Friday, November 13, 2015

A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #4

Posted by James Raper



Image is of busy Rome at night

The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report

I continue critiquing the final 34 pages of the Motivation Report, the decisions and verdict parts.

The three previous posts can be read here and here and here. A full translation of the Marasca-Bruno Report can be read or downloaded here.

The Critique Part 4

The Simulated Break In

This is all too briefly treated by Marasca-Bruno (whom by now I am beginning to think of as Zaphod Beeblebrox from The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy) and by way of a sidetrack really.

They in fact affirm the circumstances of simulation without actually having the gumpf to explicitly say so.

They are more concerned to turn their attention to the inference that only a “qualified” person would have an interest in a simulation so as to remove suspicion from him/herself.

Marasca-Bruno are not interested in Guede.

They acknowledge that Knox and Sollecito are “qualified” persons…………

“Yet this element is also substantially equivocal, especially in the light of the fact that, when the postal police arrived it was….Sollecito - whose trial position is inextricably bound to Knox’s - who pointed out the anomaly to the police officers, that nothing had been stolen from Romanelli’s room.”

And that’s it? The smoking gun, the bull in the appellants’ china shop, brushed aside - because of an anomaly? Pathetic.

It was staged but sadly not staged to perfection, by way of something actually being stolen. A stager, knowing this, would not countenance revealing this information to the police, although it may have been an inadvertent slip due to Sollecito being an idiot.

An inadvertent slip aside, he would have no reason to mention that nothing had been stolen, unless he was as aware as others were that the staging had it’s flaws in other respects as well, in which case he could have thought that his comment had the appearance (Marasca and Bruno fall for it) of innocence.

And how did he know that nothing had been stolen - which only subsequently turned out to be true when Filomena checked the contents of her room-  unless he was involved in the staging?

Even if one accepts the anomaly and extremely dubious reasoning above, it only applies to Sollecito. There is nothing equivocal about the logical inference applying to Knox. That is so despite the illogical connection in asserting that their trial positions are inextricably linked.

Is Knox a ventriloquist and Sollecito her dummy?

Curatolo & Quintavalle

“Nevertheless, the presence of intrinsic contradiction and poor reliability of witnesses [ ed: ie the above named] do not allow unreserved credit to be attributed to (their) respective versions, to the extent of proving with reasonable certainty the failure, and therefore the falsity, of the accused’s alibi, who insisted she stayed in her boyfriend’s home from late afternoon on the 1st November until the following morning.”

Here Marasca-Bruno effectively reprise the reasoning of Hellmann.

Curatolo was a tramp, a drug addict and pusher, and a prosecution witness stooge. The same evening he had seen Knox and Sollecito together in Piazza Grimana (1st Nov) he had seen revellers wearing Halloween masks, and the special buses to take them to discos and nightclubs, referenced by the witness, were not running that night.

Marasca -Bruno overlook the improbability that Curatolo could have seen the two together on Halloween, given that it was established as a trial fact that on that evening Sollecito was attending a friend’s anniversary dinner outside Perugia, and Knox was meeting up with her friend Spiros.

Perugia is a student town. There are numerous discos and nightclubs catering to this market. The defence did produce nightclub owners testifying to their clubs not being open the day after Halloween, and shuttle bus operators testifying that they were not running special buses to them, though these witnesses did not exclude the possibility that other nightclubs had some, or that other buses could have been hired for a private party.

There were indeed still a good few discos and nightclubs open (these can be listed if required), with a normal bus service for Perugia as well. Guede, himself, was seen dancing at the Domus hours after the murder.

[ Halloween is a relatively new festivity in Italy. All Saints Day (Nov 1st) and All Souls Day (Nov 2nd ) are holidays in Italy.]

“This contradicts the balanced assessment - but always in a context of uncertainty and ambiguity - of the witness referring (regarding the context of when he saw the two accused together) to the day before he saw (in the afternoon) unusual movements of police and Carabinieri and, in particular, men wearing white overalls and headgear (they looked almost like aliens) enter the house on via della Pergola.”

As regards Quintavalle, Marasca-Bruno are brief and equally dismissive. This is all they have to say -

“Quintavalle - apart from the lateness of his statements, initially reticent and generic - offered no contribution to certainty, not even as to the product bought by the young woman he noted on the morning after the murder, when his shop opened. The fact he recognized Knox is worthless as her image had appeared in every newspaper and television news broadcast.”

