Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.

acbytesla

Penultimate Amazing
acbytesla
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
38,134
Once again, the thread has grown lengthy, so this is a continuation from the previous thread, Continuation 13.
For further reference, see: Part 12, Part 11, Part 10, Part 9, Part 8, Part 7, Part 6, Part 5, Part 4, Part 3, Part 2, and Part 1.
Posted By: Agatha


ericparoissien said:
I didn't dream your DNA mix-up, y'all mixed up smear (which is chaos) with contamination (which is a rare constructed occurrence).
If Peter Gill lectures all the DNA specialists that came before him on Meredith's case like they're 6 year olds who don't know:
1-What a DNA trace is and how to interpret it as signal/noise
2-How a judge can use a DNA expert and build his case
Then no one should be embarrassed pointing at Peter Gill's simple mistake:
We don't live through our day leaving a trail of DNA.
DNA is produced on impact. Namely all denaturation processes: heat, friction, stress, acid, etc.
RS came in significant collision with Meredith's bra.
Please give it some consideration, Peter Gill is mistaken.
Click to expand...

You act as if you know what you are talking about. But in truth, it is the epitome of absurd arrogance and foolish behavior. Dr. Gill is a DNA expert of the highest standards. And your own expertise in DNA science is non existent. Yet you dismiss and denigrate Dr.Gill. I don't understand that. Consider the following advice "best to keep silent and have people believe you to be a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dougm said:
Again you are either completely misinformed, or are choosing to lie to make Amanda Knox look bad. Anyone that knows anything about this knows that her costume for Halloween after her release was not a cat "burglar", but rather a local Seattle soccer player.

You are so biased against her that your mind just jumps to the worst possible explanation for everything.
Click to expand...

I think it might be a good idea to keep a list on the lies Machiavelli says on this forum for two reasons. Firstly, it shows Machiavelli to be a hypocrite to constantly accuse Amanda of lying whe he constantly lies himself. Secondly, it shows there was no case or evidence against Amanda and Raffaele if Machiavelli and other PGP can not argue their case without resorting to lying.
 
ericparoissien said:
I didn't dream your DNA mix-up, y'all mixed up smear (which is chaos) with contamination (which is a rare constructed occurrence).
If Peter Gill lectures all the DNA specialists that came before him on Meredith's case like they're 6 year olds who don't know:
1-What a DNA trace is and how to interpret it as signal/noise
2-How a judge can use a DNA expert and build his case
Then no one should be embarrassed pointing at Peter Gill's simple mistake:
We don't live through our day leaving a trail of DNA.
DNA is produced on impact. Namely all denaturation processes: heat, friction, stress, acid, etc.
RS came in significant collision with Meredith's bra.
Please give it some consideration, Peter Gill is mistaken.
Click to expand...

I think you have your own unique terminology that is hard for others to comprehend. Smear is not an often used term in DNA, it might help if you defined your terms.

I do not mean to be condescending, but it may be worth considering the history of forensic DNA. Originally the DNA was testing a known sample with intrinsic meaning. So you have a rape murder, a semen sample is found. There is not much doubt about what the donor of that semen was doing, nor when. The semen is typed then it can be compared to suspects. To begin with one needed around 2 square cm of blood stain to extract a DNA profile. Contamination was less of an issue because so much DNA was needed to type and the source of the DNA was overt. As extraction methods improved, and sensitivity of typing methods improved the DNA became divorced from its source. This is what is termed trace DNA. DNA with no clear origin. One cannot tell if the DNA originated from snot, pee, tears, blood.

So you have low transcript number DNA a few cells worth. Perhaps you find the DNA in a bomb. The prosecution argue that the DNA must have originated from the bomb maker. But the courts ruled that DNA typing of this type was qualitatively different from e.g. the DNA typing of a blood stain. Strenuous precautions needed to be taken to ensure that the sole source of the DNA was the thing being tested. This issue was recognised from the very first time LCN DNA trace typing was presented as evidence in court.

There are no distinguishing features of DNA trace that determines whether it was deposited by primary, secondary or tertiary plus transfer. It has been shown that if say person A shakes hands with person B, then person B handles e.g. a glass more DNA of person A can be deposited than of person B who actually handles the glass. What a few years ago was undetectable or a partial match could be retested now and give a full profile. Guilty people can deposit partial profiles and innocent people full profiles.

An honest statement about the DNA on the bra hook (assuming that the DNA was there in the first place and it was not in laboratory contamination) is
1) It is not known when it was deposited. A reasonable time frame is between the last wash (and there is some evidence for DNA transfer during washing of clothes), and the bra hook collection.
2) It is not known the source of the DNA. It might be from a sneeze or sweat or skin cells.
3) It is not known whether the DNA was deposited by direct contact with Sollecito, or indirect - secondary or greater transfer.

The prosecution need to make a case that the DNA transfer occurred during the crime. The defence need to argue the converse. It is not reasonable for the prosecution to be given a pass on this, but the defence be made to prove a route of transfer.
 
kwill said:
Machiavelli said:
For example Knox sobbing on Halloween night because Meredith didn't answer her messages.
Click to expand...

