Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[SMK]

It is very difficult to know how far and wide the PR campaign reaches. Yesterday, someone posted a link to this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...-win-for-american-accused-of-murder-in-italy/

CBS news should be respectable enough. The article is written on October 16, 2013. The article states that, according to the Conti and Vecchiotti report, the knife and related evidence (Meredith's DNA) have been "busted", "trashed", "dismissed" and deemed "unreliable. The article goes on to suggest that the prosecution is now basing the case entirely on the 36-I sample (currently being tested). The article also suggests that if 36-I DNA belongs to Knox, then the case should be thrown out. What about the crime scene evidence and circumstantial evidence? Apparently that should be completely ignored, at the very least it is ignored by the author of the article.

If that is responsible reporting, there is a serious problem somewhere. The Conti and Vecchiotti report has been heavily criticized and is pretty much the primary reason that the appeal was annulled. None of the conclusions of the report are accepted by the court. Yet, the CBS article uses that rejected report as the foundation for the points made in the article. How is that possible? Where does such inaccurate and un-researched reporting come from? Is this an example of PR propaganda, or is it a reflection of the absence of integrity in today's news reporters?

I just had a look at the comments below the article. There you read the two sides of the debate. On the one hand, several people attempt to reinforce that claim that the Conti and Vecchiotti report is valid, and on the other and, others attempt to clarify that the knife evidence is still accepted by the court regardless of the Conti and Vecchiotti report.

Yes, always the 2 sides.

And I would agree that journalism has sunk to new low: Not enough objectivity, not enough research, too much buying into one's own cultural or political camp's agenda. Clearly the case with the above CNN "journalist".

But although I can see both that this CNN journalist is dismissing things out of hand, and the other poster's point about both sides putting their spin on things, I still am bothered that I don't know if the facts that I had listed in my other post (CCTV showing postal police before Sollecito phoned them; Amanda being spotted getting cleaning supplies first thing in the morning; etc.) were really discounted (broken clock, man "recalled" seeing Amanda 12 months after the fact) or if this is merely rumor or spin?:tantrum:

 

[SMK]

I'm pretty sure that part of the staging theory was based on the location of lividity. I believe that there was blood pooling on Meredith's shoulder, but she was found lying on her back. That suggested that she had been moved a few hours after the murder. I'll see if I can find it in the Massei report, as I do recall reading about it.

ETA: skimmed through the Massei report, so far no confirmation of what I posted above regarding lividity, but I'll keep looking.

But is not covering the victim with a duvet, and locking the door, a very odd manner of "staging"?

 

[whoanellie]

Two quick points.

1) I think the whole issue of Amanda's PR campaign is a red herring intended to distract from serious issues such as those you raise.

2) Doug Longhini is a producer for the 48 Hours show on CBS. I don't think the "article" in question is intended as an "objective" news report. It definitely contains the authors opinion. Perhaps it should be labeled "IMHO" or "MOO" but I think it is obvious from the content and context.

 

[aa9511]

In math (game theory), it's called the prisoner's paradox. The only scenario where everyone wins is where everyone remains silent.

Oh wow, they actually have a real theory for this? "Prisoner's paradox"....very interesting....I am going to look that up when I have a bit more time. Thanks! Game theory....yesss....I was trying to remember the name.
Thanks!

 

[otto]

Yes, always the 2 sides.

And I would agree that journalism has sunk to new low: Not enough objectivity, not enough research, too much buying into one's own cultural or political camp's agenda. Clearly the case with the above CNN "journalist".

But although I can see both that this CNN journalist is dismissing things out of hand, and the other poster's point about both sides putting their spin on things, I still am bothered that I don't know if the facts that I had listed in my other post (CCTV showing postal police before Sollecito phoned them; Amanda being spotted getting cleaning supplies first thing in the morning; etc.) were really discounted (broken clock, man "recalled" seeing Amanda 12 months after the fact) or if this is merely rumor or spin?:tantrum:

First, I'd like to point out that had a number of international translators not volunteered their time to translate all the legal documents, starting with the Massei report, the English speaking population would have little or no information other than what is published by organizations like CBS. Think about that for a moment. The only information that English language people would have is what is put forth by a PR Firm hired by the convicted murderer. As it stands, the debate seems to be between those that rely on organization such as CBS and those that rely on translated court documents.

