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

[NancyS]

With or without stomach content, this has been a large part of my argument.
Wondering just how many FBI people we can line up on her .

It's just insane that they can try and use the DNA of someone found in their own home as sign of guilt - young people/students are always hugging, sharing items and clothes and washing/drying clothes together and sharing bathrooms - it's no surprise that their DNA could end up anywhere in the cottage and it's not impossible to imagine how traces of Meredith's DNA could end up at Raffaele's

 

[anglolawyer]

That's a good explanation. It seems above their abilities to be able to plan such a ruse, but maybe so. Maybe they are used to doing it with everybody.

The fact that they talked to Raffaele about Amanda suggests they had plans to talk to her.

I have not read the testimony so I don't know the context, but I have read here many times that Giobbi testified that he ordered them both in. He was 100% mathematically certain or something like that. It puzzles me that he would be off message and there must be a reason for that that would be well worth exploring in some depth but, assuming he gave the order he says he did, why did the local cops disobey it? One reason could be as a finesse to preserve this witness/suspect crap and little tell-tales like the evidence above, where the officer sneaks it in that Amanda should not complain of being tired because it wasn't as though, like, she had been ordered in or anything, might be what gives it away.

In the BBC3 thing Mignini says, more than once I think and apropos of nothing, that she was not a suspect. They keep hammering on about this. It's not true. It's a chink in their armour as it requires a lot of huffing and puffing to cover up all the signs that would give it away. They are hoist on a petard or something because they want to:

A point to her suspicious behaviour but at the same time say
B they did not suspect her

and this is not a circle that can not be squared.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Exactly! Its not that the Cali wacko from PMS 1 or 2 (I forget her handle at the moment) is correct about the money or is even a legal issue but it is a pillar they have used to create the osmosis effect.

Plus who cares if Chris cant remember or doesn't know about a 548 dollar whatever? Find out!

Its a frekin bank record! Banks are notorious for recording details about these transactions...something about trust and laws and keeping account. WTH? It may seem worthless but those who have followed the case for years know about these arguments and in fact we wonder why no one ever seems to bother dealing with the bigger ones.

This money thing is actually something quite relate-able to the case since they contend that MK money is missing and so if me I would damn well explain where my 548 bucks that I deposited (or if I even did) came from just in case...

Now I will say that apparently there is nothing in this money/deposit thing or else Mignini would have been all over that and we would have seen it in the case. And yet guys like Yummi feed people like Mignini (and company) data they gather from everywhere in order to force an osmosis of sorts.

The money argument makes Knox look bad. It is not chasing irrelevant accusations (since MK could have had money missing) and I think Charlie darn well knows that especially about this particular matter since there was some early backpedaling of something he posted about it long ago...and there have been hundreds of pages devoted to this matter and yet it would seem to be a simple and easily put to rest point. Here was the deposit and here is where it came from. Or else there was never any deposit so STFU!

I have never backpeddled on this at all. I posted what is on the bank statement and what Chris M. told me.

 

[LondonJohn]

With or without stomach content, this has been a large part of my argument.
Wondering just how many FBI people we can line up on her side?

Edit: Always interesting to read the comments.

I agree with much of what that FBI guy says, with the significant exception of the stuff about protection of Italy by blaming an outsider. I don't think this is/was a factor at all in the initial decisions to bring Knox (and Sollecito) to trial.

Where I think Knox's nationality may have become a factor - somewhat ironically - is once the media (and in particular the US media) started making exactly these sorts of claims that Knox's railroading had something directly to do with her being American. I think it's entirely possible that the various judges and juries - whom I am betting were fully aware of the sort of accusations of this kind coming out of the US - might have taken umbrage and offence at such accusations.

I think there's therefore a very real possibility that they played some sort of subliminal psychological role in the way in which Knox (and Sollecito) was treated and judged in the various trials. In what way? Well, possibly in this sort of way: "The "know-all" arrogant Americans think we're looking at Knox simply because she's American; well, now we're determined to show them that their accusations are offensive and false, and that Knox is guilty on evidential grounds alone."

Another way of looking at it - from the opposite direction - is to imagine that the following sort of train of thought was playing in the judges'/juries' minds: "If we acquit Knox, then in a way we might be confirming these accusations that Knox was being unfairly railroaded simply on account of her being American".