Kauffer said:
Hey! Where's the citation? Nobody can find it. Where did you get this idea from?
Click to expand...

I hope we get something on this very important piece of evidence soon. It's going to be a game-changer for sure.
Click to expand...

Of note, even if it were true, my answer would be so what?
 
Sonia said:
Not to mention the sobbing reference does not seem to exist. I've flipped through all the pages about Halloween in my Kindle copy of Burleigh's book, and there's nothing about Amanda doing any such thing.

A mistake on Machiavelli's part, or is it part of his being completely misinformed?
Click to expand...

Or is it making up the "evidence".
 
kwill said:
I hope we get something on this very important piece of evidence soon. It's going to be a game-changer for sure.
Click to expand...

From small acorns do mighty oaks grow.

The misinformation these people peddle is treated as gospel by some. Best dig out the acorns when they start to come up.
 
Machiavelli said:
For example Knox sobbing on Halloween night because Meredith didn't answer her messages.
Click to expand...
Kauffer said:
Hey! Where's the citation? Nobody can find it. Where did you get this idea from?
Click to expand...

kwill said:
I hope we get something on this very important piece of evidence soon. It's going to be a game-changer for sure.
Click to expand...

Mach actually cited a specific page in Burleigh's book, but so far, no one can find the quote.

Maybe it was removed with the same magic soap that Amanda and Raffaele used to clean up their DNA from the murder room. :D
 
The recent post about Dershowitz offering an opinion, I'm pretty sure that's an old quote from after the last convictions in Jan 2014.

I think Dersh has kept out of the media, after his initial tantrum. Seems like poetic justice, even if its lousy that anyone is smeared just by the fact that an allegation is made in public.

But he certainly does look like a creepy sex offender, its that look in his eyes. Ok, just saying, how does it feel professor?

btw, does anyone know if the persona of "the professor" that Rudy Guede would sometimes take on in a fugue state, by any chance might Rudy have been channeling the Dersh?
 
Planigale said:
I think you have your own unique terminology that is hard for others to comprehend. Smear is not an often used term in DNA, it might help if you defined your terms.

I do not mean to be condescending, but it may be worth considering the history of forensic DNA. Originally the DNA was testing a known sample with intrinsic meaning. So you have a rape murder, a semen sample is found. There is not much doubt about what the donor of that semen was doing, nor when. The semen is typed then it can be compared to suspects. To begin with one needed around 2 square cm of blood stain to extract a DNA profile. Contamination was less of an issue because so much DNA was needed to type and the source of the DNA was overt. As extraction methods improved, and sensitivity of typing methods improved the DNA became divorced from its source. This is what is termed trace DNA. DNA with no clear origin. One cannot tell if the DNA originated from snot, pee, tears, blood.

So you have low transcript number DNA a few cells worth. Perhaps you find the DNA in a bomb. The prosecution argue that the DNA must have originated from the bomb maker. But the courts ruled that DNA typing of this type was qualitatively different from e.g. the DNA typing of a blood stain. Strenuous precautions needed to be taken to ensure that the sole source of the DNA was the thing being tested. This issue was recognised from the very first time LCN DNA trace typing was presented as evidence in court.

There are no distinguishing features of DNA trace that determines whether it was deposited by primary, secondary or tertiary plus transfer. It has been shown that if say person A shakes hands with person B, then person B handles e.g. a glass more DNA of person A can be deposited than of person B who actually handles the glass. What a few years ago was undetectable or a partial match could be retested now and give a full profile. Guilty people can deposit partial profiles and innocent people full profiles.

An honest statement about the DNA on the bra hook (assuming that the DNA was there in the first place and it was not in laboratory contamination) is
1) It is not known when it was deposited. A reasonable time frame is between the last wash (and there is some evidence for DNA transfer during washing of clothes), and the bra hook collection.
2) It is not known the source of the DNA. It might be from a sneeze or sweat or skin cells.
3) It is not known whether the DNA was deposited by direct contact with Sollecito, or indirect - secondary or greater transfer.

The prosecution need to make a case that the DNA transfer occurred during the crime. The defence need to argue the converse. It is not reasonable for the prosecution to be given a pass on this, but the defence be made to prove a route of transfer.
Click to expand...


Exactly so. It's absolutely critical to understand that all DNA evidence is not the same. And the great paradox about advances in DNA typing is that as it becomes technically possible to identify profiles from lower and lower quantities of DNA, so the risk of contamination (not to mention drop-ins/out or other noise-related artifacts) increases exponentially in proportion.

As you point out so well, DNA typing works fantastically well when investigators have a truly abundant source of DNA to work from, and as you also say, pretty much all the most important DNA-related criminal cases involved semen (which, as you point out, is very compelling evidence in a rape or sex murder). But it's critical that courts understand (and are instructed appropriately) that where tiny low-template quantities of touch DNA are concerned, all sorts of massive issues around contamination and probative value become hugely prominent.

Frankly, it's appalling in this particular case that the DNA "evidence" has been allowed to assume the weight that it has done. The quantities involved should have raised a big red flag to start with, but under ideal collection/testing circumstances it is still possible that they might have had probative value. However, the fact that multiple grotesque errors and act of incompetence were involved right throughout the identification, collection, transportation, storage and testing of these items leads to a single, inexorable, unequivocal conclusion: all the DNA evidence in this case should have been thrown out by the courts as worthless and inadmissible.
 