There was no evidence that the young woman had bought, or had tried to buy, a product.

No, his identification testimony was not worthless on that account. If it was worthless for that reason then a lot of ID witness testimony would go by the board in today’s world of rapid 24 by 7 news coverage.

Quintavalle was able to describe the clothes that the young woman was wearing, which description, blue jeans, grey jacket and scarf, was a match for the articles of clothing that the crime scene investigators had photographed scattered on the top of Knox’s bed at the cottage and which had immediately became material evidence along with everything else.

Since Knox was wearing different clothes, including a long white skirt, when she and Sollecito were photographed outside of the cottage by the press, it is difficult to gauge how Quintavalle might have been influenced in his description.

Raffaele Sollecito At House

“In Sollecito’s case too the evidentiary frame work which emerges from the judgement under appeal is marked by inherent and irreducible contradiction…………………However, the strong suspicion remains that he was present in the house on via della Pergola on the night of the murder, albeit it has not been possible to determine when. On the other hand, if Knox’s presence in the home was certain, it would hardly be credible that he was not with her.”

And More On Other Matters

Marasca-Bruno return to the question of the knife again despite the fact that they have excluded it as having any “probative value or circumstantial relevance”.

This is an inconsistent element in their own reasoning, such as their reasoning is.

They remind us that no trace of blood was found on it, and assert that it was a questionable choice to go for a DNA test rather than establish the nature of the biological trace.

“An extremely questionable option, given that the finding of blood traces, coming from Kercher, would have given the trial an element of strong evidentiary value, showing for certain that the weapon had been used to commit the murder.”

One begins to wonder whether they are mentally fatigued at this point. But no, that can’t be it. They have had over 130 days to write 34 pages of reasons, and that wouldn‘t be particularly taxing, provided that there had been reasons for the verdict in the first place, and that they had remembered them.

They are waffling, padding and turning to risible argument. Particularly given that they should know exactly why Dr Stefanoni had only one sensible option available to her. They had even referred to this in the preceding paragraph.

Even if it had been blood in sample 36b then, without establishing whose blood it was, the knowledge that it was blood would be totally useless as a piece of evidence, as the blood could have come from anywhere, at anytime.

“What is certain is that no traces of blood were found on the knife. Lack of which cannot be traced to meticulous cleaning. As noted by the defence, the knife showed traces of starch, a sign of ordinary domestic use and of cleaning that was anything but meticulous. Not only this, but starch is famous as a substance with a high absorbance rate, thus it is highly likely that, in the event of a stabbing, it would have retained blood traces.”

As we come towards the end of their reasoning the dogmatic assertions start to pop up thick and fast out of nowhere.

Why can lack of blood traces not be connected to meticulous cleaning? Isn’t that, by definition, what meticulous cleaning does?  Was there any expert evidence to the contrary? How can Maresca and Bruno be so sure that their version of common sense is shared universally?

Yes, starch does absorb liquids. However, how do they know that the starch was there on the knife at the time of the murder? It is not improbable that having cleaned the knife it was used again for ordinary domestic use. The starch could also have got there as a consequence of the investigators handling it with latex gloves, which contain traces of starch, and this was pointed out at the Hellmann appeal.

“Finally, the footprints found at the murder scene can in no way be traced to the appellant.”

Another dogmatic assertion. They are, I should point out talking about Sollecito at this point, not Knox.

The bloody footprint on the bathmat and a luminol enhanced footprint in the corridor were useful for negative comparison purposes and both were attributed by the prosecution experts to Raffaele Sollecito because of points of comparison with his foot and because neither had similar points of comparison with Knox and Guede.

Their evidence was disputed by a defence expert witness.

Massei and Nencini agreed with the prosecution experts, Hellmann did not.

However, remember the bit about fact-finding being for the fact-finding judge and not the Court of Legitimacy?

Not only do Marasca-Bruno break the rules at to their remit but they do not even give reasons for their assertion.

“The computers of Amanda Knox and Kercher, which might have been useful to the investigation were, incredibly, burned by the careless actions of the investigators.”

Another unjustified and dogmatic assertion. 

Four computers were found to have sustained damage - probably an electrical burn-out - but it is not in evidence that they were damaged by the investigators.

Indeed, I do not recall any trial evidence that they were working before they were recovered by the investigators. Certainly Sollecito’s Asus was not. That had been damaged for months. Filomena’s computer was found to have been already damaged when it was switched on in her presence at the police station.

It may be the case that Knox, somewhere in her testimony, asserted that her computer was in working order when she last used it, or something like that. But then she would say that, wouldn’t she?

Of all the computers that had problems, the data was ultimately recovered from all but Knox’s Toshiba.

And realistically, what potential information relevant to the investigation did Marasca-Bruno think could be found? Photos of Knox together with Meredith? If there were such photographs, had they been deleted from the camera?

Knox communicated with her family at home by means of an internet café because it had skype available.

E-mail communication is recoverable whether or not the user’s computer is broken.

Marasca-Bruno also opine that in respect of their alibis, what we are talking about is a failed alibi rather than a false alibi. Is this a necessary and relevant distinction?

They both maintained, for trial purposes, that they had been together at Sollecito’s flat from about 9 pm onwards on the 1st November, that both had slept and that Knox had been the first to rise at about 10.30 am the next morning. Of course, Sollecito had contradicted this in his statement to the police. He said that Knox had gone out and not returned until 1 am. However this was not admissible as trial evidence.

In relation to the crucial period of time in which TOD is ascertained to have occurred there is no independent corroboration of their alibi. In that sense it is a failed alibi.

However the reliability of their alibi can certainly be assessed from the trial evidence. Sollecito’s phone was switched on at 6.03 am and earlier heavy music had been played on his computer for half an hour at 5.30 am, on the 2nd November. That manifestly contradicts the alibi. In short the pair were lying when they said that they had slept and that neither had risen until 10.30 am.  Accordingly, it is a reasonable inference that their alibi is not to be trusted.

There is, in addition, the evidence of Curatolo and Quintavalle.

What In Part Marasca-Bruno Left Out

Finally Marasca and Bruno declare that -

“The panorama of the declared evidence is complete.”

Except that this is not true.

They have not for example mentioned the following, which are certainly part of the declared evidence, and which certainly have to be taken into account if we are to consider the sufficiency of the evidence -

1. The presence of Knox’s table lamp on the floor in Meredith’s room.

2.  The police photograph of Knox’s throat and the statement of Laura Mezetti that what is seen in the photograph, as she had noticed at the Police Station, is a scratch.

3.  Knox’s dried and congealed blood on the tap in the small bathroom next to Meredith’s room.

4.  Knox’s e-mail to the world with it’s implausible aspects and which exposes crucial contradictions in the respective accounts of the appellants.

5.  The phone records which expose a suspicious pattern of behaviour on their part and which show that the cell phones of both the appellants had been switched off, or rendered inoperative, between 8.42 pm on the 1st November and 6.03 am on the 2nd November.

6. The luminol enhanced mixed DNA trace for Knox and Meredith on the floor in Filomena’s room, certainly requiring an explanation.

***

Please click here for the next post.




Comments

An excellent, clearly thought out, continuation of the turkey shoot that is the dissection of Marasca/Bruno’s idiocy. Only the Knoxen could read your work here James and not find it compelling.

Chapeau sir.

Posted by davidmulhern on 11/13/15 at 12:47 PM | #

“Quintavalle was able to describe the clothes that the young woman was wearing, which description, blue jeans, grey jacket and scarf, was a match for the articles of clothing that the crime scene investigators had photographed scattered on the top of Knox’s bed at the cottage and which had immediately became material evidence along with everything else”.

Very early on, when I was aware of only a portion of all the incriminating evidence, dubious alibis, etc., I saw the photograph of the clothes on top of AK’s bed and my immediate reaction was “nailed”. In case anyone hasn’t seen it:

http://truejustice.org/ee/images/perugia/frontpage103/10322.jpg

Posted by Odysseus on 11/13/15 at 05:23 PM | #

If and when PM Renzi dips his toe into this cesspool, such obvious and compelling stuff as Odysseus has just reminded us of in vibrant colour will be invaluable in the complete destruction of MB’s ridiculous report.

How dare MB dismiss out of hand the honest testimony of a man who hadn’t even wanted to be involved in the case and who received no payment for his appearance on porta a porta. Indeed he signed a waiver stating he would not be paid for his interview and appearance. His trial testimony was backed up by crime scene photos with regard to Knox’s clothing, although he may have got the colour of her scarf wrong.

