Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[otto]

If there are other culprits then I certainly share your hope that they will be brought to justice. However, I see no reason to believe that anyone other than Rudy Guede was responsible for this murder, and you have given me no reason to believe any such thing either. All you've given is an appeal to authority, but no court has divine infallibility, no not even the highest court in Italy.

The only logical reason to believe that Rudy Guede did not act alone is the fact that the highest court in Italy, after reviewing all of the evidence, came to this conclusion. I'll accept that as fact.

Regarding the apparent skepticism regarding the rulings in Italian courts ... are you equally skeptical about the decision to set Knox and Sollecito free, or are you only skeptical of the rulings when they don't fit a particular theory.

 

[Cappuccino]

The only logical reason to believe that Rudy Guede did not act alone is the fact that the highest court in Italy, after reviewing all of the evidence, came to this conclusion. I'll accept that as fact.

Regarding the apparent skepticism regarding the rulings in Italian courts ... are you equally skeptical about the decision to set Knox and Sollecito free, or are you only skeptical of the rulings when they don't fit a particular theory.

I'm equally skeptical about all of them, as should you be. There's a reason why an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy - namely that any authority can be wrong. What you need to do is look at the evidence on which that court based their decision, and then decide whether or not you agree with it.

 

[otto]

I'm equally skeptical about all of them, as should you be. There's a reason why an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy - namely that any authority can be wrong. What you need to do is look at the evidence on which that court based their decision, and then decide whether or not you agree with it.

I agree with the ruling of the highest court in Italy: more than one person was involved in the murder of Merdith Kercher. There is ample evidence to support this conclusion, and far be it from me to presume to know better.

 

[Cappuccino]

What evidence is there to support that conclusion?

 

[otto]

What evidence is there to support that conclusion?

That would be the information in hundreds upon hundreds of pages of police files, court transcripts, expert reports and judge's reports. On what else would the highest court in Italy base an opinion ... armchair pseudo experts from some foreign country?

 

[Cappuccino]

That would be the information in hundreds upon hundreds of pages of police files, court transcripts, expert reports and judge's reports.

This is a complete non-answer. WHAT information specifically lead the court to conclude that Guede did not commit this crime alone?

On what else would the highest court in Italy base an opinion ... armchair pseudo experts from some foreign country?

Is there any need for that? Ordinary members of the public, even mere foreigners, are perfectly entitled to ask on what evidence the courts in any democratic country based their decision. Italy is a democratic country, and has been for some time now.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

There's no logical error. We know that Knox had a message from Patrick, she returned to Sollecito's apartment, she and Sollecito had dinner, they had a water leak, then Dr Sollecito spoke with his son on the phone at about 8:30about the water leak that occurred after dinner. That provides a very exact timeline for when they had dinner.

The alibis were all over the place. Knox got herself into hot water with police because she fibbed about the time of dinner ... attempting to give herself an alibi by placing the time of dinner three hours later. The reason for lying about the time of dinner was to create a false alibi. Dr Sollecito was responsible for poking a huge hole in that alibi.

False. Sollecito spoke with his father about the water leak, but there is no reason to assume that they had dinner before that time. Hypothetically changing the time of dinner would have no effect on their alibi, as I previously explained.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

That would be the information in hundreds upon hundreds of pages of police files, court transcripts, expert reports and judge's reports. On what else would the highest court in Italy base an opinion ... armchair pseudo experts from some foreign country?

Hmmm. Websleuths is made up of many armchair sleuths who have done many good things for crime and missing persons. You should be more careful about insulting the people who make up this community.

Do you have specific reasons to believe more than one person committed this crime or do you simply accept what one court (with no defense evidence for whom you are accusing) deemed? What about the fact that another court ruled completely differently?

 

[otto]

This is a complete non-answer. WHAT information specifically lead the court to conclude that Guede did not commit this crime alone?



Is there any need for that? Ordinary members of the public, even mere foreigners, are perfectly entitled to ask on what evidence the courts in any democratic country based their decision. Italy is a democratic country, and has been for some time now.

I would refer you to the reports written by the judge.

 

[otto]

False. Sollecito spoke with his father about the water leak, but there is no reason to assume that they had dinner before that time. Hypothetically changing the time of dinner would have no effect on their alibi, as I previously explained.

Perhaps you don't want to believe it, but they ate dinner, then they washed up the dishes, then they had the water leak and then Dr Sollecito phoned ... but that it how the facts add up.

Changing the time of dinner from 8 to 11 PM greatly reduces the possibility that the pair were murdering Meredith around midnight.

 

[Cappuccino]

I'm sure the reports written by the judge are a wealth of information and a delight to behold. They will not, however, tell me what evidence YOU saw that convinced you of the rightness of the court's decision.

Only you, Otto, can enlighten us there. When you reviewed the evidence on which the court based its decision, (which I'm sure you must have done before you publically declared that you accepted their decision as fact), what was it that convinced you?

 

[otto]

Hmmm. Websleuths is made up of many armchair sleuths who have done many good things for crime and missing persons. You should be more careful about insulting the people who make up this community.

Do you have specific reasons to believe more than one person committed this crime or do you simply accept what one court (with no defense evidence for whom you are accusing) deemed? What about the fact that another court ruled completely differently?

The specific reason that we know that Guede did not act alone is that it is the conclusion of the highest court in Italy. I'm not sure how to state that any clearer.

I realize that there are people that choose to not respect the justice system, but I don't have that issue. Perhaps we need a separate thread to discuss justice system conspiracy theories.

 

[Cappuccino]

I realize that some people have difficulties respecting the justice system. Perhaps we need a separate thread to discuss justice system conspiracy theories.

I don't have any difficulty respecting the justice system. All I'm asking you for is the evidence on which that particular court based its decision. You seem unable to respond with anything other than insults or repetition, which is a bit strange because you declared very definitely that you accepted that court's decision as fact.

Let me rephrase the question in a way that might be easier for you to understand - what piece or pieces of evidence convinced you that the Supreme Court's decision was correct?

 

[Footwarrior]

I realize that some people have difficulties respecting the justice system. Perhaps we need a separate thread to discuss justice system conspiracy theories.

:waitasec:

There are people who believe the Pope is infallible, but I am unaware of any theological bases for believing that the Italian judicial system is infallible.

From a logical standpoint, we know that the Italian judicial system is composed of humans. We know that humans are falible, so it stands to reason that the Italian courts can make mistakes. And there is plenty of evidence that the original court made serious errors in judging this case.

Also, anyone who has ever taken a coure on formal logic should understand that logic and evidence stand or fail on their own. The credentials of the authority presenting the argument has no bearing on it's validity.

 

[otto]

I don't have any difficulty respecting the justice system. All I'm asking you for is the evidence on which that particular court based its decision. You seem unable to respond with anything other than insults or repetition, which is a bit strange because you declared very definitely that you accepted that court's decision as fact.

Let me rephrase the question in a way that might be easier for you to understand - what piece or pieces of evidence convinced you that the Supreme Court's decision was correct?

I am so confused. Let's step back for a minute. There was a comment suggesting that Rudy Guede acted alone. I refuted this by referencing the conclusions of the highest court in Italy. From there ... I'm lost ... don't understand the problem.

It seems that I'm being asked to rehash the entire case, referencing all the arguments that the judge presented in the report that justified his conclusions ... but that seems a bit ridiculous. I don't have time to summarize the hundreds of pages of the judge's report. If the request is that I start debating the hammer toe and the bloody footprint on the bath matt, that's not going to happen ... although I invite you to review the last 5 years of discussion regarding these topics ... my thoughts on the evidence have already been posted.

What convinces me that the conclusions are correct is the obvious answer: clearly these experts know what they are doing and did a good job.

 

[otto]

:waitasec:

There are people who believe the Pope is infallible, but I am unaware of any theological bases for believing that the Italian judicial system is infallible.

From a logical standpoint, we know that the Italian judicial system is composed of humans. We know that humans are falible, so it stands to reason that the Italian courts can make mistakes. And there is plenty of evidence that the original court made serious errors in judging this case.

Also, anyone who has ever taken a coure on formal logic should understand that logic and evidence stand or fail on their own. The credentials of the authority presenting the argument has no bearing on it's validity.

Let's look at this in a different context. If the US supreme court makes a ruling, is it normal to assume that there is no justifiable reason to trust that ruling?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Perhaps you don't want to believe it, but they ate dinner, then they washed up the dishes, then they had the water leak and then Dr Sollecito phoned ... but that it how the facts add up.

Changing the time of dinner from 8 to 11 PM greatly reduces the possibility that the pair were murdering Meredith around midnight.

The only evidence you have is that Raffaele had washed dishes and noted the leaky pipe when his father called. That is consistent with, but does not demand that they have dinner earlier. Raffaele might have been cleaning dishes as a prelude starting dinner. The rest of your comment simply does not make any sense. If my alibi is that I was home all evening, it matters not a bit whether I ate at 8, smoked a joint at 9, listened to a CD at 10, and made love at 11, or listened to a CD at 8, made love at 9, smoked a joint at 10, and ate at 11 (or any other order). You have not even tried to argue against this point, let alone argued against it successfully.

It is surprising that people still believe that Meredith was murdered around midnight. 1. Hellmann (correctly, in my view) interpreted the activity on Meredith's cell phone to indicate that the cell phones were in the killer's hand no later than a little after 10. 2. Meredith's last meal happened around 6, and yet her duodenum was empty. That is extremely unlikely when a normal adult consumes a small meal. Both arguments 1 and 2 would have to be wrong for the TOD to be midnight. If the odds of the first argument being wrong are 2% and the odds of the second statement being wrong are 1%, then the odds of both being wrong would be 0.02%.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:waitasec:

There are people who believe the Pope is infallible, but I am unaware of any theological bases for believing that the Italian judicial system is infallible.

From a logical standpoint, we know that the Italian judicial system is composed of humans. We know that humans are falible, so it stands to reason that the Italian courts can make mistakes. And there is plenty of evidence that the original court made serious errors in judging this case.

Also, anyone who has ever taken a coure on formal logic should understand that logic and evidence stand or fail on their own. The credentials of the authority presenting the argument has no bearing on it's validity.

BBM: The original court -- the Trial Court in Italy -- got it right the first time ...

The Jury was NOT rushed and it was reported that they carefully reviewed ALL the evidence and took their jobs seriously ...

Jury requirements in Italy require Jurors to have certain education requirements ... so this Jury was NOT a "Pinellas 12 Jury" ...

Besides, one of their own was on trial : Rafaelle Sollecito ... and NO doubt they carefully considered this ...

:moo:

 

[otto]

The only evidence you have is that Raffaele had washed dishes and noted the leaky pipe when his father called. That is consistent with, but does not demand that they have dinner earlier. Raffaele might have been cleaning dishes as a prelude starting dinner. The rest of your comment simply does not make any sense. If my alibi is that I was home all evening, it matters not a bit whether I ate at 8, smoked a joint at 9, listened to a CD at 10, and made love at 11, or listened to a CD at 8, made love at 9, smoked a joint at 10, and ate at 11 (or any other order). You have not even tried to argue against this point, let alone argued against it successfully.

It is surprising that people still believe that Meredith was murdered around midnight. 1. Hellmann (correctly, in my view) interpreted the activity on Meredith's cell phone to indicate that the cell phones were in the killer's hand no later than a little after 10. 2. Meredith's last meal happened around 6, and yet her duodenum was empty. That is extremely unlikely when a normal adult consumes a small meal. Both arguments 1 and 2 would have to be wrong for the TOD to be midnight. If the odds of the first argument being wrong are 2% and the odds of the second statement being wrong are 1%, then the odds of both being wrong would be 0.02%.

I'm pretty sure that if you take the time to research it, you'll discover that they ate their fish dinner prior to washing the dinner dishes ... then the leak, then the phone call at about 8:30. All this is relevant in terms of demonstrating that one of the reasons Knox was in hot water with police is because she lied about the time that they ate dinner. That point is also noted in the reports ... that Knox changed the time of dinner ... giving conflicting times.

Meredith was murdered prior to her phone being tossed, which was shortly after midnight. Therefore, she was murdered prior to midnight. Whether that happened at 9:30 or midnight makes no difference in terms of the false alibi that Knox provided when she stated that she was eating dinner at Sollecito's apartment at 11 PM.

 

[otto]

The only evidence you have is that Raffaele had washed dishes and noted the leaky pipe when his father called. That is consistent with, but does not demand that they have dinner earlier. Raffaele might have been cleaning dishes as a prelude starting dinner. The rest of your comment simply does not make any sense. If my alibi is that I was home all evening, it matters not a bit whether I ate at 8, smoked a joint at 9, listened to a CD at 10, and made love at 11, or listened to a CD at 8, made love at 9, smoked a joint at 10, and ate at 11 (or any other order). You have not even tried to argue against this point, let alone argued against it successfully.

It is surprising that people still believe that Meredith was murdered around midnight. 1. Hellmann (correctly, in my view) interpreted the activity on Meredith's cell phone to indicate that the cell phones were in the killer's hand no later than a little after 10. 2. Meredith's last meal happened around 6, and yet her duodenum was empty. That is extremely unlikely when a normal adult consumes a small meal. Both arguments 1 and 2 would have to be wrong for the TOD to be midnight. If the odds of the first argument being wrong are 2% and the odds of the second statement being wrong are 1%, then the odds of both being wrong would be 0.02%.

I think it's important to keep the facts in mind, and to not assume that no one else is familiar with the case ... many people have followed the case for a long time and are intimately familiar with the details ... even the detail about them eating dinner, then the water leak, then the phone call.

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