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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
What I also don't get is that in the Massei motivations report, Raffaele and Amanda were essentially convicted of a different crime, with no chance to refute the claims made by Massei.

It starts with motive. At trial Raffaele and Amanda were defending themselves from Mignini's theories, that they've purposely gone over to the cottage to, as Mignini said, "Make Meredith have sex," and the murder was a result of a sex game gone wrong.

That's not what Massei convicted them of doing. Massei had them in Amanda's room making out, while Rudy pushed himself on to Meredith in Meredith's room. Essentially, Knox and Sollecito go into Meredith's room, acc. to Massei, to see what all the commotion is about.

And then Massei's reconstruction calls for two perfectly normal kids (I get in trouble here when I say that Massei thought they had no whiff of psychopathology about them), calls for them to make an on-the-spot, completely inexplicable "choice for evil". Massei says that bad choice must have been because of the drugs and that the two of them were so far from the moderating influences of a normal home.

And instead of bringing the kitchen knife over to the cottage with malice aforethought (Mignini), Massei has Amanda carrying it "for protection" and it just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Don't defendants get an opportunity in Italy to make full answer to the theory that is going to convict them?

Apparently not.

Now even Machiavelli (or Crini) gets to reinvent the bedsheet stain, a full 6 years after the crime - and where no one in six years, not even Mignini, claimed such a thing. This is what makes many believe they simply did not receive fair trials.
Click to expand...

This is where it gets interesting. Because Hellmann was swallowed by a black hole, this is the default prevailing narrative, but meanwhile the new prosecutor has compressed events into a 20 odd minute time frame, and added a row over hygene. I can only conclude that Nencini is planning to abandon everything Massei and Crini said, and have the two getting straight on with the murder, after randomly welcoming Rudy to the occasion. But how does this make Italian jurisprudence appear?
 
Samson said:
This is where it gets interesting. Because Hellmann was swallowed by a black hole, this is the default prevailing narrative, but meanwhile the new prosecutor has compressed events into a 20 odd minute time frame, and added a row over hygene. I can only conclude that Nencini is planning to abandon everything Massei and Crini said, and have the two getting straight on with the murder, after randomly welcoming Rudy to the occasion. But how does this make Italian jurisprudence appear?
Click to expand...

It's hard to argue that logic has anything to do with justice in Italy. It really is sad. We have Mignini saying that it was the result of some kind of evil ritual associated with All Saints Day and then a sex orgy gone awry. Never mind that there isn't a shred of evidence supporting either one. And then Massei goes and says it is momentary choice for evil, and in the third trial it is the result of arguments and tension over Rudy not flushing Filomena's toilet?

Now we will have to wait for the absurdity of Crini's motivation, surely another piece of bizarre fiction that will have nothing to do with actually happened.
 
Grinder said:
Guys and gals :p we all know that the defendants are not required to prove innocence but that's what has been contended here because of the digestion evidence.

I have always said that the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is a three hour non-emptying time possible for what Meredith ate? If yes then if they ate at 7 then 10 is possible. If it isn't possible then something is amiss with the data.

If the 2.5 from 6:30 to 9 (oops I typed 8 once, oh my) is possible then 7 to 9:30 is possible.

Has anyone bothered to read the testimony of the girls? Is there other statements by them that would shed more light on this.

The problem here isn't my inability to understand diminishing curves or no linear or anything else, it's that the science hasn't been demonstrated to show that regardless of whether she ate at 6 or 6:30 or 7 that gastric emptying would have to start within 20 minutes of her arriving home.

As I have tried to make clear, I doubt the data but even if she ate at 6 and hadn't started to empty at 9:05 we still have no solid study that says there is a less than 5% chance it could have held off for 30 minutes. Even if it were less than five percent that doesn't rule it out but does add to the argument for being not guilty.

LJ's analysis was to prove that she was dead before 11:30 and that is very hard to find any fault with. His numbers had a 5% chance by 9:20 so I'll say a 4% chance by 9:35.

