Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

It isn't. To me, this is so simple. Rudy broke in. Meredith came home unexpectedly. Something went terribly wrong. Rudy went nuts and killed her. Then he said, "holy ◊◊◊◊, what do I do now?". Calling an ambulance or even saving her at that point was counter to his own interest. His interest was in not getting caught.

Meredith fell in the bathroom and died.
It's much more simple. Better, isn't it?

 

[Desert Fox]

Is that your best shot?

The best shot is that
1. Amanda's confession basically rings every alarm bell there is discussed by false confession advocates.
2. There is no reliable evidence of Amanda or Raff being in the cottage that night and no reliable evidence of them having been in the bedroom at all.
3. Based on the most probable timeline, Amanda and Raff have a solid alibi
4. There is strong evidence of Rudy Guede being at the crime scene (including the bedroom) at the time of the murder even eliminating the DNA evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

I didn't see it, I still don't understand Italian. Raffaele's position doesn't confuse me at all, it never has. He doesn't think Amanda went out that night, he doesn't remember anything suggesting she killed someone and came back to him, but he doesn't want to get convicted of murder just because he's an alibi. He cannot be certain she didn't sneak out at some time when he was sleeping or unaware of her leaving so he's hoping that if they feel they must convict Amanda to leave him out of it.

Regarding a previous comment of yours that others found obscure but I thought I understood, if Raffaele just had to account for Amanda's whereabouts until 9:30 PM, by which time the murder had almost certainly occurred, it would be one thing. However the prosecution has managed to place the ToD as late as 11:45 PM and their reality is what he must account for, not 9:30.

The separation strategy is aimed at the way (principally) Nencini cherry-picks what he wants from a single item of "evidence". For instance, if Nencini is going to make use of the morning memoriale to place Amanda at the crimescene, then that memorandum does not place Raffaele there. Yet Nencini insists that evidence which he claims convicts one, should be seen as convicting both.

Reading Raffaele's appeals document discusses this.

The pro-guilt lobby likens this to Raffaele throwing Amanda under a bus. In reality it is Bongiorno's way of highlighting the way Nencini cherry-picks factoids which he claims tends to convict one, but he's silent that the same item would tend to cast doubt on the conviction of the other.

The granddaddy of Nencini's cherry-picking is him believing Rudy Guede that the motive for the crime was over rent money. Yet the story that comes from, Rudy also says that it was Meredith who let him in - meaning, Amanda's key was not necessary - according to the story. On what basis does Nencini believe one factoid and reject the other from the same source?

 

[Desert Fox]

Don't you ever see anything circular in your thought processes?

I see you post continuously going against the science. . . .We pull out study after study and you just dismiss them without even considering them. Some of the studies on false confession are even from Italian authors.

You simply ignore anything which goes against you preconceived notions. Either that, or you claim that they are crooked without evidence.

I look at many cases and have a broad overview of many cases. When I first in passing heard about the Amanda Knox case, I assumed it was something like the Diane Zamora case actually. At that point, I thought she was guilty, until I looked at the evidence and it became more like the Norfolk Four case. Actually it is more like a bad comedy version of the Norfolk Four case.

 

[Diocletus]

Meredith fell in the bathroom and died.
It's much more simple. Better, isn't it?

But that's ridiculous. If you're going to make stuff up, you might as well make it interesting, like maybe she fought over a turd and then was executed as a part of a four way halloween sex rite.

 

[Machiavelli]

Where does this car suddenly come from? Where are you suggesting it was parked? Why was it not seen on CCTV? If there was a car whose were the running feet? Presumably the clattering were the pots and pans Knox and Sollecito were running round Perugia with?

The CCTV at the parking lot only activates when cars or people cross the park entry.
I don't know where the car was parked and if it was parked (although the tow truck driver did notice a dark colured car parked on the cottage entrance gate).
A noise of running feet was heared by Nara Capezzali coming from the cottage gravel path (it was a noise of steps on gravel and dry leaves).

 

[tsig]

There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.

I'd hate to have my freedom depending on a slippery lip.

 

[Kaosium]

Did you also happen to catch this rather telling quote in the same piece from Gen Garofano (an erstwhile pro-guilt favourite no less!) about the farcical nature of crime scene forensic investigation in Italy (my bolding):

And former General Luciano Garofano, long head of Ris of Parma, admits the cultural lag, "The police has made leaps and bounds in the technique of the inspection and the laboratory tests, but much remains to be done. At the crime scene should go only pure specialists that we have not."

It's a shocking and manifestly dreadful error that not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and her crew were let loose on the crime scene in the cottage. They obviously did not know how to do things properly, yet they blustered and blundered on regardless. In the process of course, they compromised, contaminated, destroyed and overlooked (in varying degrees) pretty much ALL the important physical forensic evidence in this critical case. At least they had the decency (hubris?) to videotape their slapdash and harmful efforts, which would be comical if they didn't have such serious implications.

Once upon a time I was in an organization which liked to show us videos and tell stories of horrific stuff to scare us into not doing certain things, or the importance of doing some things exactly right. Ever seen someone vaporized on camera when the ordnance of a plane cooked off? Heard what can happen when a rope breaks? (they say you can be cut in two!) However the worst one I recall was when they showed us pictures of certain venereal diseases, one was a golf-ball sized chancre at the end of some poor bastard's ding-dong. It was ugly and colored and we all wondered how anyone could let something so malignant go untreated, which was the point of showing us that stuff.

I think someday the crime scene videos of this case, especially of the 'second trip,' may well be shown in criminology classes (up to and including Quantico) as examples of how not to do forensic science. That will be the pus-filled, golf ball sized chancre of tomorrows forensic science classes.

 

[Diocletus]

I'd hate to have my freedom depending on a slippery lip.

Well, yes, but we're not talking about a real lip. Or cup. But even if we were, the slipping would occur before the lip.

 

[Machiavelli]

Both pro - guilt and pro - innocent people say this. I am some what doubtful about the evidence of this. That is to say, the state of undress is good evidence of a sexual assault, the blood droplet pattern suggests this occurred shortly before death. Guede's DNA on the bra strap, and the sweat shirt, and on the vaginal swab would support his involvement in the sexual assault. (There is also the putative semen sample with Guede's shoe print imprint.) But there seems to be nothing to say this happened post mortem and to the contrary some evidence that it was at least initiated pre-mortem. There is zero evidence of Knox's involvement despite her conviction for sexual assault, the debatable DNA presence attributable to Sollecito on the bra hook could at least justify some involvement of Sollecito in the accusation.

(...)

Seems a good idea to be skeptical about this. Not only because of the lack of evidence and the existence of evidence of the contrary (she was not touched with bloody hands, bruises on vagina, the many other bruises), but also because it is impossible to build a consistent sequence for when Rudy Guede allagedly stepped on the pillowcase and on the putative semen stain, that must also be consistent within the same sequence with when he got his shoe sole dirty with blood, and when he allegedly placed the pillow under her body.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think it'll be confirmed and Raffaele will be arrested immediately if he doesn't run. The police will be waiting outside wherever he lives waiting for confirmation there's been a definitive conviction. A few weeks after that, Italy will request extradition and Amanda will be arrested immediately and taken to SeaTac. She'll apply for bail which has a small chance of being granted and her appeals will go on for years all the way up to the Supreme Court.

That is how I see it playing out.

Raffaele will get day release after 6 years and probably not have to sleep at the prison if he can find a job and a wife. So he'd be out by the time he's 36 and have 50 years ahead of him.

I would say more probably will wait another 9/10 years before day release. But if he talks and surrender his money, he might enter your scenario.

 

[carbonjam72]

You bet Italy will make a request. Not doing it is no political option for the government.

Of course this assumes a confirmation of guilt.

My own view as I've expressed, is that cassation will not confirm this guilty verdict, but I suppose we'll see soon enough.

Question for you Mach: If the section 5 panel wants to refer the case to a United Sections hearing, does that mean they have to first annul the Nencini conviction? Or do they just pass the whole thing through, and the United Sections just takes it up from there, with the Nencini conviction intact going in?

 

[Machiavelli]

It was only decisive when the court thought Meredith's DNA might be present. Once it was shown not to be present, it wasn't decisive anymore.

It was decisive for a judge who believed there was no evidence and no reliable DNA.

 

[carbonjam72]

I would say more probably will wait another 9/10 years before day release. But if he talks and surrender his money, he might enter your scenario.

And it really is all about the money, isn;t it? A kidnapping and ransom, not just in plain sight, but televised. How proud must they be?

 

[Diocletus]

It was decisive for a judge who believed there was no evidence and no reliable DNA.

And heard real witnesses.

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course this assumes a confirmation of guilt.

My own view as I've expressed, is that cassation will not confirm this guilty verdict, but I suppose we'll see soon enough.

Question for you Mach: If the section 5 panel wants to refer the case to a United Sections hearing, does that mean they have to first annul the Nencini conviction? Or do they just pass the whole thing through, and the United Sections just takes it up from there, with the Nencini conviction intact going in?

No. There would be no change. They pass the thing through (but actually the United Section is basically just an enlargment - and re-arrangement - of the panel from the original 5 up to 9 Judges, and includes the First President and prominent members of the sections).

 

[carbonjam72]

No. There would be no change. They pass the thing through (but actually the United Section is basically just an enlargment - and re-arrangement - of the panel from the original 5 up to 9 Judges, and includes the First President and prominent members of the sections).

God willing.

 

[Kaosium]

The separation strategy is aimed at the way (principally) Nencini cherry-picks what he wants from a single item of "evidence". For instance, if Nencini is going to make use of the morning memoriale to place Amanda at the crimescene, then that memorandum does not place Raffaele there. Yet Nencini insists that evidence which he claims convicts one, should be seen as convicting both.

Reading Raffaele's appeals document discusses this.

The pro-guilt lobby likens this to Raffaele throwing Amanda under a bus. In reality it is Bongiorno's way of highlighting the way Nencini cherry-picks factoids which he claims tends to convict one, but he's silent that the same item would tend to cast doubt on the conviction of the other.

The granddaddy of Nencini's cherry-picking is him believing Rudy Guede that the motive for the crime was over rent money. Yet the story that comes from, Rudy also says that it was Meredith who let him in - meaning, Amanda's key was not necessary - according to the story. On what basis does Nencini believe one factoid and reject the other from the same source?

Thanks for your addition, I agree with you about Nencini's cherry-picking. I just re-read that the other night and felt sick to my stomach by the time I was done. As for your example, he's believing the 'professional burglar' that he didn't break in but that someone else (who didn't need it) stole the money.

I think I need to reconsider the odds that the pile of trash that Nencini produced will get confirmed. Since Italy has been the worst (or close) offender of the ECHR for a half century now I figured the Italian Judiciary simply didn't care how ill regarded they were by the ECHR and would confirm anything and simply ignore the likelihood the ECHR would find violations in it.

Then I remembered the defense has 400+ pages of appeals and that the Galati document at ~170 pages was considered large for an appeal to the ISC. They will have to eventually try to square the circle and that cannot be done with the Nencini Report. Attempting to answer the defense appeal will be impossible: Nencini gets basic facts wrong to go along with him cherry picking as well.

They still might confirm it, but in the long run that might well work out best for Amanda and Raffaele. Another authoritative body looking at the case and the handling of it by the Massei and Nencini courts and excoriating them could be better than a quashing and a decision not to pursue the case further for length of trial or another 'technicality.'

 

[Machiavelli]

And it really is all about the money, isn;t it? A kidnapping and ransom, not just in plain sight, but televised. How proud must they be?

Well early releas depends on remorse, and remorse is shown - as by jurisprudence - by actions attempting to repair sufferings of the victims parties. If you show a will to pay damages, it means you are behaving well.

 

[Machiavelli]

The separation strategy is aimed at the way (principally) Nencini cherry-picks what he wants from a single item of "evidence". For instance, if Nencini is going to make use of the morning memoriale to place Amanda at the crimescene, then that memorandum does not place Raffaele there. Yet Nencini insists that evidence which he claims convicts one, should be seen as convicting both.

Reading Raffaele's appeals document discusses this.
(...)

The separation strategy was unfold during closing arguments at the Florence trial. Nencini had not written his report yet at the time.