Regarding Knox's activities on the morning after the murder, for some peculiar reason, Knox claims that she was walking through the streets of Perugia on a quiet morning with a mop. Surely, someone would have noticed that, but no one did. There is not a single witness to Knox and the mop at 10:30 AM. Look at how far she had to walk with a mop, and not be seen by anyone.



Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8394110.stm

Why would Knox claim that she was walking through the streets with cleaning supplies? Strange. What we have is the owner of a shop that lived on Sollecito's street coming forward and stating that someone entered his shop early on the morning after the murder and purchased cleaning supplies. He came forward long after the murder, alleging that Knox purchased cleaning supplies, and we have Knox claiming that she walked through the streets of Perugia with cleaning supplies. Where is the truth? Who knows. What we do know is that Knox gave an excuse for walking through Perugia with cleaning supplies: she claimed that she had to mop water in Sollecito's kitchen due to a spill 16 hours earlier. The courts have accepted that Knox walked through the streets with cleaning supplies, but I think that everyone finds it strange that Knox and Sollecito would leave a water spill on the kitchen floor of a tiny apartment for 16 hours.

Regarding the arrival of the postal police: On page 25 of the Massei report, we read that the Postal police and Filomina (plus friends) arrived before 1 PM. On page 27, we read that the postal police (per their known timelines) arrived at the cottage at about 12:30, prior to Sollecito placing a call to the Carabinieri. On page 318 of the Massei report, we read that cell phone records show that Sollecito contacted the 112 emergency number at 12:51 PM. On the question of whether anyone has tried to muddy this information to paint Knox and Sollecito in a better light? To that, there is no question that every point that exposes Knox and Sollecito as having been involved in the murder has been attacked and rewritten.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

 

[aa9511]

Interesting. Here in the UK we have an opposite example, in the trial of Vincent Tabak, who murdered his young female neighbour. He pleaded guilty of manslaughter saying it was accidental. There was evidence of sexual assault.

After the trial, it came to light that he had been watching violent *advertiser censored* even on the day of her death. And that one particular video featured a girl of very similar appearance to the victim, and iirc finished with her in the same positioning as they had found the body. This information was not allowed as part of the trial as it would have influenced the decision and was not directly related to the events.

Not about creativity, obviously, but still relevant I feel.

Oh wow. Yes, I found it a bit odd that the judge ruled it in, because IMO it could be construed as prejudicial for the defendant (now convicted murderer) - though the monster that he is, I was glad that it was let in. I suppose it's along the lines of "premeditation."

I feel so sorry for that girl's family....to know that information but know that the jury never got to see it!

 

[otto]

But is not covering the victim with a duvet, and locking the door, a very odd manner of "staging"?

According to Massei, the cell phones were taken, and the bedroom was locked, in order to delay the discovery of Meredith's body. That is, the cell phones were taken to prevent anyone from hearing the phones ring, unanswered, behind the locked door. There was a very real possibility that Meredith's boyfriend, or Filomina, would return to the cottage and discover the body before Knox and Sollecito were ready to face the police. The Massei report also explains that Meredith had two phones: her own phone which she kept with her at all times due to her mother's health, and the extra phone given to her by Filomina. Both phones were thrown away at the same time, but they were not turned off.

The sequence of calls from Knox to Meredith and Filomina is very interesting - well worth reading in the Massei report. The conclusion of the court is that Knox only called one of Meredith's phones because she wanted to know if the phones had been found. She does not tell Filomina that she had already phoned Meredith even though Filomina expressed concern about Meredith.

Covering Meredith with the duvet is probably a small sign of remorse - as it is in most cases where the victim is known to the murderer.

 

[otto]

Two quick points.

1) I think the whole issue of Amanda's PR campaign is a red herring intended to distract from serious issues such as those you raise.

2) Doug Longhini is a producer for the 48 Hours show on CBS. I don't think the "article" in question is intended as an "objective" news report. It definitely contains the authors opinion. Perhaps it should be labeled "IMHO" or "MOO" but I think it is obvious from the content and context.

So we have an investigative reporter with CBS presenting a very slanted interpretation of the facts. Next we have that CBS article linked as a factual document in a debate regarding the facts of the case. Why would anyone doubt the word of an investigative reporter? More importantly, why would an investigative reporter misrepresent the facts.

 

[SMK]

First, I'd like to point out that had a number of international translators not volunteered their time to translate all the legal documents, starting with the Massei report, the English speaking population would have little or no information other than what is published by organizations like CBS. Think about that for a moment. The only information that English language people would have is what is put forth by a PR Firm hired by the convicted murderer. As it stands, the debate seems to be between those that rely on organization such as CBS and those that rely on translated court documents.

Regarding Knox's activities on the morning after the murder, for some peculiar reason, Knox claims that she was walking through the streets of Perugia on a quiet morning with a mop. Surely, someone would have noticed that, but no one did. There is not a single witness to Knox and the mop at 10:30 AM. Look at how far she had to walk with a mop, and not be seen by anyone.



Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8394110.stm

Why would Knox claim that she was walking through the streets with cleaning supplies? Strange. What we have is the owner of a shop that lived on Sollecito's street coming forward and stating that someone entered his shop early on the morning after the murder and purchased cleaning supplies. He came forward long after the murder, alleging that Knox purchased cleaning supplies, and we have Knox claiming that she walked through the streets of Perugia with cleaning supplies. Where is the truth? Who knows. What we do know is that Knox gave an excuse for walking through Perugia with cleaning supplies: she claimed that she had to mop water in Sollecito's kitchen due to a spill 16 hours earlier. The courts have accepted that Knox walked through the streets with cleaning supplies, but I think that everyone finds it strange that Knox and Sollecito would leave a water spill on the kitchen floor of a tiny apartment for 16 hours.

Regarding the arrival of the postal police: On page 25 of the Massei report, we read that the Postal police and Filomina (plus friends) arrived before 1 PM. On page 27, we read that the postal police (per their known timelines) arrived at the cottage at about 12:30, prior to Sollecito placing a call to the Carabinieri. On page 318 of the Massei report, we read that cell phone records show that Sollecito contacted the 112 emergency number at 12:51 PM. On the question of whether anyone has tried to muddy this information to paint Knox and Sollecito in a better light? To that, there is no question that every point that exposes Knox and Sollecito as having been involved in the murder has been attacked and rewritten.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/si...ttachments/MasseiReportEnglishTranslation.pdf

Absolutely, we should have gratitude for all the volunteer translators, or we would be utterly in the dark. I wholly agree.

Yes, that's interesting. Although the shop owner comes forward suspiciously tardily, that Amanda places herself with a mop does give one pause. I suppose the water spill story might possibly be true, but it does create an aura of suspicion. Yes, I guess that is the whole point of PR spin: To muddy the waters. I've just never had such questions with any other case prior. Thanks for a great post. I am really curious as to what the verdict will be come late Nov/early Dec. Otto, did you read today's TJMK post? If so, what did you think of it?

 

[aa9511]

Why would Sollecito and Knox need to steal her rent money and cell phone. You could understand why Guede would, but not the other two. And if Guede wanted to steal stuff, you can see why he would break in.

Also, if, as the prosecution claims (with no evidence), that this was a drug fueled orgy, then how would they have enough sense of mind to do all these things if they were high out of their minds?

Re; 1st paragraph - The burglary story makes no sense to me for many reasons, the most obvious being how did Guede manage to climb up to the window on the second floor of the home??

Re; 2nd paragraph - that's a good point. But they didn't necessarily have to be high out of their minds - maybe the drugs only played one part in it. The Michael Bargo case comes to mind...where 6 youngsters lured a boy to their home, beat him, shot him, did terrible things to him, then burned his body in a fire and took his bones and threw it into a limestone quarry. So they also had enough thought to try to dispose of the body, and they also cleaned up the inside of the house (blood). However, I'm sure drugs played a part in it, and even they admit they were drunk and high.

 

[otto]

Absolutely, we should have gratitude for all the volunteer translators, or we would be utterly in the dark. I wholly agree.

Yes, that's interesting. Although the shop owner comes forward suspiciously tardily, that Amanda places herself with a mop does give one pause. I suppose the water spill story might possibly be true, but it does create an aura of suspicion. Yes, I guess that is the whole point of PR spin: To muddy the waters. I've just never had such questions with any other case prior. Thanks for a great post. I am really curious as to what the verdict will be come late Nov/early Dec. Otto, did you read today's TJMK post? If so, what did you think of it?

I haven't read the TJMK post and actually rarely do read those posts. Maybe I'll have a look later.

 

[SMK]

I haven't read the TJMK post and actually rarely do read those posts. Maybe I'll have a look later.

Okie

 

[aa9511]

That's a really good example of connecting a prior pre-occupation with *advertiser censored* and rape to an actual acting out of the exact same scenario. In a photo that Tabak took of Joanna Yeates, he had posed her in his car in the exact same position as a *advertiser censored* photo that was found in his computer. Wasn't he also encouraging police suspicions of the landlord? There was something else he did that helped point the finger at an innocent man ... another innocent man that spent some time in prison before his name could be cleared.

Before this point gets turned inside out, I will clarify: the implication is that people that rape and murder probably demonstrated a strong interest, or pre-occupation, in rape/murder prior to their first offense. This is not to say that all people that view *advertiser censored* ultimately commit rape.

bbm

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: You've already got yourself prepared, Otto!

I totally agree. It's about what the crime is and the events surrounding the crime. For example, let's say some man is accused of a white-collar crime, let's say some money laundering or fraud of some sort. Now, in the investigation for this, they find that this guy has written about rape and drugs. And that he watched violent *advertiser censored* on his computer. And maybe recorded some violent lyrics. The two don't have anything to do with each other....we wouldn't say, oh yes look at what he liked....I can see him really having done this money laundering thing.

However, if that same man is a suspect for raping and killing a stripper, then yes of course we would take those factors into consideration.

 

[SMK]

Here is the TJMK post, btw:

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Given The Abundant Facts, What Scenario Is The Nencini Court Considering? Probably Not Unlike This

Posted by Marcello

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[aa9511]

I can't remember enough to answer this as well others can, but Guede could have gone after the rent money for himself, and the others took the cellphones to cover up? Or, they could have taken the money not because they needed it, but to stage the break in....

I can't help but go back to the covering of Meredith with the duvet. How do they go from a most violent/vicious attack to then covering her up? Seem like that would have happened later, after someone(s) cooled down a bit and/or returned back to the scene....
Is that something Guede would have done?

bbm

I don't know enough about crimes to know whether or not that is normal for a murder.

Personally, IMO, I think putting the cover on was done more for the purpose of the crime not being so OBVIOUS. Like, right there in front of anyone's face the first thing they open the door. Open the door and boom, dead body in your face (sorry for the crudeness). Kind of like delaying the discovery of the body....even though it's not logical, I can see someone thinking that at the time. In the panic of it all.

So, IMO, that could have been either Rudy or Amanda and RS. I don't think it was done for any sentimental-type reason. But if it was Rudy, his bloody fingerprints and handprints would have been all over the cover, so it must have been someone else - whoever did the cleaning up/staging....whoever that was.

 

[otto]

Here is the TJMK post, btw:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

That's quite the summary of the Massei report! For me, that essay represents the difference between someone that has read all of the judicial reports about the case, and someone that relies on the CBS investigative reporter's understanding of the case. Since the appeal court must take the trial summary report into consideration, I do expect that the guilty verdicts will be upheld. There doesn't seem to be any way around it, especially since it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that Guede did not act alone. Still, one never knows how a court will rule, so we'll have to wait another six weeks for that.

 

[aa9511]

With Knox and Sollecito, he was the first to admit that he told police a "load of rubbish", and proceeded to state that Knox was not with him on the night of the murder. Knox, when presented with Sollecito's admission, then presented a scenario that was partially truthful, but she named the wrong black man. She correctly told police, on November 6, that more than one person was involved in the murder. Guede initially kept quiet, but it didn't take long for him to tell investigators that Knox had an altercation with Meredith about the money - which escalated to murder.

I actually just pulled this book off the shelf: Games & Decisions, by Luce and Raiffa, to check the n-person analogue. There's another book that may interest you, written by a mathematician and her daughter about how math and murder intersect. I'll post the link when I remember the title. The author has closely followed this case.

bbm - wow, Otto, I did not know Rudy went into any details about that (Amanda and Meredith arguing about the money). But I don't know, he could have also just made that up since he knew the money was stolen (whether he took it or saw them take it or he just knew b/c it was a fact in the case).

I would also love the title for that book about math and murder....is it specifically about this case?

They may have revealed some true information or they may not have. However, since no one revealed anything close to a full picture of what happened, then the others also didn't have the incentive to reveal a full picture. RS's outing of Amanda was very limited, as he just stated that she might not have been with him, but didn't say anything else like yes, she was at the cottage, yes she participated, she did X,Y, and Z. This limited version is very interesting. Now, why couldn't he have said, "I know this because Amanda came back to my house and told me everything? But I was at home, I had nothing to do with it, she just told me." Because then, of course, Amanda might have said, "no, no, wait...see actually ok we were in the cottage, but I just stayed in the kitchen the whole time and Raffaelo was the one who went crazy and did X, Y, and Z." (minimizing her own involvement while attempting to inflate his). IMO that's why he said Amanda was not with him, and gave no other information. You would think that if he wanted to pin it on Amanda, he would have said more about her involvement, that only makes sense. Guede also has never given a detailed explanation of the full picture.

 

[aa9511]

I'm pretty sure that part of the staging theory was based on the location of lividity. I believe that there was blood pooling on Meredith's shoulder, but she was found lying on her back. That suggested that she had been moved a few hours after the murder. I'll see if I can find it in the Massei report, as I do recall reading about it.

ETA: skimmed through the Massei report, so far no confirmation of what I posted above regarding lividity, but I'll keep looking.

What's "location of lividity?"

Otto, do you look at the Massei report on your computer, or do you have it printed out? TIA.

 

[otto]

There is a chapter on Meredith Kercher

Math on Trial, by Leila Schneps, Coralie Colmez

http://books.google.ca/books?id=PFA...ess Box Leila Schneps, Coralie Colmez&f=false

 

[SMK]

That's quite the summary of the Massei report! For me, that essay represents the difference between someone that has read all of the judicial reports about the case, and someone that relies on the CBS investigative reporter's understanding of the case. Since the appeal court must take the trial summary report into consideration, I do expect that the guilty verdicts will be upheld. There doesn't seem to be any way around it, especially since it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that Guede did not act alone. Still, one never knows how a court will rule, so we'll have to wait another six weeks for that.

I know, it seems an awfully long time to wait but it will jut have to be borne. Yes, I had thought the same, and that the SC ruled that Guede did not act alone discounts any lone wolf theory and of course strengthens the supposition of Knox and Sollecito's involvement. But you're right: One simply cannot predict how the ruling will actually come down. What I can't believe is that no matter which way it goes, it can still be appealed. When exactly will the ruling be final? I can't seem to keep it straight