It will be interesting to see if any real experts in the field step-up and voice opinions. I hope they do and blow the case out of the water.
Too bad the defenses' experts couldn't prove TOD before 11:30.
Click to expand...



So Rolfe is just chopped liver then?

I always laugh when someone tries to diminish her opinion and knowledge "just because" she is a Vet!

Meanwhile the veterinary schools take only the cream of the crop and it is 100 times easier to get into the toughest medical college.

Vets have to be smarter...the patients never describe their symptoms in a comprehensible manner.

No matter...this digestion data is as studied as its going to get. It is just not critically important data after some point. Scientifically, the timings are about as accurate as interpreting a single multiple subject DNA sample result...or a single egram at least.

Consider a pathologist viewing a certain cancer cell on a slide. This can be simple or it can be nearly impossible to identify correctly sometimes. And so the science can give way to experience and gasp...even a best guess. Is that art or is it science? DNA can present this problem and so can digestive data I would imagine.

Its even been proven that fingerprints are not certainly distinct to just one individual. (Please don't make me look up the case...it was on TV somewhere) Big FBI failure in fact. A case that rewrote the book so to speak.

Digestion data, in this case, is one single piece of a puzzle. Are there other pieces that mesh into this possibly questionable digestive piece? Certainly. Several and they are powerful when placed together. Together, they form a logical explanation that fits the known facts...meanwhile no other reasonable alternative has ever been produced. Not at least that does not require tortured logic and lots of squinting and side poking.

Why the defense refused to approach this data which clearly contrasts the logical disconnect of the prosecution is beyond me frankly. Just like their failure to climb up and into the freakin window. How hard was that and why not do it?

I doubt that it is only me who is the type when challenged with the "oh that would be impossible task" to then go about proving what appears logical and even a simple task. Like the TV folks did. The TV people were hardly knowledgeable about this case and yet they got some basics powerfully correct...meanwhile the defense ???? Slept IMHO.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
anglolawyer,

My understanding (which may come from Darkness Descending) is that Mignini changed the TOD to 11:30 in his closing remarks in 2009. I seem to recall some discussion, perhaps even here, about whether or not he should have been allowed to make a change that late. If he had said so earlier, the defense would have had more opportunity to refute it. That is one of at least three highly questionable things that Mignini did in his closing remarks; the other two were putting words into Amanda's mouth and defining what beyond reasonable doubt was in a patently false way.
Click to expand...

Yes and Mignini had to change TOD in the end to fit Toto into the mix. It was so transparently dishonest that normal courts would look at this as improper IMO. In Italy a prosecutor can change motives and other facts he is presenting as if changing underwear.

How anyone considers this a reasonable system is beyond me. They need multiple appeals to cover for mistakes, corrupt acts and abusive power mad characters like Mignini IMO. Now add the good ole boys club and one is faced with an impossible barrier in Italy. Not so much rare and statistical anomalies...bad apples like we have certainly. But in Italy they all seem to operate with the Omerta'... not just the mafia but also the judiciary.

And with no system in place to even deal with oversight or any sort of checks and balances...they are hopelessly lost. The people are screwed. And they are in fear of even protesting about that. North Korea or China anyone? I doubt China is this bad.

Where are the Italian politicians? Are they so stupid to think this case is not hurting Italy? And wait until the case actually gets figured out in a comprehensive logically presented investigation. That will certainly come eventually. It has to now. The Italians have painted themselves stupidly into the corner...and the paint is not going to dry anytime soon.

Soon they will need to act on RS ...how will they escape this problem? This will be the "Crossing the Rubicon" moment I expect...only Caesar is not in it this time...all of Italy is however.
 
Last edited:
Re: the politics:

It's been suggested that Hellmann's acquittal might have been upheld if some members of Berlusconi's party not introduced a motion to investigate the police and prosecutors of this case. Basically the Supreme Court scotched that by overturning the acquittal. Hellmann bluntly states both the overturning of his acquittal and Nencini's conviction were politically motivated, adding "Amanda is not doing a bad thing by staying away from Italy."