Note, though, that I am not suggesting that the sorts of psychological implants that I'm suggesting here were consciously playing out in the minds of the various triers of fact and law. Nor am I suggesting that they were ever quite as extreme as this. What I am suggesting is that it's possible (in my view) that subliminal thoughts along these sorts of lines might have been lurking within their minds.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have not read the testimony so I don't know the context, but I have read here many times that Giobbi testified that he ordered them both in. He was 100% mathematically certain or something like that. It puzzles me that he would be off message and there must be a reason for that that would be well worth exploring in some depth but, assuming he gave the order he says he did, why did the local cops disobey it? One reason could be as a finesse to preserve this witness/suspect crap and little tell-tales like the evidence above, where the officer sneaks it in that Amanda should not complain of being tired because it wasn't as though, like, she had been ordered in or anything, might be what gives it away.

In the BBC3 thing Mignini says, more than once I think and apropos of nothing, that she was not a suspect. They keep hammering on about this. It's not true. It's a chink in their armour as it requires a lot of huffing and puffing to cover up all the signs that would give it away. They are hoist on a petard or something because they want to:

A point to her suspicious behaviour but at the same time say
B they did not suspect her

and this is not a circle that can not be squared.

Yes, Giobbi confirms this in his testimony which we now have.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have never backpeddled on this at all. I posted what is on the bank statement and what Chris M. told me.

Exactly.

What I will add to the discussion on this issue is that it would be very difficult (and costly) for Knox to have made a simple deposit (whether by cash or cheque (check), and in whatever source currency) into a US bank account while she was in Italy.

I note with no small amusement the pro-guilt commentary on this issue, which is a combination of blind ignorance (hello Hugo!) and desperate efforts to attach nefarious connotations to this bank deposit - with only a small minority accurately representing the position and the implications (i.e. none).

The truth is that if there was a deposit of monies into Knox's US bank account at this time, it must have been either a) a personal physical deposit of cash or cheque into a US branch of the bank (or possibly some selected branches of another US bank that had a clearing-sharing arrangement with Knox's bank; b) an electronic transfer of funds from a US institution (IRS? delayed payment of income for work Knox had done in the US?); or c) an electronic transfer of funds from a non-US institution - in which case there would need to have been an originating financial entity (not simply Knox herself), and significant payment of transaction fees. The quantum of money involved does not suggest (c), so I am guessing that the truth is either (a) or (b).

 

[anglolawyer]

And Mignini made nothing of it, which he would have if he could have. That's all there is to it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, Giobbi confirms this in his testimony which we now have.

Thank you Rose

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I don't accept the attitude of you and Mary that she should live her life as she desires without consideration to her situation.

Though not fan of the analogy, to me this is like telling a person with a serious disease to ignore advised diet and just eat what you want.

Highlight - As much time as it takes.

I think until this is resolved she needs to embrace the case and win.

You have to play the hand you're dealt. Unfortunately there are no redeals in life.

Amen. She has to fight as hard as they are, if not harder.

<snip>Sorry but that would have ended the case. The defense barely even brought the matter up.

So ya...Knox needs help. Her lawyers are not helping her. The politicians in Italy have gone mute. This fight is still fully on and right now shes losing in case that has not struck home for her or her family or close friends yet.

Look how much hay can be made from an almost irrelevant phone call to mom that is being made. And its something like bank information that is recorded and kept and easy to find. So just do it! Or maybe cross your fingers harder...or maybe do both.

I would be studying and trying to understand what I'm up against. Sites like this are gold mines. We had Yummi telegraphing Italian thought process and legal logic here daily. Not only that but he is close enough to know Mignini at least...maybe more at worst.

I'm reminded that one should keep your friends close...and keep your enemies even closer. There will time for sitting in trees later.

You guys are putting the onus on Amanda. Why do you expect anything of her? Everyone is frustrated, everyone wants to get some control over this mess, but to look at Amanda as the one who is going to make the difference is asking too much, I think.

Nobody is going to go through a thread like this to see what's in it. American lawyers are too smug to think anyone can teach them anything or give them better ideas than the ones they think of themselves. Besides, this case is not being fought in the American way.

Nobody cares about the details, least of all the Italian lawyers and judges. Nothing like that is going to end the case. They don't operate in details, they operate in stories that can be spun. You can show them DNA evidence, TOD evidence, phone records and bank records until the cows come home and they will find ways of invalidating it, as they have with everything that supports a case for innocence. Look at Machiavelli -- he is intransigent in the face of every reality.

If you guys want to do something, why not just do it? Take your ideas, make a video, put it on youtube, or pay someone else to do it; write an op-ed piece or a scientific article and put it online.

I think you can relax. There is nothing anyone on Amanda's team can do until the motivations are out. In the meantime, as more people become aware of the case and comment on it publicly (like the latest FBI guy), I think there is little doubt Washington, DC will be prepared if the time comes.

 

[LondonJohn]

What would you rate as their most egregious blunders?

What Randy said...... plus (and I'm going to focus for the moment on Knox's defence team, plus points related to the joint defence of Knox/Sollecito):

I think we can separate this into two different categories: procedural errors, and errors in the way the case was presented/argued. Most of Randy's points fell into the first list, and to that list I would again say that the single biggest fault in the whole saga was Dalla Vedova's agreement to take the case in the first place. He should, without doubt, have known that he was not the right person for the job. The professionally- and ethically-correct thing for him to have done was to turn down the case, and spend a short time using his general knowledge of the Italian law scene to draw up a shortlist of lawyers who truly were suitable.

On the presentation/argument side, I think that the overwhelming majority of the damage was done in the Massei trial. I think that both defence teams badly messed this trial up, and once they'd done so, it was an uphill battle from then on. In specific terms, they could and should have done all the following things: demolish Curatolo's credibility (a ludicrously simple phone call to the out-of-town disco operators might have effected this all on its own); demolish Quintavalle's credibility; demolish pretty much all of the forensic evidence from its identification/collection stage onwards (probably by calling in a number of internationally-renowned forensic scientists to show conclusively how tainted and worthless it was); focus much more on time of death (again, using top pathologists to explain in detail the implications of the stomach/duodenum evidence on ToD); cover off the coerced false"confession/accusation" properly and conclusively* (once more, using experts in the field to explain things like the Reid technique); use the telephone/computer evidence - particularly in relation to timings and most likely locations (again, proper heavy-hitting experts required).


There are lots of other areas (the break-in, the bathmat partial print, the post-murder actions/behaviour of Knox/Sollecito) in which the defence teams (in my view) made similar errors. In all of these areas, it's my belief that a far, far stronger defence case could and should have been made in the Massei trial. So, in addition to the headline errors, I think this was (with apologies for the idiom in relation to a stabbing murder) a case of death by a thousand cuts for Knox and Sollecito. It's my belief that had the defence teams nailed all of these areas in the Massei trial, then even if Knox and Sollecito had been found guilty in this first trial, the defence teams would have stood a far better chance in the subsequent appeals.


* Of course this shouldn't have been necessary in the murder trial, but since the same triers were hearing this evidence owing to the crazy decision to try the Lumumba slander charge at the same time, it cannot have failed to make an impression on them regarding the murder-related charges. Therefore, I don't think the defence teams had any option but to attack this issue forcefully, since its presence clearly stood to significantly impact upon the murder charges.

 

[Mary_H]

I agree with much of what that FBI guy says, with the significant exception of the stuff about protection of Italy by blaming an outsider. I don't think this is/was a factor at all in the initial decisions to bring Knox (and Sollecito) to trial.

Where I think Knox's nationality may have become a factor - somewhat ironically - is once the media (and in particular the US media) started making exactly these sorts of claims that Knox's railroading had something directly to do with her being American. I think it's entirely possible that the various judges and juries - whom I am betting were fully aware of the sort of accusations of this kind coming out of the US - might have taken umbrage and offence at such accusations.

I think there's therefore a very real possibility that they played some sort of subliminal psychological role in the way in which Knox (and Sollecito) was treated and judged in the various trials. In what way? Well, possibly in this sort of way: "The "know-all" arrogant Americans think we're looking at Knox simply because she's American; well, now we're determined to show them that their accusations are offensive and false, and that Knox is guilty on evidential grounds alone."

Another way of looking at it - from the opposite direction - is to imagine that the following sort of train of thought was playing in the judges'/juries' minds: "If we acquit Knox, then in a way we might be confirming these accusations that Knox was being unfairly railroaded simply on account of her being American".

Note, though, that I am not suggesting that the sorts of psychological implants that I'm suggesting here were consciously playing out in the minds of the various triers of fact and law. Nor am I suggesting that they were ever quite as extreme as this. What I am suggesting is that it's possible (in my view) that subliminal thoughts along these sorts of lines might have been lurking within their minds.

I think there was a lot of subliminal stuff going on like that for other reasons, but I don't remember anyone talking about anti-Americanism in the media until Senator Maria Cantwell brought it up after the first conviction.

 

[RoseMontague]

I wish I could get a transcript of Vinci's presentation but this graphic is just terrific.

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SP32-999.jpg

 

[Desert Fox]

I agree with much of what that FBI guy says, with the significant exception of the stuff about protection of Italy by blaming an outsider. I don't think this is/was a factor at all in the initial decisions to bring Knox (and Sollecito) to trial.

Where I think Knox's nationality may have become a factor - somewhat ironically - is once the media (and in particular the US media) started making exactly these sorts of claims that Knox's railroading had something directly to do with her being American. I think it's entirely possible that the various judges and juries - whom I am betting were fully aware of the sort of accusations of this kind coming out of the US - might have taken umbrage and offence at such accusations.

I think there's therefore a very real possibility that they played some sort of subliminal psychological role in the way in which Knox (and Sollecito) was treated and judged in the various trials. In what way? Well, possibly in this sort of way: "The "know-all" arrogant Americans think we're looking at Knox simply because she's American; well, now we're determined to show them that their accusations are offensive and false, and that Knox is guilty on evidential grounds alone."

Another way of looking at it - from the opposite direction - is to imagine that the following sort of train of thought was playing in the judges'/juries' minds: "If we acquit Knox, then in a way we might be confirming these accusations that Knox was being unfairly railroaded simply on account of her being American".

Note, though, that I am not suggesting that the sorts of psychological implants that I'm suggesting here were consciously playing out in the minds of the various triers of fact and law. Nor am I suggesting that they were ever quite as extreme as this. What I am suggesting is that it's possible (in my view) that subliminal thoughts along these sorts of lines might have been lurking within their minds.

I would argue that this is still political though and a perfectly valid reason to refuse extradition is if the prosecution is for political reasons.

Might also consider the close time from the start of this and the prosecution of Spc Mario Lozano. Italy attempted to extradite him in 2006 and tried him in absentia in 2007 although was later dismissed.

 

[Mary_H]

I wish I could get a transcript of Vinci's presentation but this graphic is just terrific.

http://www.amandaknox.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SP32-999.jpg

Wow. So that's why Vinci was in town. Cool.

 

[anglolawyer]

You guys are putting the onus on Amanda. Why do you expect anything of her? Everyone is frustrated, everyone wants to get some control over this mess, but to look at Amanda as the one who is going to make the difference is asking too much, I think.

Nobody is going to go through a thread like this to see what's in it. American lawyers are too smug to think anyone can teach them anything or give them better ideas than the ones they think of themselves. Besides, this case is not being fought in the American way.

Nobody cares about the details, least of all the Italian lawyers and judges. Nothing like that is going to end the case. They don't operate in details, they operate in stories that can be spun. You can show them DNA evidence, TOD evidence, phone records and bank records until the cows come home and they will find ways of invalidating it, as they have with everything that supports a case for innocence. Look at Machiavelli -- he is intransigent in the face of every reality.

If you guys want to do something, why not just do it? Take your ideas, make a video, put it on youtube, or pay someone else to do it; write an op-ed piece or a scientific article and put it online.

I think you can relax. There is nothing anyone on Amanda's team can do until the motivations are out. In the meantime, as more people become aware of the case and comment on it publicly (like the latest FBI guy), I think there is little doubt Washington, DC will be prepared if the time comes.

I am not calling for her to do this or do that, Mary. I am questioning how come, 6+ years after the event, she does not know stuff that is in the record, like the time at which she called her mother? 'Trivia' according to Charlie. I attribute that to a professional failing on the part of those advising her and I (OK, this I am exhorting her to do, I admit) am suggesting that it is possible to trust one's advisers too much. I can't do for her what only she can do for herself. I wish I could.

 

[Mary_H]

I would argue that this is still political though and a perfectly valid reason to refuse extradition is if the prosecution is for political reasons.<snip>

Good point.

 

[anglolawyer]

What Randy said...... plus (and I'm going to focus for the moment on Knox's defence team, plus points related to the joint defence of Knox/Sollecito):

I think we can separate this into two different categories: procedural errors, and errors in the way the case was presented/argued. Most of Randy's points fell into the first list, and to that list I would again say that the single biggest fault in the whole saga was Dalla Vedova's agreement to take the case in the first place. He should, without doubt, have known that he was not the right person for the job. The professionally- and ethically-correct thing for him to have done was to turn down the case, and spend a short time using his general knowledge of the Italian law scene to draw up a shortlist of lawyers who truly were suitable.

On the presentation/argument side, I think that the overwhelming majority of the damage was done in the Massei trial. I think that both defence teams badly messed this trial up, and once they'd done so, it was an uphill battle from then on. In specific terms, they could and should have done all the following things: demolish Curatolo's credibility (a ludicrously simple phone call to the out-of-town disco operators might have effected this all on its own); demolish Quintavalle's credibility; demolish pretty much all of the forensic evidence from its identification/collection stage onwards (probably by calling in a number of internationally-renowned forensic scientists to show conclusively how tainted and worthless it was); focus much more on time of death (again, using top pathologists to explain in detail the implications of the stomach/duodenum evidence on ToD); cover off the coerced false"confession/accusation" properly and conclusively* (once more, using experts in the field to explain things like the Reid technique); use the telephone/computer evidence - particularly in relation to timings and most likely locations (again, proper heavy-hitting experts required).


There are lots of other areas (the break-in, the bathmat partial print, the post-murder actions/behaviour of Knox/Sollecito) in which the defence teams (in my view) made similar errors. In all of these areas, it's my belief that a far, far stronger defence case could and should have been made in the Massei trial. So, in addition to the headline errors, I think this was (with apologies for the idiom in relation to a stabbing murder) a case of death by a thousand cuts for Knox and Sollecito. It's my belief that had the defence teams nailed all of these areas in the Massei trial, then even if Knox and Sollecito had been found guilty in this first trial, the defence teams would have stood a far better chance in the subsequent appeals.


* Of course this shouldn't have been necessary in the murder trial, but since the same triers were hearing this evidence owing to the crazy decision to try the Lumumba slander charge at the same time, it cannot have failed to make an impression on them regarding the murder-related charges. Therefore, I don't think the defence teams had any option but to attack this issue forcefully, since its presence clearly stood to significantly impact upon the murder charges.

Hmm, OK, but you have to keep in mind all these internationally renowned experts want to be paid and you are talking about very big money which they maybe didn't have. But sure, they did have enough money for some experts so the question whether is it was wisely spent.

If I were to mount an attack on the defence lawyers I would focus on forensic mistakes (your disco buses one is an example) and, seemingly, a flawed methodology in taking instructions (judging by recently discussed misconceptions on Amanda's part). I also question why there were two separate defences, doubling the costs and consuming the limited pool of funds. A united defence might well have been both more effective and more efficient economically.

My first rule of litigation is: don't run out of money.

 

[Strozzi]

I agree with this. I've heard some people claim that they didn't do a good defense because they didn't want to buck the system. If that's the case they are part of the problem. If that's not the case they are clearly incompetent. The truth is probably some from column a and some from column b. Incompetent and scared.

I wonder how much defense preparations were influenced by financial constraints. Perhaps there was not sufficient money to pay for more prep time, and defense counsel had to "wing it" in court.

 

[Mary_H]

I am not calling for her to do this or do that, Mary. I am questioning how come, 6+ years after the event, she does not know stuff that is in the record, like the time at which she called her mother? 'Trivia' according to Charlie. I attribute that to a professional failing on the part of those advising her and I (OK, this I am exhorting her to do, I admit) am suggesting that it is possible to trust one's advisers too much. I can't do for her what only she can do for herself. I wish I could.

I think it's trivia, too, but you know how I feel about the details of evidence. Mainly, I think it's arbitrary -- something chosen by Comodi to nitpick, the way the guilters always nitpick at Raffaele's diary statement about bumping into Meredith with the knife, as if the whole case hinges on it.

Amanda doesn't need to know anything until she is asked about it, but the ones who are doing the asking are also the ones who are choosing what to ask, and usually what they ask about is stupid. Is Amanda supposed to be ready for their every whim, when it is not relevant? Not being able to answer the questions about the times of the phone calls doesn't make her guilty of murder.

I fully agree she needs new lawyers.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think it's trivia, too, but you know how I feel about the details of evidence. Mainly, I think it's arbitrary -- something chosen by Comodi to nitpick, the way the guilters always nitpick at Raffaele's diary statement about bumping into Meredith with the knife, as if the whole case hinges on it.

Amanda doesn't need to know anything until she is asked about it, but the ones who are doing the asking are also the ones who are choosing what to ask, and usually what they ask about is stupid. Is Amanda supposed to be ready for their every whim, when it is not relevant? Not being able to answer the questions about the times of the phone calls doesn't make her guilty of murder.

I fully agree she needs new lawyers.

I am talking about the facts pertaining to her case and details which have been mis-used to seek to incriminate her (such as: why did you call before anything had happened?) are not trivia. I do not think the dialogue with the guilters should be taking place. That really is trivia.