The cross examination of Quintaville by the defence was in depth and every trick in the book was deployed to discredit his testimony. He remained steadfast and, as much as is humanly possible when discussing events from more than a year previously, consistent with his statements. This man had absolutely no motive to be either pro or anti Knox/Sollecito. He had no axe to grind and his testimony was striking in the main for its clarity and honesty.

Like most of us, he had no desire to be dragged into the circus of a big trial and had only agreed to make a statement when his acquaintance and neighbour Antioco Fois pointed out that the timing of his sighting of Knox on 2 November was crucial because it was common knowledge by then that she had stated she had been in bed at Sollecito’s until 10:00am.

Reading the trial testimony of his cross examination, I am struck by just how calm Quintaville remained in the face of fairly sustained attack on his credibility by the defence. Just doing their job, of course, but in my view they barely made a dent in his credibility.

What is glaringly obvious is that he had absolutely nothing to gain personally from getting involved and did so merely out of a sense of civil duty. He is to be greatly commended for putting his head above the parapet.

Posted by davidmulhern on 11/14/15 at 05:34 AM | #

Hi David

“...although he may have got the colour of her scarf wrong.”

Quintavalle apparently said the scarf was “light blue” or “bluish”. In the photo there’s the dark blue jeans, the grey item of clothing (which is presumably the coat) and - at the head of the bed - a light blue item of clothing which I’ve always taken to be the scarf.

Posted by Odysseus on 11/14/15 at 08:22 AM | #

The light blue item of clothing has always puzzled me and no-one has ever been able to tell me what it is. Like the jacket I think it is inside out with maybe it’s pockets sticking up like flaps. Strange though and rather shabby. A denim jacket worn on the inside?

The scarf is at the foot of the bed and cannot be mistaken for light blue.

If Quintavalle had been coached on his evidence then surely he could have got the colour of the scarf right! The scarf could, of course, have been worn inside the jacket. A bulky upper body appearance would be just right for pocketing things! OK, that was a bit above the belt.

Thank you everyone for the kind comments but as has been observed this critique has been an all too easy turkey shoot.

There will be no more quoting from the Report. In the final episode I will recap, and then expose this acrobatic troupe of dishonest and manipulative shitheads for what they are.

Posted by James Raper on 11/14/15 at 11:36 AM | #

James

Thanks for that. O.K. - so the gold item is a scarf. I suppose we can forgive Quintavalle that error, as he didn’t report the information to the police for some months. As you say, at least it indicates that his sighting was genuine and his description wasn’t coached.

Posted by Odysseus on 11/14/15 at 12:10 PM | #

The music buffs had their alibis destroyed by music. Knox was playing the Fight Club and Nirvana songs at 5:30 a.m. She was known to be an early riser. This music accessed at 5:30 on Sollecito’s computer proves someone was not sleeping in or resting preparatory to a day trip to Gubbio, but up at the crack of dawn listening to raucous in-your-face aggressive music. They both lied about it.

Raffaele now chases Marilyn Manson concerts to feed the rebellious and lawless spirit within (a more anti-Christ musician would be hard to find, but at least poor Manson had early childhood sexual abuse as his excuse).

Knox sings “Zombie”, she is known for ghoulish Hands of Time music video, and has linked up with a musician who in his spare time chases ghosts.

Knox and Sollecito, these poor moths of the night, will get fried in the candle or eaten by bats and nightbirds. Music unraveled their alibi and proved both of them liars.


They met at a classical music concert, but went downhill from there. Knox plunked a guitar to the annoyance of friends. She belted out a song at a restaurant table to defy protocol. She was probably singing at the Berlin table as she skipped away from the Bundestag to sip wine. She poured a drink over a DJ’s head at a nightclub in Perugia (probably because he wouldn’t play the song she wanted, who knows? She likes to be in control and to shock others—we will see more of this).

Music has destroyed her alibi.

Posted by Hopeful on 11/14/15 at 03:37 PM | #

Knox writes for The Highline Times on 11/10/2015 of her discussions with Colin about truth. Truth is relative, seems to be the theme. Typical Knoxian philosophy or wish, that everything is true, that it’s just a matter of what angle you view it from. 

She and Colin are stuck at an intersection in the rain at night, and he observes to Knox that “everyone stuck at this intersection right now is looking at it differently.”