This piece by Michael Mills cites some of the literature --

http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2014/04/18/amanda-knox-is-a-political-soccer-ball/
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I definitely think it looks more like Rudy's. That said, I could never convict anyone on that evidence. The print is simply to fuzzy for an actual ID. I can see that you could use the print to eliminate someone...for example, it is definitely NOT Amanda's foot, but to use it for a conclusion is just wrong.
Click to expand...


Hi all,
I hope that you had/have a great day!

After a bitchin' day at the beach,
1 where bikini's and cute bodies looked incredible, where dude's hung out and talked story after catching some fun rides, where lil' groms got their Dad's stoked after bein' pushed into and ridin' some waves, where even me, RW got wet and hit the lip on a few little peelers, well I'm back here to wonder about this horrible murder!

Thanks for the answers to some of my questions folks!

ACbyTesla,
I agree, I too could never convict someone on that fuzzy bathmat print.
Weird how the prosecution is so sure it's from Raff, BUT they can't even tell whom the much clearer, bloody finger wall prints belong to that are on the wall above Meredith's bed!

With that said,
I'm gonna add the unknown identity of those wall fingerprints to my collection of other unknowns, the black car seen in the driveway by the tow truck/auto repair driver, the 2 possible blonde hairs found on Meredith and in her grasp, the 13 unattributed fingerprints found in the flat*, etc...


The aftermath of Meredith and Rudy's "1st date", her 1st night alone in her flat, shows Meredith with bruises on BOTH her elbows , and her jawline. And wasn't her the hyoid bone in her throat broken too, possibly from strangling**, right?

When all these bruises were happening, I wonder where was Guede's knife?
In his pant pocket? Isn't that where he shoulda had his condoms if on a "date"?

He wasn't on a "date",
he had to make some $$$ to pay that, what was it, $320 Euro apartment rent of his, immediately.
So he most likely packin' a knife when he went out on the town to "work"...


I've had time to digest Sonia's hair pulling theory, it's quite a good scenario.
BUT wait a sec, Rudy surprised Meredith and didn't have his knife out already?

If Guede was behind and pulling her hair very hard and her head backward, and had a knife tip on Meredith's throat, what were Meredith's hands doing? Hangin' by her side? I doubt it, she musta been fightin' back or trying to block that knife from stabbing her, again.

Keep in mind, from what I've read, both sides of her neck were stabbed.

And when I do visualize this, I find it soooo difficult to see how Guede could have stabbed his knife 3 times, to the hilt, into the same small area from behind. Not near each of the previous stabs, not in front or behind by mere whatever measurements you wish to use, but in the same spot.

Why don't I see 3 distinct knife wounds in slightly different places on her left side of the throat? Just because her hair was pulled back? I know the Guede played basketball, but surely his aim wasn't that good with a fully-alive woman fighting for her life in a 1 on 1 situation

Wouldn't it be really hard for Guede, if standing or crouching behind her, to stab Meredith again, again and then again in the same spot if her arms and hands were free and she was reaching upwards, backwards, to ward of any further blows? Like any person would do to prevent further trauma to themselves?

Do you see why I still wonder if someone else, possibly an blonde haired Albanian, a good friend, a "pro", was there too that night? Why aren't there any photos available of what HK looked like back then?
RW



PS - (*)
About them dang fingerprints, from the Old Perugia Shock:
At the end 108 pictures were taken, each one containing one to three signs. It would be too long to say what was found where. Also there's a bit of confusion with full or partial fingerprints or stains but at the end we may say that of these signs 97 could be said to be fingerprints. 47 belonged to Meredith Kercher, 17 to Rudy Guede, 5 to Raffaele Sollecito, 5 to Filomena Romanelli, 5 to Laura Mezzetti, 4 to Giacomo Silenzi, 1 to Amanda Knox, 13 were not attributed to anyone.

PSS - (**)
Old Perugia Shock, Feb. 13, 2008:
But the most important element, which I have long been waiting for, is the confirmation that the hyoid bone was broken.This would normally suggest an attempted strangling, but Lalli does not confirm this hypothesis, defining it as a collateral element, and we do not know if it preceded the stabbing. He implies that the breaking of the bone could have occurred after the stabbing.

