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

[Diocletus]

I jumped ahead long ago, as you may have noticed. My theory predicts what you will find in your estimable enquiry: that the prosecution case on the lamp consisted of insinuation only, not direct evidence. This was unfair. Ask Diocletus.

Unfair, yes. But, I've become jaded about Italian concepts of fairness, particularly as it concerns the admissibility and use of items of evidence. Having placed Amanda's lamp in the room, I think the courts let the prosecutor make up whatever wildass theory they want about how and when it got there and what it was used for, foundational facts be damned. I just think that's how it works over there.

So, the lamp, which no doubt was put there to allow the first responders to clearly see that crime scene, and then left there, becomes instead an item of evidence that in effect was planted by the police and used to incriminate the defendants. Just like the "glass underneath" the clothes (compliments of Filomena).

 

[Dan O.]

I jumped ahead long ago, as you may have noticed. My theory predicts what you will find in your estimable enquiry: that the prosecution case on the lamp consisted of insinuation only, not direct evidence. This was unfair. Ask Diocletus.

Hey, no spoilers. I haven't gotten to Laura's testimony yet.

 

[anglolawyer]

Unfair, yes. But, I've become jaded about Italian concepts of fairness, particularly as it concerns the admissibility and use of items of evidence. Having placed Amanda's lamp in the room, I think the courts let the prosecutor make up whatever wildass theory they want about how and when it got there and what it was used for, foundational facts be damned. I just think that's how it works over there.

So, the lamp, which no doubt was put there to allow the first responders to clearly see that crime scene, and then left there, becomes instead an item of evidence that in effect was planted by the police and used to incriminate the defendants.

I improved your text without your permission. I hope you don't mind

Did the defence object to the showing of the cartoon? The lamp was shown to be brought in by one of the accused. That means it was in the story-board long before the trial was over even though Mig and Comfortable knew they had no 'foundational' evidence (thank you for that useful term). That is beyond unfair - unless Italian law allows prosecutors to just make **** up. Which is actually possible but I doubt it's something the ECHR will go along with.

 

[anglolawyer]

Hey, no spoilers. I haven't gotten to Laura's testimony yet.

I just re-read your sig and notice that Mignini left out the buona serata part. Is that your point? If so, it's a very good one. I do so wish the likes of Vibio, Briars, Catlitter, Sherlock et al would occasionally chime in to put us all straight about the gamesmanship and rigging of the process these tell-tales betray.

 

[sunmaster14]

You are jumping ahead. She first goes on with a very detailed identification of Amanda's lamp. Did you for instance know that Amanda's lamp had a red button? This is very important some how.

Of course even if it were established that the lamp was already in the room when the door was kicked in. That still doesn't connect the lamp to the murder or theoretical cleanup. And even that doesn't touch on who done it.


Filomena was a good girl testifying for the prosecution. Just after her testimony the judge ordered that she could get her stuff back.

Is it plausible that this testimony wasn't coached? Who remembers lamps in other people's rooms with such detail? I can't remember what the lamps look like in my own bedroom, and I actually have a pretty good memory. The human brain is very efficient about tossing out useless information (e.g. you probably saw dozens, if not hundreds, of cars yesterday - do you remember what any of them looked like?), and the color of the power button on a lamp in somebody else's bedroom certainly qualifies as useless information.

 

[anglolawyer]

Is it plausible that this testimony wasn't coached? Who remembers lamps in other people's rooms with such detail? I can't remember what the lamps look like in my own bedroom, and I actually have a pretty good memory. The human brain is very efficient about tossing out useless information (e.g. you probably saw dozens, if not hundreds, of cars yesterday - do you remember what any of them looked like?), and the color of the power button on a lamp in somebody else's bedroom certainly qualifies as useless information.

I have been kinda trying to explain this for a few pages so everybody please listen up. When you go to court to give evidence, almost invariably (and certainly in this case) one side or the other will have taken a statement already, often very close in time to the events in question. You are not usually allowed to take your statement into the witness box with you (although in civil trials here, that has been the norm for many years) but witnesses are usually encouraged to refresh their memories by re-reading their statements shortly before giving evidence. There is nothing wrong with this. Witnesses are best told not to try to memorise their evidence but just read through it. That way they do not parrot their written evidence in a false and artificial way.

 

[sunmaster14]

What eccentric behavior?

The trouble is that being eccentric is not a crime. I wish people would get off that kick.

Perhaps I'm eccentric, but I don't find any of Knox's behavior out of the ordinary, even before I discount the reports of said behavior for intentional and unintentional (e.g. selection bias) exaggeration. People can't stay in a state of grief or shock for hours on end, let alone days. Even the most tragic funerals I've attended have contained light-hearted moments where there is laughter. No doubt this is an evolved trait. It is not very helpful from an evolutionary perspective to shutdown completely when confronted by tragedy. Tragedy must have been pretty commonplace for our caveman ancestors as they were being tormented by dinosaurs.

Anyway, arguably the worst thing Knox did (which she admits) is responding inappropriately to a query from one of Meredith's friends about whether Meredith suffered. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have said what she said, but at the same time I can also imagine that some of the maudlin and histrionic behavior of her friends had begun to grate. Personally, demonstrative grief is not my bag, and I find it annoying in others who I suspect are no closer to the object of that grief than I am. Perhaps that is unfair of me, but at least I am not a killer (at least so far).

 

[sunmaster14]

I have been kinda trying to explain this for a few pages so everybody please listen up. When you go to court to give evidence, almost invariably (and certainly in this case) one side or the other will have taken a statement already, often very close in time to the events in question. You are not usually allowed to take your statement into the witness box with you (although in civil trials here, that has been the norm for many years) but witnesses are usually encouraged to refresh their memories by re-reading their statements shortly before giving evidence. There is nothing wrong with this. Witnesses are best told not to try to memorise their evidence but just read through it. That way they do not parrot their written evidence in a false and artificial way.

I understand, but I wouldn't have expected her to know this kind of detail when her original statement was taken. These things aren't open book quizzes are they?

 

[Dan O.]

I just re-read your sig and notice that Mignini left out the buona serata part. Is that your point? If so, it's a very good one. I do so wish the likes of Vibio, Briars, Catlitter, Sherlock et al would occasionally chime in to put us all straight about the gamesmanship and rigging of the process these tell-tales betray.

CUL8R

It's such a ubiquitous American term that it even gets abbreviated and slang'd itself as in "see you" or "later dude" <google later>. The ”good evening" part isn't needed to point out how stupid it was to build a case from that text. That Massei includes it in his motivation after knowing that Patrick wasn't involved makes it even stupider.

 

[Dan O.]

Is it plausible that this testimony wasn't coached? Who remembers lamps in other people's rooms with such detail? I can't remember what the lamps look like in my own bedroom, and I actually have a pretty good memory. The human brain is very efficient about tossing out useless information (e.g. you probably saw dozens, if not hundreds, of cars yesterday - do you remember what any of them looked like?), and the color of the power button on a lamp in somebody else's bedroom certainly qualifies as useless information.

I wouldn't say she was explicitly coached. But she had been to the police station giving statements so many times over the last year that she can't remember them all. The red on black seems to stand out for Filomena but it's curious that she knows exactly where these lamps were even though she has no cause to be in that part of the cottage. It's like her knowing if Meredith locked her door. it's also curious that the positions she remembers for those lamps exactly matches their positions in the well known photos even though Meredith obviously moved her lamp around on the extension cord and Amanda would have needed a lamp on her desk for studying at times.

 

[Diocletus]

CUL8R

It's such a ubiquitous American term that it even gets abbreviated and slang'd itself as in "see you" or "later dude" <google later>. The ”good evening" part isn't needed to point out how stupid it was to build a case from that text. That Massei includes it in his motivation after knowing that Patrick wasn't involved makes it even stupider.

This is a critical point. Look at the arrest warrant.

The only significant basis to arrest Knox and Sollecito was the interrogation, and the only thing that corroborated the interrogation was the SMS "setting the meeting" between Knox and Lumumba. Except that SMS doesn't set a meeting, and doesn't corroborate the interrogation (to the contrary, it undermines it), when the "good evening" part is included. So, Mignini just chopped that part off. It's like something a sophomore in high school would do to make an academic's quotation read to say the opposite of what it actually says--you know, put ellipses over the word "not."

The editing of the SMS was a disingenuous, infantile lie. The lie was used to arrest Knox and Sollecito. The lie was not corrected when they went before Matteini, and it was used to justify their detention for a year.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for posting Matthew, another journalist who has done no independent research. Frankly the two, Amanda and Raffaele, seem unaware that they will need to confront these people with hard scientific evidence to stop this. There are many questions they can ask point blank to these people that can not be answered sensibly without knowledge, and will stop them in their tracks. This will not prevent the false reporting, but will send these people away with a sense of uncertainty rather than a feeling they have a licence to promote continuance of this case unabated. Vogt Nadeau Follain, they are all interested in paydirt. Utterly despicable. The refrain never varies, complex case, maybe the truth will never be known.
BS.

It is time to control the message by producing their own videos. Even the interview with The Daily isn't done well because it appears to have been left to Amanda. She is still talking about her experience instead of the case.

They should sue CNN TODAY and demand that the bloody bathroom scene be removed from the recent report and that CNN run a story retracting the photo as well as showing what other false information has impacted this case.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is a critical point. Look at the arrest warrant.

The only significant basis to arrest Knox and Sollecito was the interrogation, and the only thing that corroborated the interrogation was the SMS "setting the meeting" between Knox and Lumumba. Except that SMS doesn't set a meeting, and doesn't corroborate the interrogation (to the contrary, it undermines it), when the "good evening" part is included. So, Mignini just chopped that part off. It's like something a sophomore in high school would do to make an academic's quotation read to say the opposite of what it actually says--you know, put ellipses over the word "not."

The editing of the SMS was a disingenuous, infantile lie. The lie was used to arrest Knox and Sollecito. The lie was not corrected when they went before Matteini, and it was used to justify their detention for a year.

But while that is a demonstrable fact, nobody believes me about Patrick's SMS which was simply made to disappear. I say that knowing that anyone can prove me wrong by referring to the evidence showing they found his phone and checked it, or that they looked for his phone but did not find it and that they had a good reason not to find it (Patrick would have wanted them to as it proved what he said was true, so no problems there). This means I can make another prediction: no such testimony will be found. It's that dog again. The one that doesn't bark in the night.

 

[sunmaster14]

I wouldn't say she was explicitly coached. But she had been to the police station giving statements so many times over the last year that she can't remember them all. The red on black seems to stand out for Filomena but it's curious that she knows exactly where these lamps were even though she has no cause to be in that part of the cottage. It's like her knowing if Meredith locked her door. it's also curious that the positions she remembers for those lamps exactly matches their positions in the well known photos even though Meredith obviously moved her lamp around on the extension cord and Amanda would have needed a lamp on her desk for studying at times.

This is a great point. Given the geography of the apartment, how the hell would Filomena know that Meredith never locked her door? It almost makes me think that Filomena's demonstration of urgency to break down the door was feigned and that she is the real murderer.

 

[anglolawyer]

I wouldn't say she was explicitly coached. But she had been to the police station giving statements so many times over the last year that she can't remember them all. The red on black seems to stand out for Filomena but it's curious that she knows exactly where these lamps were even though she has no cause to be in that part of the cottage. It's like her knowing if Meredith locked her door. it's also curious that the positions she remembers for those lamps exactly matches their positions in the well known photos even though Meredith obviously moved her lamp around on the extension cord and Amanda would have needed a lamp on her desk for studying at times.

Recall she and Laura had those rooms empty before Amanda and Meredith showed up. They would have been familiar enough with them from showing folk around and we are talking about a basically empty room: a chair, a table, a bed and a lamp. What's to remember? They may even have swapped their own lousy lamps with the nicer ones in the rear rooms when they got the chance.

 

[sunmaster14]

This is a critical point. Look at the arrest warrant.

The only significant basis to arrest Knox and Sollecito was the interrogation, and the only thing that corroborated the interrogation was the SMS "setting the meeting" between Knox and Lumumba. Except that SMS doesn't set a meeting, and doesn't corroborate the interrogation (to the contrary, it undermines it), when the "good evening" part is included. So, Mignini just chopped that part off. It's like something a sophomore in high school would do to make an academic's quotation read to say the opposite of what it actually says--you know, put ellipses over the word "not."

The editing of the SMS was a disingenuous, infantile lie. The lie was used to arrest Knox and Sollecito. The lie was not corrected when they went before Matteini, and it was used to justify their detention for a year.

Actually, after Lumumba was cleared, shouldn't that have made the misinterpreted SMS exculpatory? After all, Knox was apparently intending to meet up with a perfectly innocent man instead of participating in an orgy gone wrong.

 

[Diocletus]

But while that is a demonstrable fact, nobody believes me about Patrick's SMS which was simply made to disappear. I say that knowing that anyone can prove me wrong by referring to the evidence showing they found his phone and checked it, or that they looked for his phone but did not find it and that they had a good reason not to find it (Patrick would have wanted them to as it proved what he said was true, so no problems there). This means I can make another prediction: no such testimony will be found. It's that dog again. The one that doesn't bark in the night.

Same situation with Patricks' SMS. If Patrick says "we're closed," then he has no alibi. If Patrick says "I don't need you because there aren't enough customers," then that suggests that shop was open and Patrick has an alibi. The latter was no doubt what Patrick said and so that part of the message disappeared.

The calculus is as follows:

Bad for Prosecution:

Patrick: "Not enough customers, no need for you to come in"
Amanda: "OK, have a good evening."

Good for Prosecution:

Patrick: "I'm closing the shop"
Amanda: "OK. See you in a few minutes."

The message exchange was actually bad for the prosecution, and would have seriously undermined the arrest and detention. So, Mignini just edited the exchange to make it read in a way that helped his case. It was a lie.

By the time Patrick was sprung, the prosecution had managed to pull a "look, squirrel!" and no one noticed or cared about Mignini's lie.

 

[Bob001]

I wish we were wrong but unless he is specifically treated for psychological problems, odds are high that he will do it again.
What will those who believe in Amanda and Raffale's guilt say then?

Guede will likely do it again, but what are the odds he'll get caught? He has had years to familiarize himself with DNA, fingerprints, witness claims, security cameras, police procedures, etc., etc. He knows what put him in prison, and he won't make the same mistakes. When he does it again he'll be wearing gloves, a mask and a condom, and he won't stop in the bathroom on the way out.

 

[christianahannah]

I wouldn't say she was explicitly coached. But she had been to the police station giving statements so many times over the last year that she can't remember them all. The red on black seems to stand out for Filomena but it's curious that she knows exactly where these lamps were even though she has no cause to be in that part of the cottage. It's like her knowing if Meredith locked her door. it's also curious that the positions she remembers for those lamps exactly matches their positions in the well known photos even though Meredith obviously moved her lamp around on the extension cord and Amanda would have needed a lamp on her desk for studying at times.

Wouldn't Filomena and Laura have to be in that part of the cottage to access the doors leading to the balcony (if they wanted to sun, read outside, etc.)?

 

[Diocletus]

Actually, after Lumumba was cleared, shouldn't that have made the misinterpreted SMS exculpatory? After all, Knox was apparently intending to meet up with a perfectly innocent man instead of participating in an orgy gone wrong.

Yes, well, at that point, all that the SMS exchange needed to do was free up Amanda for the night. And that's where we are today--Nencini's comments already indicate that he will use it in that way.