LondonJohn said:
Frankly, it's appalling in this particular case that the DNA "evidence" has been allowed to assume the weight that it has done. The quantities involved should have raised a big red flag to start with, but under ideal collection/testing circumstances it is still possible that they might have had probative value. However, the fact that multiple grotesque errors and act of incompetence were involved right throughout the identification, collection, transportation, storage and testing of these items leads to a single, inexorable, unequivocal conclusion: all the DNA evidence in this case should have been thrown out by the courts as worthless and inadmissible.
Click to expand...

Thank you for reminding us all. The DNA evidence in this case would have not even been admissible as evidence of anything in most advance countries. I had thought Italy was one of those countries, before learning otherwise from this case.
 
Planigale said:
I think you have your own unique terminology that is hard for others to comprehend. Smear is not an often used term in DNA, it might help if you defined your terms.

I do not mean to be condescending, but it may be worth considering the history of forensic DNA. Originally the DNA was testing a known sample with intrinsic meaning. So you have a rape murder, a semen sample is found. There is not much doubt about what the donor of that semen was doing, nor when. The semen is typed then it can be compared to suspects. To begin with one needed around 2 square cm of blood stain to extract a DNA profile. Contamination was less of an issue because so much DNA was needed to type and the source of the DNA was overt. As extraction methods improved, and sensitivity of typing methods improved the DNA became divorced from its source. This is what is termed trace DNA. DNA with no clear origin. One cannot tell if the DNA originated from snot, pee, tears, blood.

So you have low transcript number DNA a few cells worth. Perhaps you find the DNA in a bomb. The prosecution argue that the DNA must have originated from the bomb maker. But the courts ruled that DNA typing of this type was qualitatively different from e.g. the DNA typing of a blood stain. Strenuous precautions needed to be taken to ensure that the sole source of the DNA was the thing being tested. This issue was recognised from the very first time LCN DNA trace typing was presented as evidence in court.

There are no distinguishing features of DNA trace that determines whether it was deposited by primary, secondary or tertiary plus transfer. It has been shown that if say person A shakes hands with person B, then person B handles e.g. a glass more DNA of person A can be deposited than of person B who actually handles the glass. What a few years ago was undetectable or a partial match could be retested now and give a full profile. Guilty people can deposit partial profiles and innocent people full profiles.

An honest statement about the DNA on the bra hook (assuming that the DNA was there in the first place and it was not in laboratory contamination) is
1) It is not known when it was deposited. A reasonable time frame is between the last wash (and there is some evidence for DNA transfer during washing of clothes), and the bra hook collection.
2) It is not known the source of the DNA. It might be from a sneeze or sweat or skin cells.
3) It is not known whether the DNA was deposited by direct contact with Sollecito, or indirect - secondary or greater transfer.

The prosecution need to make a case that the DNA transfer occurred during the crime. The defence need to argue the converse. It is not reasonable for the prosecution to be given a pass on this, but the defence be made to prove a route of transfer.
Click to expand...
I don't have the graphs in front of me at the moment, but IIRC, the peaks from the bra clasp results for Raffaele were perhaps 20-30% that of Meredith and were not consistent with one would expect if Raffaele had directly deposited his DNA on the clasp during the commission of the crime. I don't recall the prosecution ever being asked to explain that. They certainly used the strength of the peaks to dismiss all other 'minor male contributors', but apparently there is no concern with Raffaele's direct contact DNA being so weak as compared to Meredith's.
 
Dougm said:
Mach actually cited a specific page in Burleigh's book, but so far, no one can find the quote.
Click to expand...

The most generous way to look at that is that Mach is mistaken. He thought it was in Burleigh's book, but he actually heard it somewhere else. I really hope he figures out where, because even though it's completely irrelevant it seems to be one of the pegs upon which hangs the idea that Amanda Knox was really crazy enough to murder her friend for not liking her enough.

You know, like the testimony of the English women who didn't like Amanda. Their catty reports are also supposed to be evidence that Amanda resented Meredith (which she didn't).
 
I hope the guilters have read the transcripts of Amanda's bugged telephone conversations after the murder. I have, and have my opinions. What are yours, Eric, Machiavelli, Vibio, platonov? Have I missed anybody?
 
An excerpt from the US Supreme Court judgment opinion of Reid v Covert:

{From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1}

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . ."

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. 32 In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. 33 For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 , it declared:
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I hope the guilters have read the transcripts of Amanda's bugged telephone conversations after the murder. I have, and have my opinions. What are yours, Eric, Machiavelli, Vibio, platonov? Have I missed anybody?
Click to expand...

Is there a link somewhere?
 
Numbers said:
An excerpt from the US Supreme Court judgment opinion of Reid v Covert:

{From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1}

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . ."

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. 32 In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.:
Click to expand...

Reid v Covert actually originated in the Uk so even I am slightly familiar with this very well known US case. Perhaps someone who knows about constitutional law can explain how and when 5th and 6th amendment arguments might come into play during an extradition process.
 
Pretzel logic from Nencini

TruthCalls said:
I don't have the graphs in front of me at the moment, but IIRC, the peaks from the bra clasp results for Raffaele were perhaps 20-30% that of Meredith and were not consistent with one would expect if Raffaele had directly deposited his DNA on the clasp during the commission of the crime. I don't recall the prosecution ever being asked to explain that. They certainly used the strength of the peaks to dismiss all other 'minor male contributors', but apparently there is no concern with Raffaele's direct contact DNA being so weak as compared to Meredith's.
Click to expand...
truthcalls,

I am very hesitant to draw the inference that you are drawing with respect to primary transfer. However, PG commenters who stress that Raffaele's putative profile is more abundant than the additional contributors usually fail to interpret the fact that his profile is between 1/6 and 1/10 the amount of Meredith's profile, a fact which is problematic for their argument. In other words, there is a lack of consistency to their thinking. I am completely in agreement with the notion that these other contributors have to be explained. Novelli saw the additional YSTR alleles, as well as everyone who has examined the electropherogram. Even Nencini knows that they are present, even if he tied himself into a pretzel to explain them.
 
Kauffer said:
Reid v Covert actually originated in the Uk so even I am slightly familiar with this very well known US case. Perhaps someone who knows about constitutional law can explain how and when 5th and 6th amendment arguments might come into play during an extradition process.
Click to expand...

5th - Double jeopardy
6th - Right to challenge accusers
 
Chris_Halkides said:
truthcalls,

I am very hesitant to draw the inference that you are drawing with respect to primary transfer. However, PG commenters who stress that Raffaele's putative profile is more abundant than the additional contributors usually fail to interpret the fact that his profile is between 1/6 and 1/10 the amount of Meredith's profile, a fact which is problematic for their argument. In other words, there is a lack of consistency to their thinking. I am completely in agreement with the notion that these other contributors have to be explained. Novelli saw the additional YSTR alleles, as well as everyone who has examined the electropherogram. Even Nencini knows that they are present, even if he tied himself into a pretzel to explain them.
Click to expand...
Thanks Chris. I didn't mean to imply there is a certain RFU one should expect to find from a direct contact transfer as there are far to many variables. However, assuming both their DNA traces are a result of fingers touching the clasp, and all things being equal, I would think it unlikely that Raffaele could have touched the clasp directly and left behind DNA that was nonetheless 10-16% percent that of what Meredith left behind. It just seems the discrepancy between the two is too great to be rationally explained in any other way than Raffaele's DNA was not a result of direct contact.
 
kwill said:
The most generous way to look at that is that Mach is mistaken. He thought it was in Burleigh's book, but he actually heard it somewhere else. I really hope he figures out where, because even though it's completely irrelevant it seems to be one of the pegs upon which hangs the idea that Amanda Knox was really crazy enough to murder her friend for not liking her enough.

You know, like the testimony of the English women who didn't like Amanda. Their catty reports are also supposed to be evidence that Amanda resented Meredith (which she didn't).
Click to expand...

Well in fact even Knox herself hints to the episode in her book, even if she paints her loneliness in soft distant colours ("social scene not for me", "nostalgy of friends") and pulls a curtain on details:

WTBH said:
(...) Patrick poured me a glass of wine, and I hung out on the edge of the crowd for a while. But, for some reason, I was feeling a bit flat. I caught Patrick's eye and mouthed, "I'm leaving", waving goodbye. He gave me a nod, and I was out the door.
Around 12:30 A.M., when I met Spyros and his friends for drinks, I couldn't get into the good time they were having. Even on a blowout party night, Perugia's social scene didn't do much for me, and the whole evening felt like a dud. It made me nostalgic for the sit-around-and-talk gatherings of friends at UW. I was glad when Raffaele came to Piazza IV Novembre to walk me home. By that time it was 1:45 A.M., and most of my eyeliner whiskers had rubbed off. Thankfully, Halloween 2007 was over.
Click to expand...

This "thankfully" the party was over is something you can't miss.
And you can guess why she doesn't have eyeliners anymore.
She calls Raffaele at 1am and she is glad Raffaele walks her home - she has no girl friend who does - she is glad, despite they had not been eager to spend the evening together. She was not so glad to spend the evening with him and apparently he too - so he says - preferred to remain closed at home rather than go out to party with Amanda on Halloween night.
Even from their own book, you bet she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
This is what Sollecito wrote about that night:

October 31 was the first day since our meeting that Amanda and I spent almost completely apart. In the morning I was invited to a friend’s graduation ceremony, and I went to another friend’s house for much of the afternoon. Amanda had class, then focused on her plans for Halloween, a big deal for Perugia’s foreign students, though it meant nothing to us Italians. She and I did not meet up until late afternoon, at which point she drew cat whiskers on her face in makeup and, knowing my passion for Japanese comics, scrawled an abstract design on me. I didn’t feel like going out, so I worked on my thesis while Amanda walked over to Le Chic to meet up with some of her friends there. She had hoped to spend the evening with Meredith, but Meredith’s British girlfriends didn’t like her - they found her too unrestrained in the way she acted and talked and burst into song whenever she felt like it - and Meredith never responded to her text suggesting they meet.
Click to expand...