So things are a bit more complicated now.
We need to know how exactly the hyoid bone was broken, where (in front, at the horns, at the legs) and how much of it.
The mystery of the collateral element.

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100807000349/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html
 
Last edited:
By the way, about those bloody wall finger prints,
why are there not any found from Raff nor Amanda?

Surely, with Meredith's walls being white,
AK and Raff did not successfully scrub the walls clean of their own bloody finger marks, right? And wasn't it Amanda that supposedly welded the knife that fatally stabbed Meredith?

Weird how Amanda did not step in any of Mez's blood nor get any on her hands, and have her bloody fingerprints on Meredith's wall or her door knob*, like Guede did...
RW


PS - (*)
Why did Guede have to open Meredith's bedroom door when he exited, leaving blood there?
Was it closed shut during the attack and rape? Why?
 
Last edited:
carlofab said:
Re: the politics:

It's been suggested that Hellmann's acquittal might have been upheld if some members of Berlusconi's party not introduced a motion to investigate the police and prosecutors of this case. Basically the Supreme Court scotched that by overturning the acquittal. Hellmann bluntly states both the overturning of his acquittal and Nencini's conviction were politically motivated, adding "Amanda is not doing a bad thing by staying away from Italy."

This piece by Michael Mills cites some of the literature --

http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2014/04/18/amanda-knox-is-a-political-soccer-ball/
Click to expand...

If the article is accurate, CBS news is suggesting political motivation.
If that has reached mainstream, that should be enough to deny extradition right there.
 
Desert Fox said:
If the article is accurate, CBS news is suggesting political motivation.
If that has reached mainstream, that should be enough to deny extradition right there.
Click to expand...

It makes more sense it was political, than all the other non-sense of these trials verdicts and carrying-on of this ignorant evidence from heroin bums who cant recall anything clearly as a superwitness...or poop-motives.

I dont know if it helps Amanda and Raffaele to know that they're pawns in a power-ego trip of the robes.
 
JREF2010 said:
It makes more sense it was political, than all the other non-sense of these trials verdicts and carrying-on of this ignorant evidence from heroin bums who cant recall anything clearly as a superwitness...or poop-motives.

I dont know if it helps Amanda and Raffaele to know that they're pawns in a power-ego trip of the robes.
Click to expand...

Doesn't help Raffaele but should be a valid argument in any extradition proceeding.
 
This article looks interesting, link was posted on Calideeva/bondbabe007's strange blog. I have no idea what is in it as it is long and I will read it later. It is from Boston university. She is an uneducated guilter.

http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/or...ional/volume30n1/documents/note_mirabella.pdf

ETA I skimmed it, it's a bit like Dershowitz, different system, convictions probably safe, because they persevered.
I see it was written 2012, so limited relevance.
 
Last edited:
hyoid bone

RWVBWL,

I seem to recall that one of the pathologists (Torre?) changed his mind about what had happened to the hyoid bone (whether cut or fractured?). It might be worth trawling through Perugia Shock in 2009.
 
Last edited:
Darkness Descending on Mignini's closing remarks

"Finally, Mignini unveiled his secret new weapon--to gasps of genuine surprise from the court. He moved the official time of the murder bak an hour or so to 23:30. Many of the different times given by various witnesses dropped into place...all of the pieces of the jigsaw fitted neatly into place." (Darkness Descending, p. 416, emphasis in original)

"From then on, the murder timeline ran like a trans-Alpine train--bang on schedule." (p. 417)

"Under Italian law, the prosecutor (in this case Mignini) is allowed to change his arguments, such as motive and time [of] the murder, as and when he likes, as long as the judge doesn't object." (p. 418)
ETA
The cover of Darkness Descending is interesting. A photograph of a smiling Maredith Kercher is surrounded by photos of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito looking rather seedy and disreputable. No photograph of Rudy Guede is on the cover at all.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
"Finally, Mignini unveiled his secret new weapon--to gasps of genuine surprise from the court. He moved the official time of the murder bak an hour or so to 23:30. Many of the different times given by various witnesses dropped into place...all of the pieces of the jigsaw fitted neatly into place." (Darkness Descending, p. 416, emphasis in original)

"From then on, the murder timeline ran like a trans-Alpine train--bang on schedule." (p. 417)

"Under Italian law, the prosecutor (in this case Mignini) is allowed to change his arguments, such as motive and time [of] the murder, as and when he likes, as long as the judge doesn't object." (p. 418)
ETA
The cover of Darkness Descending is interesting. A photograph of a smiling Maredith Kercher is surrounded by photos of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito looking rather seedy and disreputable. No photograph of Rudy Guede is on the cover at all.
Click to expand...

Should one be buying a copy of Darkness Descending so that one can get a sense of how this conspiracy against Amanda and Raffaele played out? Also, so that the semi-cover-up of Guede solo participation was achieved?
 
For the price ($0.01) it is a good value

Bill Williams said:
Should one be buying a copy of Darkness Descending so that one can get a sense of how this conspiracy against Amanda and Raffaele played out? Also, so that the semi-cover-up of Guede solo participation was achieved?
Click to expand...
Bill Williams,

I think it is worth buying just to get into the heads of the people who want to whitewash Rudy's participation. Some of what Garofano wrote is worth reading; some is just plain wrong. Paul Russell is a coauthor alang with Graham Johnson (and Luciano Garofano's name also appears on the cover), and IIRC Mr. Russell was involved with the recent BBC pseudo-documentary. With respect to the cover of the book, Rudy Guede is conspicuous by his absence. I don't know whether he will kill again or not, but I think he will spend the rest of his life as an inveterate liar (especially given that ILE rewarded him for his lies).
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Bill Williams,

I think it is worth buying just to get into the heads of the people who want to whitewash Rudy's participation. Some of what Garofano wrote is worth reading; some is just plain wrong. Paul Russell is a coauthor alang with Graham Johnson (and Luciano Garofano's name also appears on the cover), and IIRC Mr. Russell was involved with the recent BBC pseudo-documentary. With respect to the cover of the book, Rudy Guede is conspicuous by his absence. I don't know whether he will kill again or not, but I think he will spend the rest of his life as an inveterate liar (especially given that ILE rewarded him for his lies).
Click to expand...

Let's put two threads together for a second.....

It is the height of irony that Graham Johnson and Paul Russell can write a book which barely mentions Guede, yet Knox and Sollecito are being convicted mainly on (pseudo-)facts found at Guede's fast track process.

Borsini's motivations report about Guede's guilt, is the source of much of the pseudo-evidence against Knox, and Raffaele seems to barely exist.

That is the guilter/hater roadmap.

So Johnson/Russell write a book which barely mentions Guede (as always in guilterdom) yet it is from Guede's fast track (meaning, a process without the trial-phase, just stipulations) that Knox and Sollecito are essentially convicted.

Why doesn't Barbie Nadeau or Andrea Vogt write about that?
 
Conspicuous by his absence

Bill,

My previous comment about Guede was specifically in reference to the cover, which I think is execrable. I think it is fair to point out that Rudy Guede is discussed in DD, but he is generally given the benefit of the doubt. For example, Johnson and Russell deplore the poor storage of the towels, but say that this failed to give Guede the opportunity to show that he shed blood in his own defense. Typical Pretzel Logic IMO.
 
Samson said:
This article looks interesting, link was posted on Calideeva/bondbabe007's strange blog. I have no idea what is in it as it is long and I will read it later. It is from Boston university. She is an uneducated guilter.

http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/or...ional/volume30n1/documents/note_mirabella.pdf

ETA I skimmed it, it's a bit like Dershowitz, different system, convictions probably safe, because they persevered.
I see it was written 2012, so limited relevance.
Click to expand...

It does discuss the legal system and think it is more or less right about the system.

The thing is that they have to realize the evidence of guilt is shaky at very best. Strike that. No, there is no real evidence of guilt.

Based on that, we have to try to understand what is propelling the prosecution and judges. Does not seem to be the proper operation of their legal system.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom