading it? Was this something he said on camera? If he really said it, include it in media coverage of a lawsuit for police assault because it will make Prosecutor Mignini look duplicitous.

Not possibly. Certainly!

Unless and until these defendants go on the offensive then no one really looks at the facts or lack thereof in this case and so an assumption of trust in the Italian legal system prevails in spite of such overwhelming evidence of stupidity/corruption or whatever.

Why not sue for failing to protect the right to an attorney?
Sue for abuse during police interrogation.
Sue for presenting witness who clearly lied in court. Stefanoni on quantification of 36b.
Sue for forcible coercion to sign faked statements written in Italian while failing to provide an independent unbiased interrupter.
Sue for failing to notify US Consulate and meanwhile the prosecutor uses some bizarre excuse to continue denial of legal representation.
Sue for releasing her diary.
Sue for torture in giving a false HIV positive report.

Pick any one two or ten or 100 more I could easily list.

Sue for 100 dollars....no 100 billion dollars...sorry I just love Austin Powers.

While they are at it...

Sue Guede for falsely accusing them in court.
Sue Lumumba for slandering and lying about Knox.
Sue Lumumbas lawyer for calling her a witch without bothering to see if she floats.

Or would that be too racial?

Sue the Kerchers for interfering into the trial by releasing timed statements designed to harm and prevent a fair trial. At this point they deserve to be sued. They are interfering into the trial process so as to help convict innocent persons of a crime for which no real evidence exists that the defendants are involved in any way at all...in fact the opposite exists. A great deal of evidence exists that stupidity/corruption has been the major driving force in the prosecutors case. And the Kerchers have paid big money to be a part of the stupidity/corruption.

That their daughter was killed is apparently no longer important to them. Or else we would have heard an opinion about Guedes day release to attend college IMO.

Instead we hear news about Kerchers canoodling with Paul Russell and A Vogt. Gee, I wonder how that will be presented? Anyone care to place bets on the pro innocent position?

I swear the world has to end soon ...how can the crazy just continue, and be stoked to such an inferno? I guess the truth is sometimes Karma never shows up to kick some retribution butt.

No one can produce something to point out the shortcomings of this case? Or that A Vogt is a hack or P Russell a crank? I know people are still talking about evidence but the fact finding seems to have been over for this case long, long ago.

Now lazy idiots like Abrams fail completely to bother fact checking? And he is powerful? Why is no one outing and embarrassing him for sloppiness? Same with that media whore Dershowitz? He only speaks on this case because it gets his ugly mug on TV. But sure he defended OJ and Claus no problem. But here he is acting on par with Nancy Grace. Is she teaching at Harvard now? Should be apparently.

 

[Strozzi]

I don't think that Kerchers are much for science.

It may be that they have no comprehension of science. But what do they think when the see the police take smoking breaks under the possible break-in point, trash the rooms, wear dirty booties and dirty gloves, shove Meredith's clothes around the floor and under the bed, later dump the clothes she was wearing in a hampster rather than analyze them, paint the bathroom pink and give or sell the photo to the press (now that is $omething John Kercher can relate to!), and more?

John Kercher knows that Mignini publicly released the initial theory that Meredith met a man on Halloween and had him over the next night for consensual sex. And that Mignini's cops asked the guys downstairs if Meredith used the vaseline for something other than dry skin. Kercher can take offense at Mignini's theories about his daughter. Does he not realize that Mignini publicly conjectured the same way about Amanda?