Even Sollecito notes that she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
The fact that even he knows Meredith didn't respond to her sms, it suggests that this must not have been a completely unimportant detail, must have had a consequence of some kind, some emotional importance.
Sollecito even adds that it was not a chance, it was not Amanda and it was not a forgetting on the part of Meredith, it was in fact that "Meredith's friends didn't like her".

Here it says really almost everything you need to know. Obviously Sollecito pins it on "her friends", it's they who appeared to dislike her, not Meredith. Such distinction is obviously pulling a compassionate curtain. The reader can well understand his distinction between Meredith and her friends makes no sense, Sollecito didn't know any of those girls and couldn't have a clue about what they actually thought, how could guess who didn't like who? He is making up this picture because it's the only thing he can say in order to keep Meredith out. The pro-Knox crowd will maintain that "didn't like" doesn't go for Meredith, she and her friends were separete entities with different views, that they only thought Amanda was a little "unrestrained" and that Amanda was only a bit nostalgic, but the public reading is not made of Kwills, the dynamic of a rejection of Amanda's feelings are clear, even just from these rather omissive accounts.
 
Kauffer said:
Reid v Covert actually originated in the Uk so even I am slightly familiar with this very well known US case. Perhaps someone who knows about constitutional law can explain how and when 5th and 6th amendment arguments might come into play during an extradition process.
Click to expand...

I think the general idea is the the government cannot enter into a treaty that would have the effect of excusing the government of its obligations under the bill of rights. Thus, for example, the government cannot enter into an agreement under which the government undertakes to snatch innocent citizens off the street and deliver them to a foreign power. There has to be some due process involved before the government can lay hands on.somebody, even if just to deliver the person to a third party, because due process is required under the 5th amendment.

What due process is required when somebody has been convicted in a foreign court does not seem to have been seriously tested. It might be necessary to allow a person to show actual innocence and/or alibi. Whether the person can show that they were railroaded and/or their human rights were violated is another interesting issue.

ETA: these arguments probably get raised and decided at the habeas corpus stage. I think that the double jeopardy issue, together with arguments about the use of in admissible evidence, probably get mixed in with some kind of human rights argument.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I hope the guilters have read the transcripts of Amanda's bugged telephone conversations after the murder. I have, and have my opinions. What are yours, Eric, Machiavelli, Vibio, platonov? Have I missed anybody?
Click to expand...

One thing I can notice is a glaring mistranslation: Guede doesn't say "Amanda wasn't there", he says "Amanda was not involved".

His words are:

"non c'entra" = she was not involved

Not to be confused with the Italian phrase "non c'era" which he does NOT say; that would be the sentence that means "she was not there", but he does not say that.

EDIT: I correct myself: Rudy also writes once (twisted grammar) "e lei non cera". So yes he does say once "was not there".
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Well in fact even Knox herself hints to the episode in her book, even if she paints her loneliness in soft distant colours ("social scene not for me", "nostalgy of friends") and pulls a curtain on details:



This "thankfully" the party was over is something you can't miss.
And you can guess why she doesn't have eyeliners anymore.
She calls Raffaele at 1am and she is glad Raffaele walks her home - she has no girl friend who does - she is glad, despite they had not been eager to spend the evening together. She was not so glad to spend the evening with him and apparently he too - so he says - preferred to remain closed at home rather than go out to party with Amanda on Halloween night.
Even from their own book, you bet she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
This is what Sollecito wrote about that night:



Even Sollecito notes that she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
The fact that even he knows Meredith didn't respond to her sms, it suggests that this must not have been a completely unimportant detail, must have had a consequence of some kind, some emotional importance.
Sollecito even adds that it was not a chance, it was not Amanda and it was not a forgetting on the part of Meredith, it was in fact that "Meredith's friends didn't like her".

Here it says really almost everything you need to know. Obviously Sollecito pins it on "her friends", it's they who appeared to dislike her, not Meredith. Such distinction is obviously pulling a compassionate curtain. The reader can well understand his distinction between Meredith and her friends makes no sense, Sollecito didn't know any of those girls and couldn't have a clue about what they actually thought, how could guess who didn't like who? He is making up this picture because it's the only thing he can say in order to keep Meredith out. The pro-Knox crowd will maintain that "didn't like" doesn't go for Meredith, she and her friends were separete entities with different views, that they only thought Amanda was a little "unrestrained" and that Amanda was only a bit nostalgic, but the public reading is not made of Kwills, the dynamic of a rejection of Amanda's feelings are clear, even just from these rather omissive accounts.
Click to expand...


And this is your argument supporting your earlier contention that Ms Knox was sobbing over a snub by Ms Kercher?? You have produced no citation for thus whatsoever. What you cite has nothing to do with your claim. The rubbing off of eyeliner whiskers (not eyeliner) is not even slightly linked to a sobbing event. You do not understand what she wrote.

I'd drop this in a hurry if I were you. It's very silly indeed.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
One thing I can notice is a glaring mistranslation: Guede doesn't say "Amanda wasn't there", he says "Amanda was not involved".

His words are:

"non c'entra" = she was not involved

Not to be confused with the Italian phrase "non c'era" which he does NOT say; that would be the sentence that means "she was not there", but he does not say that.

EDIT: I correct myself: Rudy also writes once (twisted grammar) "e lei non cera". So yes he does say once "was not there".
Click to expand...

Thank you for correcting yourself.
 
Kauffer said:
Reid v Covert actually originated in the Uk so even I am slightly familiar with this very well known US case. Perhaps someone who knows about constitutional law can explain how and when 5th and 6th amendment arguments might come into play during an extradition process.
Click to expand...

Because the US government cannot violate Amanda Knox's constitutional rights and it doesn't matter that the Senate ratified a treaty with Italy, that doesn't give Italy the right to do it either. I originally posted the case thinking in mind a quote from an Italian official who claimed something to the effect that because 'the American government' made a treaty that it then accepted Italy's system and must honor every result regardless of whether it would be considered a violation of her rights in the US. That's not true in case of Constitutional rights, the Senate doesn't have the power to do that, it is the exclusive domain of the US Supreme Court to make final rulings on Constitutional rights.

I attributed that quote to an article from Vogt, but come to think of it I believe it was at the end of that recent piece by Nina Burleigh instead. Note that I wasn't saying it was a slam dunk reason why she wouldn't be extradited, or that it couldn't be decided that double jeopardy doesn't apply, but what I'm saying is the argument that because the US Senate signed a treaty it couldn't be determined that Amanda Knox had faced double jeopardy won't fly, the US Senate doesn't have that power.

Every commentator I've seen that assumed the extradition of Amanda Knox will be a formality is operating under the assumption that there are no violations of Amanda Knox's rights by the Italian judiciary, no doubt completely unaware that the Italian judiciary regularly violates its own laws and is overruled (or whatever you want to call it) by the ECHR. As Numbers has posted, what the ISC did will likely be considered a violation of their own laws on double jeopardy as well, and is hardly the only violation they've made that would bar extradition.

Again note that I'm not saying that any case where Italy quashed an acquittal and re-convicted would be an automatic bar to extradition, but that it won't be Italy determining that and they don't get carte blanche to do whatever they like and expect the American government to hand someone over because there's a treaty.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Even Sollecito notes that she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
The fact that even he knows Meredith didn't respond to her sms, it suggests that this must not have been a completely unimportant detail, must have had a consequence of some kind, some emotional importance.
Sollecito even adds that it was not a chance, it was not Amanda and it was not a forgetting on the part of Meredith, it was in fact that "Meredith's friends didn't like her".
Click to expand...

So? You build cases on the flimsiest of factoid. This means absolutely nothing - or, absolutely what you are predispositioned to read into it.

I'm with Kauffer. I'd drop this is I were you.
 
Machiavelli said:
<snip>
Sollecito even adds that it was not a chance, it was not Amanda and it was not a forgetting on the part of Meredith, it was in fact that "Meredith's friends didn't like her".
<snip.
Click to expand...


Kinda odd that Meredith and 2 of her English girlfriends,
who did not like Amanda apparently,
sat at a table for 2 hours drinking wine.
On October 30, 2007, the day before Halloween.
At La Tana Dell'Orso.
With Raffaele too.


An interesting observation was from English woman Lucy Rigby,
who owned the restaurant with her husband Esteban:
Lucy, originally from Shrewsbury, England, remembered the customers because they made such a strange grouping: the "small, quiet American girl, drably dressed", accompanied by her much taller, plain-looking Italian boyfriend and the British girls in their pretty clothes, talking amongst themselves.

Lucy was surprised by the British girls aloofness.
"They could her my accent. They knew I was British. But they had no interest in me. After a while I didn't try to engage them."


Seems like the English girls did not like anyone except for their own little group...
 
Machiavelli said:
Well in fact even Knox herself hints to the episode in her book, even if she paints her loneliness in soft distant colours ("social scene not for me", "nostalgy of friends") and pulls a curtain on details:
Click to expand...

Amanda in WTBH
(...) Patrick poured me a glass of wine, and I hung out on the edge of the crowd for a while. But, for some reason, I was feeling a bit flat. I caught Patrick's eye and mouthed, "I'm leaving", waving goodbye. He gave me a nod, and I was out the door.

Around 12:30 A.M., when I met Spyros and his friends for drinks, I couldn't get into the good time they were having. Even on a blowout party night, Perugia's social scene didn't do much for me, and the whole evening felt like a dud. It made me nostalgic for the sit-around-and-talk gatherings of friends at UW. I was glad when Raffaele came to Piazza IV Novembre to walk me home. By that time it was 1:45 A.M., and most of my eyeliner whiskers had rubbed off. Thankfully, Halloween 2007 was over.


This "thankfully" the party was over is something you can't miss.
And you can guess why she doesn't have eyeliners anymore.
She calls Raffaele at 1am and she is glad Raffaele walks her home - she has no girl friend who does - she is glad, despite they had not been eager to spend the evening together. She was not so glad to spend the evening with him and apparently he too - so he says - preferred to remain closed at home rather than go out to party with Amanda on Halloween night.
Even from their own book, you bet she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. Where does it say that she wanted to be with Meredith?

Where does it say that she sobbed for two hours over being left out of the awesome group of English women? The one that stayed out drinking until 4 am?

Your problem is that you have a fantasy Amanda Knox who seems mostly unrelated to the person named Amanda Knox. When the person says something, you assign meaning wildly out of whack with reality.

ps . . . eyeliner usually rubs off after a few hours. They tell you that it won't, but it does. You don't need to sob for two hours, either. Did you find that quote somewhere?
 
Also, it's not her eyeliner that has rubbed off because she was crying, it's her whiskers that have rubbed off.

(Probably because she was snogging with every Tom, Dick & Harry she came across, the hussy!)
 
Machiavelli said:
This is what Sollecito wrote about that night:
Click to expand...

October 31 was the first day since our meeting that Amanda and I spent almost completely apart. In the morning I was invited to a friend’s graduation ceremony, and I went to another friend’s house for much of the afternoon. Amanda had class, then focused on her plans for Halloween, a big deal for Perugia’s foreign students, though it meant nothing to us Italians. She and I did not meet up until late afternoon, at which point she drew cat whiskers on her face in makeup and, knowing my passion for Japanese comics, scrawled an abstract design on me. I didn’t feel like going out, so I worked on my thesis while Amanda walked over to Le Chic to meet up with some of her friends there. She had hoped to spend the evening with Meredith, but Meredith’s British girlfriends didn’t like her - they found her too unrestrained in the way she acted and talked and burst into song whenever she felt like it - and Meredith never responded to her text suggesting they meet.

Even Sollecito notes that she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
The fact that even he knows Meredith didn't respond to her sms, it suggests that this must not have been a completely unimportant detail, must have had a consequence of some kind, some emotional importance.
Click to expand...

Yes? Was this the part where Amanda sobbed for two hours? I can't find that detail in Raffaele's language.

Sollecito even adds that it was not a chance, it was not Amanda and it was not a forgetting on the part of Meredith, it was in fact that "Meredith's friends didn't like her".
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, he wrote this after the trial. He'd heard their catty remarks about Amanda in the courtroom. He doesn't say he knew it at the time. It would be sort of odd if he had, given that he barely spoke English and they didn't speak Italian.

Here it says really almost everything you need to know. Obviously Sollecito pins it on "her friends", it's they who appeared to dislike her, not Meredith. Such distinction is obviously pulling a compassionate curtain. The reader can well understand his distinction between Meredith and her friends makes no sense, Sollecito didn't know any of those girls and couldn't have a clue about what they actually thought, how could guess who didn't like who? He is making up this picture because it's the only thing he can say in order to keep Meredith out. The pro-Knox crowd will maintain that "didn't like" doesn't go for Meredith, she and her friends were separete entities with different views, that they only thought Amanda was a little "unrestrained" and that Amanda was only a bit nostalgic, but the public reading is not made of Kwills, the dynamic of a rejection of Amanda's feelings are clear, even just from these rather omissive accounts.
Click to expand...

You're working way too hard here. The question we're trying to answer is this:

Do we have any evidence that Amanda Knox resented Meredith? You claimed earlier that Amanda spent hours "sobbing" over being rejected by Meredith. If this were true, it would at least mean that she was hurt. But the fact is that the best you can do is invent feelings for Amanda because her eyeliner was smeared.

There was no sobbing over this rejection. Come on, admit it. You have nothing whatsoever to show that Meredith herself didn't like Amanda, and nothing to show that Amanda didn't like Meredith. They were friends.
 
Kauffer said:
Reid v Covert actually originated in the Uk so even I am slightly familiar with this very well known US case. Perhaps someone who knows about constitutional law can explain how and when 5th and 6th amendment arguments might come into play during an extradition process.
Click to expand...

The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments should come into consideration immediately upon a receipt at State of any extradition request. The Secretary of State and all executive officers (and all Senators and Representatives) take an oath to support the Constitution (required by US Constitution, Article VI). The President takes an oath explicitly defined in Article II, Section 1, "to ... faithfully execute the office of President and ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
 
Machiavelli said:
Here it says really almost everything you need to know. Obviously Sollecito pins it on "her friends", it's they who appeared to dislike her, not Meredith. Such distinction is obviously pulling a compassionate curtain. The reader can well understand his distinction between Meredith and her friends makes no sense, Sollecito didn't know any of those girls and couldn't have a clue about what they actually thought, how could guess who didn't like who? He is making up this picture because it's the only thing he can say in order to keep Meredith out. The pro-Knox crowd will maintain that "didn't like" doesn't go for Meredith, she and her friends were separete entities with different views, that they only thought Amanda was a little "unrestrained" and that Amanda was only a bit nostalgic, but the public reading is not made of Kwills, the dynamic of a rejection of Amanda's feelings are clear, even just from these rather omissive accounts.
Click to expand...

This is nuts. Anyone that has ever been friends with different groups of people, especially when they are young, has experienced what was going on here. Meredith was friends with the British girls. She was also friends with Amanda. The British girls and Amanda did not act alike, and it seems clear, (from actual testimony) that the British girls did not understand Amanda, let's just say she was "not their cup of tea." So Meredith was starting to do some things with her girl friends, and some things with Amanda. Not so much together.

How often does this type of situation happen in people's lives? All the time.

How often does it lead to sexual assault. Almost never.

How often does it lead to murder? Almost never.

I've been in this situation many times in my life. In High School, I was often in the "Meredith" role -- I had a group of friends, who always wanted me to come out with them, but they didn't like to hang out with another guy, who I was also friends with. It would have been my preference to have everyone get along, but they didn't always, so I had to choose. There was nothing "wrong" with either the group or my other friend, they just didn't click together.

To extrapolate this into Amanda being angry to the point of committing a violent act on Meredith is completely crazy. It shows confirmation bias to the extreme.
 
Machiavelli said:
Well in fact even Knox herself hints to the episode in her book, even if she paints her loneliness in soft distant colours ("social scene not for me", "nostalgy of friends") and pulls a curtain on details:



This "thankfully" the party was over is something you can't miss.
And you can guess why she doesn't have eyeliners anymore. She calls Raffaele at 1am and she is glad Raffaele walks her home - she has no girl friend who does - she is glad, despite they had not been eager to spend the evening together. She was not so glad to spend the evening with him and apparently he too - so he says - preferred to remain closed at home rather than go out to party with Amanda on Halloween night.
Even from their own book, you bet she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
This is what Sollecito wrote about that night:



Even Sollecito notes that she wanted to spend the night with Meredith.
The fact that even he knows Meredith didn't respond to her sms, it suggests that this must not have been a completely unimportant detail, must have had a consequence of some kind, some emotional importance.
Sollecito even adds that it was not a chance, it was not Amanda and it was not a forgetting on the part of Meredith, it was in fact that "Meredith's friends didn't like her".

Here it says really almost everything you need to know. Obviously Sollecito pins it on "her friends", it's they who appeared to dislike her, not Meredith. Such distinction is obviously pulling a compassionate curtain. The reader can well understand his distinction between Meredith and her friends makes no sense, Sollecito didn't know any of those girls and couldn't have a clue about what they actually thought, how could guess who didn't like who? He is making up this picture because it's the only thing he can say in order to keep Meredith out. The pro-Knox crowd will maintain that "didn't like" doesn't go for Meredith, she and her friends were separete entities with different views, that they only thought Amanda was a little "unrestrained" and that Amanda was only a bit nostalgic, but the public reading is not made of Kwills, the dynamic of a rejection of Amanda's feelings are clear, even just from these rather omissive accounts.
Click to expand...


I think you have misread. The quote was about "eyeliner whiskers" and not about "eyeliner".

Or perhaps you were trying to suggest that she cried so much that the tears ran down toward her mouth which is where whiskers would be drawn on?

You mentioned at least a few times the sobbing event. It's not to be found in Burleigh's book. Is this an invention from desire on your part or did someone who would actually have knowledge make a comment to that effect?
 
kwill said:
...



You're working way too hard here. The question we're trying to answer is this:

Do we have any evidence that Amanda Knox resented Meredith? You claimed earlier that Amanda spent hours "sobbing" over being rejected by Meredith. If this were true, it would at least mean that she was hurt. But the fact is that the best you can do is invent feelings for Amanda because her eyeliner was smeared.
...
Click to expand...

It was her EYELINER WHISKERS that came off. If not from kissing and/or rubbing cheeks and/or eating, just because make-up tends to come off after some time.
 
Machiavelli said:
One thing I can notice is a glaring mistranslation: Guede doesn't say "Amanda wasn't there", he says "Amanda was not involved".

His words are:

"non c'entra" = she was not involved

Not to be confused with the Italian phrase "non c'era" which he does NOT say; that would be the sentence that means "she was not there", but he does not say that.

EDIT: I correct myself: Rudy also writes once (twisted grammar) "e lei non cera". So yes he does say once "was not there".
Click to expand...
In fact the reason Guede says either one or other is because he expects Amanda to be released from custody. If he says she was there he commits callunia as well as slaughter.
 
Diocletus said:
I think the general idea is the the government cannot enter into a treaty that would have the effect of excusing the government of its obligations under the bill of rights. Thus, for example, the government cannot enter into an agreement under which the government undertakes to snatch innocent citizens off the street and deliver them to a foreign power. There has to be some due process involved before the government can lay hands on.somebody, even if just to deliver the person to a third party, because due process is required under the 5th amendment.

What due process is required when somebody has been convicted in a foreign court does not seem to have been seriously tested. It might be necessary to allow a person to show actual innocence and/or alibi. Whether the person can show that they were railroaded and/or their human rights were violated is another interesting issue.

ETA: these arguments probably get raised and decided at the habeas corpus stage. I think that the double jeopardy issue, together with arguments about the use of in admissible evidence, probably get mixed in with some kind of human rights argument.
Click to expand...

I would think the US would allow the time for the ECHR to respond first on any charges in question. Surely, after 8yrs Italy's courts wouldnt be in a hurry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom