Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Is this a criminal matter? If so this could require 8 years and three trials to sort out, with Cassation dropping it back down to the appeals court a couple of times.

That any court would do something like this is bad comedy:
On Wednesday, a court in Sicily ruled that a male boss who was accused of groping three female colleagues was not guilty of sexual harassment because his behaviour was playful, not “lascivious”.
The court in Palermo said that 65-year-old Domenico Lipari had been driven by an immature sense of humour, rather than a desire for sexual gratification.
The three women had accused him of touching them inappropriately, slapping their bottoms and brushing his hands across their breasts and genital area.

 

[Antony]

...

You've concocted a wildly absurd movie in your own mind. And like so many movies today it is full of holes and your only real hope is the audience just rides along without thinking.

But the rest of the audience isn't that stupid. We ask the glaring questions and leave the theater feeling insulted by the movie producers.

It's a movie not just with a completely implausible crime, but one in which crucial evidence can be made to appear whenever it's needed by police - not once, but twice. A crime fiction writer who included the kitchen knife and bra clasp in their tale of intrepid murder solving would never find a publisher.

 

[Desert Fox]

It's a movie not just with a completely implausible crime, but one in which crucial evidence can be made to appear whenever it's needed by police - not once, but twice. A crime fiction writer who included the kitchen knife and bra clasp in their tale of intrepid murder solving would never find a publisher.

The only issue is that many real life crimes would never find a publisher if presented as fiction. Most cases it is the bad guys making stupid errors and the cops bumbling their way to finding the guilty party.

 

[Antony]

The only issue is that many real life crimes would never find a publisher if presented as fiction. Most cases it is the bad guys making stupid errors and the cops bumbling their way to finding the guilty party.

That's likely true, but only because most cases are simply not terribly interesting. A crime writer has to sex it up and create some mystery in order to get publisher interest.

However, in the cheap movie plot promoted by the PGP, the police were able to bolster their case by walking into the suspect's home and picking up the first sharp knife they could find, and then obtained crucial DNA evidence (that none of the victim's other clothes provided) on a torn-off scrap of clothing "remembered" weeks later. These are plot lines that a crime writer simply wouldn't get away with.

 

[Planigale]

It clearly was premeditated, albeit as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Amanda even took her passport with her out of the cottage, knowing she was not going back to the cottage to live.

You just display your ignorance. Why do never fact check?

It is the law in Italy that one needs to carry id at all times. Had Knox not been carrying her passport that would have been an offence.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/italy/local-laws-and-customs

Note how I reference a reputable (well some would disagree that HMG was reputable) source.

 

[Desert Fox]

That's likely true, but only because most cases are simply not terribly interesting. A crime writer has to sex it up and create some mystery in order to get publisher interest.

However, in the cheap movie plot promoted by the PGP, the police were able to bolster their case by walking into the suspect's home and picking up the first sharp knife they could find, and then obtained crucial DNA evidence (that none of the victim's other clothes provided) on a torn-off scrap of clothing "remembered" weeks later. These are plot lines that a crime writer simply wouldn't get away with.

The only fiction murder mysteries I have read are a few of the Eve Dallas (in Death) series. I don't see the motivation which the pro guilt side working based on those either.

 

[LondonJohn]

These elements of your post are incorrect.

Amanda Knox was convicted of "simple" calunnia ("criminal slander", but more accurately, "stating falsely to a judicial authority, such as the police, that someone had committed a crime, knowing that the statement was untrue"). The conviction was delivered by the Hellmann court and made definitive and final by the Chieffi CSC panel. There was no statement in the Hellmann court motivation report that Knox knew her statement to be false because she was at the scene of the murder in the cottage at the time it occurred. Rather, that MR stated that Knox should have known that Lumumba had not committed the crime because she knew that Lumumba and Meredith Kercher were unacquainted, and because the police were suggesting to her that Lumumba was the murderer. The logic of the Hellmann court MR was challenged by the Chieffi CSC panel, in that they suggested the calunnia should be considered aggravated, but the Chieffi CSC panel did definitively finalize the "simple" calunnia conviction while suggesting that the Nencini appeal court re-examine the issue of aggravation.

The factor of aggravation in this situation, under Italian criminal law, would be that the person committing calunnia had done so to hide from or escape responsibility for another crime, namely, in this case, the murder and rape of Meredith Kercher.

The Nencini court did convict Knox of aggravated calunnia, which was consistent with their conviction of her on the murder/rape charges.

However, the Marasca CSC panel annulled all the convictions of the Nencini court (one charge, carrying of a knife, was beyond the statute of limitations) and acquitted Knox (and Sollecito) of all relevant charges, including the aggravated calunnia. But this left the previous conviction for "simple" calunnia made definitive and final by the Chieffi CSC panel, and this conviction could not be changed by the Marasca CSC panel under Italian procedural law. Thus, the Marasca CSC panel stated that that conviction remained in effect as did its sentence, which Hellmann had allocated to time already served by Knox on remand or attributable to the Massei court preliminary conviction.

These facts may affect your thesis about the Marasca CSC panel motivation report statements.

Yes, you're correct. Apologies - I got mixed up on this matter. But Marasca does go as far as to say that Knox falsely named Lumumba in order to protect herself, Sollecito and Guede and misdirect the police - so in that respect Marasca is implying that Knox knew what had happened in the cottage that night, and who was (and was not) involved.

In fact, the "reasoning" the Marasca panel gives for placing Knox at the cottage is - perhaps even more incredibly - Knox's statements from that same interrogation of 5th/6th November 2007. Marasca states explicitly that it is an accepted judicial fact that Knox was there because she said/wrote that she was there in those statements!

It ought not to need pointing out that this is crazily circular argument on its very face. And it also ought not to need pointing out that the only (false and coerced) declarative statements made by Knox were specifically (and correctly) EXCLUDED from the murder-related parts of the trial by another SC ruling. The only one that was allowed to stand (the "memoriale" from later in the day on the 6th) was extremely equivocal and hesitant, and could certainly not be viewed as clear evidence that Knox was placing herself at the cottage at the time of the murder.

Once again, I see clear elements of systemic self-protection and institutional defence mechanisms in this part of the Marasca ruling. And once again, I note that this part of the ruling is just begging to be overturned by a judgement in Knox's favour from the ECHR.

Yet more evidence of how horrifically broken and unfit-for-purpose the Italian criminal justice system is, from top to bottom.

 

[LondonJohn]

You just display your ignorance. Why do never fact check?

It is the law in Italy that one needs to carry id at all times. Had Knox not been carrying her passport that would have been an offence.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/italy/local-laws-and-customs

Note how I reference a reputable (well some would disagree that HMG was reputable) source.

Absolutely. And in addition, Knox - who "knew she was not going back to the cottage to live" - went back there the very next morning

 

[Antony]

The only fiction murder mysteries I have read are a few of the Eve Dallas (in Death) series. I don't see the motivation which the pro guilt side working based on those either.

I'm certainly not putting forward the typical murder mystery as a measure of believability. The recurring scene in which the cast of characters gather in the drawing room as Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot reveals the twists of the crime, while the character who turns out to be the actual culprit tries to pick holes in their logic before being handcuffed by the waiting police officer, is not something that has any basis in reality.

In fact I think crime fiction has a lot to answer for, leading to the kind of mistaken and dug-in thinking we see in this case. It's just that the ridiculous evidence paraded by the PGP here belongs neither in real life nor in fiction.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, you're correct. Apologies - I got mixed up on this matter. But Marasca does go as far as to say that Knox falsely named Lumumba in order to protect herself, Sollecito and Guede and misdirect the police - so in that respect Marasca is implying that Knox knew what had happened in the cottage that night, and who was (and was not) involved.

In fact, the "reasoning" the Marasca panel gives for placing Knox at the cottage is - perhaps even more incredibly - Knox's statements from that same interrogation of 5th/6th November 2007. Marasca states explicitly that it is an accepted judicial fact that Knox was there because she said/wrote that she was there in those statements! It ought not to need pointing out that this is crazily circular argument on its very face. And it also ought not to need pointing out that the only (false and coerced) declarative statements made by Knox were specifically (and correctly) EXCLUDED from the murder-related parts of the trial by another SC ruling. The only one that was allowed to stand (the "memoriale" from later in the day on the 6th) was extremely equivocal and hesitant, and could certainly not be viewed as clear evidence that Knox was placing herself at the cottage at the time of the murder.

Once again, I see clear elements of systemic self-protection and institutional defence mechanisms in this part of the Marasca ruling. And once again, I note that this part of the ruling is just begging to be overturned by a judgement in Knox's favour from the ECHR.

Yet more evidence of how horrifically broken and unfit-for-purpose the Italian criminal justice system is, from top to bottom.

If, for the highlighted statement above, you are pointing out Section 9.4.1 of the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, I agree that read in isolation, there is considerable ambiguity in what that Section is attempting to present. It may indeed be supporting Knox's conviction for calunnia as a basis for finding Knox in the cottage at the time of the murder, interpreting that conviction as supporting her coerced false statements of Nov. 6 that she was present in the cottage when Lumumba raped and killed Meredith and heard Meredith's scream, and possibly also referring to her Memoriale 1, where she casts doubt on the reliability of her statements.

However, there are, as you point out in part, some problems with interpreting the Marasca CSC panel MR this way. The reasoning appears circular. The Section is the text after Section 9.2, which claims that the following MR subsections will present hypotheses against the accused and rebut them. The Hellmann court MR did not state that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murders, but used other - illogical - reasoning to justify her conviction for calunnia.

I agree that a judgment of the ECHR may be required to set this part of the miscarriage of justice - Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba - straight and make clear that there is no credible evidence that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder. There is no admissible evidence of her presence under Italian procedural law, and use of the inadmissible evidence resulted in an unfair trial. I hope that the ECHR will point out the arbitrary nature of the Marasca panel CSC MR reasoning in its discussion of Knox's calunnia conviction. It is even more arbitrary and apparently untruthful in its statements in Section 2.2, which claims that Knox repeated her statements against Lumumba before the judge in the arrest hearing. My understanding is that Knox was silent, as was her right, at the arrest hearing, on the advice of her counsel. Therefore, this CSC "fact" in Section 2.2 is clearly false.

 

[acbytesla]

You just display your ignorance. Why do never fact check?

It is the law in Italy that one needs to carry id at all times. Had Knox not been carrying her passport that would have been an offence.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/italy/local-laws-and-customs

Note how I reference a reputable (well some would disagree that HMG was reputable) source.

There are so many things wrong with the idea of a panned premeditated murder, I'm stunned that anyone would seriously consider it. First, until 8:23 that evening, Amanda was intending to go to work and until 8:45 Raffaele was going to take Popovic to the train station.

And because of this they can't be coordinating with Rudy who doesn't have a phone.

They didn't know if Meredith would even be there.

The idea that downloading Amelie is part of setting up an alibi even though both had other plans after the movie? Seriously?

Vixen demonstrates again the problem with every guilter theory. The don't match the evidence and they are chock-full of holes.

 

[Vixen]

So, Vixen. Are you saying that despite the police going through and collecting hundreds of samples that are then analyzed and presented in court, and it all being very mundane, practical and objective. And the courts ultimately acquitting after it's all said and done...

... are you saying your intuitive BS detector knows better?

Wait a minute, weren't you just criticizing bagels a second ago for using "intuition"?

Why do no two consecutive posts from you ever make sense?

The merits courts found the pair guilty. Bruno-Marasca were under some kind of pressure to acquit. They were not able to bring themselves to declare the couple innocent, and in fact, were condemnatory, particularly of Amanda.

 

[Vixen]

I would be willing to bet my own life that she is not a murder.
There are not a lot of cases where I am willing to make that statement.

More fool you. Offering to sacrifice your life is just a logical fallacy and doesn't make your statement true.

 

[Vixen]

Never the less, Amanda and Raffaele had known own each other for a week and conspiring to commit a premeditated murder with someone else requires trust. Not something someone embarks upon with someone they had just met.

Not only are you suggesting that both Amanda and Raffaele had these psychopathic personalities that they managed to hide from everyone, both before and after that fateful day in November, but that they just happened to find a kindred spirit that they trusted enough in just a week? Never mind that they barely could communicate with each other?

Does this really sound logical when you concoct the story in your head?

She slept with him as soon as she met him, and by her own account, anything in trousers, in fact, so obviously an extremely trusting kinda gal.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, you've just contradicted yourself.

You said that only the judges up to Massei found premeditation, then you say, "Premeditation is for the trial judge to consider."

Are your posts on a random factoid generator?

The remanding judge has to assess whether to let someone out on bail. In this case, Matteini judged the pair were too dangerous* to have roaming free, based on psychological and police reports, which I already quoted elsewhere. Obviously, there is no final verdict until after a trial.

*People capable of being a danger to the public. Sociopaths do not generally learn from their mistakes.

 

[acbytesla]

She slept with him as soon as she met him, and by her own account, anything in trousers, in fact, so obviously an extremely trusting kinda gal.

Are you suggesting that having casual sex on a first date is on par with committing a homicide?

Seriously ?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Bagels, it's not like a horse race were there are lucky punters who get the outcome right. You are highly intuitive, but the police don't work like that. They have to go through the crime scene collecting literally hundreds of samples. It is very boring. The results are analysed by forensics and presented in court. it is very mundane, practical and objective.

The merits courts and even Bruno-Marasca found that certain facts can be deduced from the evidence. No need to gaze into a crystal ball. It is as routine as that.

The merits courts found the pair guilty. Bruno-Marasca were under some kind of pressure to acquit. They were not able to bring themselves to declare the couple innocent, and in fact, were condemnatory, particularly of Amanda.

Vixen,
Perhaps you forgot already, but you noted above that the presentation of forensics in court is a very routine matter. And the highest appeal court in Italy found them innocent. You are correct that Massei found them guilty, but that is what the Supreme Court of Cassation is for -- to correct glaring errors at the lower level.

You criticized bagels earlier for using logic and reason for coming to the obvious and correct conclusion that Massei and Nencini were wrong. Bagels' was deemed correct later by the highest court in Italy. Then you come around and say your "BS detector" went off when the higher level courts acquitted.

Which is it Vixen? Is it a routine and objective process where no errors can possibly be made? Or does your intuition override all of the results of the higher Italian courts, and (more entertaining) all of the forensic science results written by the top experts in the world showing how the evidence was wrong and misleading?

It sounds like you are saying when something comes out (incorrectly) supporting Amanda's guilt, it is routine and objective in your mind. But when the overwhelming mass of empirical evidence comes out time after time proving she is innocent your "BS detector" goes off and your intuition just can't go wrong. You're not really saying that, are you Vixen?

I believe that is called confirmation bias. You even said the entire peer review process for scientific journal publications are subjective and open to opinion and interpretation because all of the actual peer reviewed work supports the position of Conti and Vecchiotti (and all the pro-innocence supporters). It is quite honestly the most insane thing I have ever heard.

Thank you for continuing to post though. The rampant dysrationalia in every single one of your posts proves to everyone reading how insane this whole ordeal truly was.

 

[Bill Williams]

The remanding judge has to assess whether to let someone out on bail. In this case, Matteini judged the pair were too dangerous* to have roaming free, based on psychological and police reports, which I already quoted elsewhere. Obviously, there is no final verdict until after a trial.

*People capable of being a danger to the public. Sociopaths do not generally learn from their mistakes.

You are surfing through issues clumsily. You said the crime was premeditated. I said none of the judges found that to be true. You said the procedural judges before that found premeditation. I said that they were not fact finding judges.

Now you are talk about about the preventative detention. It is hopeless talking to you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you for continuing to post though. The rampant dysrationalia in every single one of your posts proves to everyone reading how insane this whole ordeal truly was.

Vixen's posts are a short course in why this went wrong and why two were unjustly prosecuted. In my own last two points discussed with "her", she has ended up directly contradicting herself.

 

[Vixen]

Are you suggesting that having casual sex on a first date is on par with committing a homicide?

Seriously ?

You have changed the context. We were talking about Amanda being trusting. You said there was no way she'd trust someone she'd only known five days.