Then Knox asks Dean at the bookstore where she works if there’s a term for this variability when people are looking at the same objective thing. He sends her to The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows which is online. There she finds invented words.

She points the reader to two she has chosen:

Lachesism which is “the desire to be struck by disaster—to survive a plane crash, to lose everything in a fire, to plunge over a waterfall”, something that would significantly shake up and alter your life. Sounds like Knox is growing bored and seeking for extreme experiences to explode the rut of her new life, and maybe to punish herself if guilt is gnawing. She may also be afraid it will take a crisis of great magnitude to affect her now, after all she has been through.

The other word she draws attention to from the Dictionary is “Onism”.

That means “awareness of how little of the world you’ll experience.” It’s like standing at an airport looking at the scrolling signs for departure and arrivals. You realize you will not be going to any of those places, you are limited to the one place to which you’ve bought your ticket. Lost opportunities, seems to be Knox’s lament.

Oh, the misery. Think of all you will miss. Such greed for life, for constant input. There’s some strong desire going on here, and feeling left out of the action. Knox is bored and depressed, too. She probably wants to break up with Colin, or is afraid he will hurt her.

Her highlight of the word “onism” suggests Knox is hungry for new experiences, that she’s feeling stymied in Seattle with Colin and the ho-hum workaday world. She wants to fly again, to travel, to find adventure, and is becoming depressed and bored and craving excitement.

Her discussion about truth being relative, or as Pilate asked, “What is truth?” is probably her desire that there be no absolutes. That would allow for every lie and self-deception to be quite comfortable. That would mean that in some ways she is guilty but in some ways she is not. How convenient. After all, what is truth? It’s merely what one wants to believe. There’s no objective reality. She said as much at the Perugian Questura.

The article hints that Knox feels stuck, not only at the rainy intersection in the dark, tired from a day’s work, but with Colin, with life.

She focuses on the term “sonder” from The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows. Sonder according to that dictionary means “the realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own”, a life which may consist of an underground anthill of connections with a million other people and things that a surface observer will never know or realize. This depth of the unknown seems to grip Knox’s imagination. She may be facing information overload at this thought, and feeling paralyzed by the too-muchness of life. Especially since there are no absolutes.

She mentions in paragraph four that one has to bend over backward to explain such an intangible idea, the idea of “sonder”. In bend over backwards perhaps we hear echoes of her backbends in the police station, backbends in support of distorting truth.

She mentions a bowl of fruit painted in an art class, with each student painting a very different composition while looking at the same fruit. We could recall the wormy apples in the H.O.T. video.

The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows Knox writes about led me to Wiki file of the crime scene photos to search for a dictionary that I recalled was on the floor of Meredith’s room. Sure enough, there was the dictionary, an Italian to English dictionary, and the name on its cover was “Collins” in bold capital letters COLLINS. So I suggest her boyfriend Colin run as far and as fast as he can. The Collins book was facedown on the floor in blood, with blood specks on the book, too, partly hidden by Meredith’s beige comforter/duvet and very near Meredith’s Puma tennis shoe.

Knox in her article paragraph 9 says, “The Oxford English Dictionary hadn’t a clue what I was talking about….” (in reference to “sonder”. This dig at the Oxford English dictionary is a veiled dig at Meredith and her English nationality, as the mendacious Knox mentions both Oxford (a great English University) but also “English” as in U.K.

Then she says the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows is by John Koenig. I could almost see John Kercher’s initials in that reference, factual though it is.

Then in the crime scene photos was one that stood out. It showed Meredith’s desk and her view of the Italian countryside from her window. The trees were turning gold and the autumn hills past Perugia were beautiful. It’s autumn in this part of the world now, with green leaves turning gold. Also, above the desk on a high shelf nailed to the wall was a dark blue hardback book by Andrea De Carlo, titled Mare Delle Verita which has been discussed long before (Sea of Truth).

The hardbook Meredith owned was different from the paperback. The paperback is blue with one large snowflake on the cover. However on the hardback of Meredith’s larger book, only the words stood out on a royal blue background.

The initials of the author stood out: “A”

The title stood out: “M”.

It suggested the familiar names Amanda and Meredith, with Meredith being the Sea of Truth, so much yet to be discovered, so much real depth.

Knox’s discussion of relative truth took place at the five-way intersection in White Center, Seattle at intersection of 16th Street and Roxbury. Another leap, but perhaps there is a slim chance that Roxbury also refers to Colin’s ambition to appear at the Roxbury Club in L.A. which once had Madonna and big names. It was big in the 80s and made famous in popular culture by the comedy movie, “A Night at the Roxbury” with Will Ferrell. A very exclusive club, with many kept out, and theme of the movie was two brothers desperate to get in.

Read between the lines how Knox is getting bored at:

The article, “Art class, intersections, and definitions” at http://www.highlinetimes.com/2015/11/10/news/art-class-intersections-and-definitions

Posted by Hopeful on 11/14/15 at 07:22 PM | #

There is much truth I think in your musings Hopeful. I’m sure la Knox can’t help but look at this site and the comments section and it must hurt her when she sees just how many people see right through her. I’ll bet she can’t stand the credulous morons who believe her childish lies either. She can’t really win.

I sent a note to her a couple of years ago telling her how obvious it was to me and many others that she was guilty and how I thought that the only way she could ever hope to achieve any kind of peace was to come clean and begin the healing process. No reply was forthcoming, of course.

In many ways I’m glad she never came clean as I think the bars of her diseased mind are probably worse and more restrictive than any prison bars could ever be. I take comfort from her continued mental anguish and wish her nothing but misery.

Posted by davidmulhern on 11/14/15 at 10:44 PM | #

@ Hopeful:

“She mentions in paragraph four that one has to bend over backward to explain such an intangible idea, the idea of “sonder”. In bend over backwards perhaps we hear echoes of her backbends in the police station, backbends in support of distorting truth.”

Whenever I see “sonder” (special) as a prefix it reminds me of the Sonderkommandos who were work units made up of German Nazi death camp prisoners who were forced, on threat of their own deaths, to aid with the disposal of gas chamber victims during the Holocaust.

There is no way that Knox’s German mother is not familiar with this connotation of “sonder”.

Knox herself, is not aware of it also?

Is there a psychopathic subtext to these ramblings?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 11/14/15 at 11:48 PM | #

A resounding yes is the answer to that question @Cardiol MD, although I’m sure your question was rhetorical.

Look at the mosaic of the things that have happened in her life; the drunk kids at a party innocently throwing rocks at cars; the burglary staged as an innocent prank to give a friend a shock; the innocent rape story that she wrote; the innocent picture playing with the antique machine gun at the museum; her wrong place wrong time innocent part in Meredith’s mindless slaughter; her innocent quirky behaviour post mortem in public and at the Questura; her innocent (sounds like a pig stuck in a gate) caterwauling destruction of the song Zombie in New York. I could go on but you get the point.

The picture that emerges when the pieces fit together (and like any mosaic or jigsaw, they only fit together one way) is that of a very disturbed, very angry young woman whose psycopathy remains undiagnosed formally but whose pattern of behaviour went unchecked and thus escalated through the years until the ultimate happened. There is no doubt in my mind that her parents know exactly what their quirky daughter did.

I don’t even think her horrific final act against an entirely innocent, and polar opposite of her, girl need to have been inevitable. Many people who are born with psycopathic tendencies go on to live very normal lives and are no danger to anyone. Usually that’s because they were brought up in stable, loving environments. They retain their psycopathy which manifests itself in different ways like indifference to death, poor social skills etc but they are no danger to anyone.

I think given Knox’s slightly chaotic but not horrendously abusive upbringing, she was probably a borderline case as to whether her psycopathy would ultimately lead to someone losing their life. I think the simple indulgence that others showed towards her “quirky” behaviour was ultimately enough to instil a sense of invincibility in her and lead us to where we are now.

I still believe if she came clean and sought the best help she could, she might just be able to turn a corner by first recognising what’s wrong with her and then following professional instructions to try and retrain her misfiring brain.

Do I think she is capable of taking this first step of confession and thence healing? There is a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening so it remains encumbent on the good people of TJMK to keep gnawing away, like a dog with a bone. Eventually the marrow will be revealed.

Posted by davidmulhern on 11/15/15 at 07:39 AM | #

AK’s behaviour is not ‘quirky’ at all, it is wilfully disruptive and destructive. I agree, there is a pattern of a slow unravelling of her restraint, or the imposed restraint from her parents, since the acquittal. After a period of euphoria in the sense of having got away with it, the damning motivation report has placed both her and RS in a strange position. Both have been taken into highly supportive living environments, Seattle and Bari, which has been orchestrated by their families. A good place to be because it limits their ability to find other partners who could ignite the sleeping beasts within. I fear this will not last because they are obviously chaffing at the restraints. I think, whether friends or not, they monitor and mirror each other. I don’t think that Meredith the person, or her family, really figure in their minds as real flesh and blood people, or even matter at all. The game was, and is, about a type of rivalry - RS announces ‘Memories’, AK writes about Halloween, even mentioning Perugia, RS see’s Marilyn Manson, AK talks of crossroads to introduce ‘sonder’ - oh yes, deliberate, remember the Jewish boy and AK’s comment, ‘My people killed your people’. There will never be confessions because the public nudges to each other are the game and the reminder of the ‘big thrill’. Galling as they are at least they are playing it out in words. I think often of the three knife wounds to Meredith’s neck and whether this is true or not, I always see it in terms of this rivalry - I cut her throat, I cut her throat deeper, I cut her throat the deepest. Pschopaths do not heal, they learn to moderate their behaviour so that they fit into the society around them and gain what they need from that society, in other words manipulate. They use learnt strategies to manoeuvre people, situations to their advantage or just for the hell of the disruption it might cause. They want to be centre stage, the object of attention, to the point where even negative attention is better than no attention at all. Sorry again if this has all been said before, still slowly winding my way through all this evidence, comments, etc.

Posted by YorkshireLass on 11/15/15 at 12:52 PM | #

Not at all, Yorkshire Lass - welcome comment, especially from ‘Psychopaths do not heal…..’

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 11/15/15 at 12:57 PM | #

I agree YorkshireLass that Knox’s behaviour isn’t quirky at all, hence my inverted commas. I was being facetious. I also agree with the non healing of psycopathy, I merely meant healing in the sense of regaining enough control not to kill anyone again but, as I said, even this is beyond her. I think we’re in agreement, I perhaps didn’t word my note such that it was obvious to anyone other than me!

Posted by davidmulhern on 11/15/15 at 06:30 PM | #

No offence intended. It wasn’t meant as a specific reply to you, more as my general views prompted by the later comments on the post.

Posted by YorkshireLass on 11/15/15 at 11:02 PM | #

None taken. It’s great that you’re on here now casting fresh eyes over the evidence and the morass of lies and obfuscation confected by the defence.

Posted by davidmulhern on 11/16/15 at 04:12 AM | #

The time the phones were switched on reminds me of an exchange a user on PMF.net posted a while back, between a close friend of Sollecito and himself.

I understand that anything said by friends & family of Sollecito, Knox or Guede should be taken with a pinch of salt, but it is interesting nonetheless:

Jack:
“His cell phone activates at 06:02 after listening to a music file on his pc for half an hour. This when they claim they were both asleep.”

Cristina Magnani:
“HERE’S SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW: RAF HAS ALWAYS SAID (THERE ARE THE ENVIRONMENT EAVESDROP IN PRISON) THAT IT WAS AMANDA WHO WOKE HIM UP THAT MORNING BEFORE 6, BECAUSE SHE WAS AGITATED/NERVOUS AND HE SWITCHED ON THE PHONE.

ONLY IN THE BOOK RAFFAELE SAYS AK RAFFAELE DID NOT GO OUT… BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT FOR THAT BOOK HE WAS “TRICKED”, “CHEATED”, I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU SAY IT IN ENGLISH. AND IT IS FOR THIS [REASON] THAT NOW HE WILL BE SUBJECTED TO ANOTHER TRIAL. THAT BOOK WAS “FORCED” AND SHOULD HAVE NOT COME OUT. RAFFAELE IS NOW ALSO IN TROUBLE FOR THAT. ALL BLAME GOES TO AK AND HER OWN FOA. IN ALL OTHER DEPOSITIONS AND ALSO IN THE EAVESDROPPINGS RECORDED (I HAVE READ 20,000 PAGES JACK…) IN PRISON, RAFFAELE ALWAYS SAYS THAT AMANDA SLEPT WITH HIM… NEVER THAT SHE WAS WITH HIM ALSO IN THE EVENING”

I took it directly from the PMF website post.

Posted by Sarah Phillips on 11/16/15 at 10:35 AM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #5

Or to previous entry A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #3