Thursday, May 21, 2015

Those Pesky Certainties Cassation’s Fifth Chamber May Or May Not Convincingly Contend With #3

Posted by Cardiol MD

Media staff waiting in front of the Supreme Court

1. This Series’ Foreboding Context

On March 27th, 2015 Cassation’s Fifth Chamber announced that it had decided that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not guilty of the November 2007 Murder in Perugia of Meredith Kercher.

The Fifth Chamber is but one of Cassation’s more than 75 Panels. It’s reporting Judge is Antonio Paolo Bruno. He mas dismissive of the massive evidence. He was quoted as having said that the trials had “not many certainties beyond the girl’s death and one definitely convicted.”

Posts #1-#2 addressed the fact that, contrary to Judge Bruno’s pronouncement,  the trials had Many Certainties, listing them under 30 enumerated Headings, but in total, there were many more Certainties and Certainly-Nots, listed in sub-headings.

The existence, timings, durations, and general locations of All the telephone calls are Certains, or Certainly-Nots. They bring the Total up to Many; Many more than 30; Certainly Not “not many”, as Judge Bruno asserted, Inappropriately, Deceptively, and Prejudicially.

Note the distinctions between when, and where Message-Received, and -Sent, versus When, Where and Whether Message-Read, e.g. Knox was near the Women’s Villa when her Telephone received Lumumba’s crucial message, but allegedly at Sollecito’s Flat when she First-Read his message. In Knox’s officially reported Q&A Testimony there was Confusion and Ambiguity over this issue, exploited to Knox’s advantage

2. Certainties 31 to 42


Details of the Fatal Sequence have been masked, over the years, apparently for humanitarian considerations, but such details should be available to readers who wish to more-objectively assess culpability. Here is what we have deduced:

Massei disagreed with the Reconstruction proposed by the Prosecution, which depicted Meredith on her knees, facing the floor:

a.  Massei concluded that Meredith was in a standing position, facing her attackers:

MASSEI PAGE372-373: “”¦considering the neck wounds sustained, it must be believed that Meredith remained in the same position, in a standing position, while continuously exposing her neck to the action of the person striking her now on the right and now on the left. Such a situation seems inexplicable if one does not accept the presence of more than one attacker who, holding the girl, strongly restrained her movements and struck her on the right and on the left because of the position of each of the attackers with respect to her, by which it was easier to strike her from that [ End of p372; Start of p373: ] side. “¦”

b.  Meredith’s autopsy was performed by Dr. Luca Lalli, but his detailed findings are not included in Massei’s report, they await their Translation into English.The Massei report includes only a limited paraphrase of Lalli’s findings.


In “Darkness Descending - the Murder of Meredith Kercher” Paul Russell (Author), Graham Johnson (Author), and Luciano Garofano (Author) give clearer, more detailed descriptions of Dr. Lalli’s findings than Massei does.

On pages 72-74 of DD it emerges that the cut (Stab A) made by A large knife in Meredith’s neck was on the left-side, ran obliquely from left-to-right, almost parallel to her jaw, and slightly Upwards.


DD does state that the knife entered 8cm vertically below her left ear, 1.5cm horizontally towards the front of her neck, but does not specify the cut’s length.


A large knife created a gaping wound, visible only through the opened-skin of the Left-Side, continuing its travel under the skin, traveling across the mid-line plane, towards the right-side, exposing the oral cavity, fatty tissues and throat glands. Important jaw muscles were also severed.


As DD states, there was another stab wound (Stab B) on the right-hand side of Meredith’s neck, 1.5 cm long, penetrating 4 cm subcutaneously.


Stab B was made by a Knife smaller than the above large knife.


The wound was shallow, did not create a gaping wound, did not cut important subcutaneous structures, but did create a route to the exterior through which blood from Stab A, then created by the large knife on Meredith’s left side could also exit to Meredith’s right side.


g.  The large knife had damaged no significant vessels of the Left-Side.


i.  Blood also flooded the subcutaneous tissues around the breech in the right-hand side of Meredith’s airway caused by the knife-stab on the left-side of her neck.


j.  This resulted in Meredith’s inhalation of her own blood.


k.  Meredith stops screaming, but now her blood seems to be everywhere, including over her attackers, and they quickly abandon her, already evading the accountability they are fully aware is theirs.


l.  As DD comments, during Meredith’s Autopsy surprise was expressed that the Jugular Veins and Carotid Arteries (of both right and left sides) were intact.

Others who read about this murder, had concluded-then that the killers must have known about the major blood vessels (MBVs), but not about branches-of-Carotid-branches such as little RSTA.

3. Plus Beyond Reasonable Doubts


c.  Accepting Massei’s conclusion, Knox and Sollecito were standing-up and facing Meredith in Meredith’s room. Knox, Sollecito and/or Guede, were participating in the restraining of Meredith.


d.  Sollecito (or Guede) was holding the smaller Knife, probably in his right hand. This smaller knife made Stab B.


Stab B preceded Stab A, and caused Meredith’s scream.

f.  When Meredith screams Knox plunges Knife36 into Meredith’s neck in the above long-axis direction, from left to right, transecting Meredith’s Hyoid bone, first opening Meredith’s airway to the atmosphere, then transecting Meredith’s Right Superior Thyroid Artery.


e.  Knox was holding Knife36, probably in Knox’s right hand, holding Knife36 against the left side of Meredith’s neck with Knife36’s point directed slightly upwards the right side of Meredith’s neck, the blade-label facing towards Knox, the palm of Knox’s right hand also facing towards Knox and the long-axis of Knife36 angled a few degrees above horizontal.


f.  When Meredith screams Knox plunges Knife36 into Meredith’s neck in the above long-axis direction, from left to right, transecting Meredith’s Hyoid bone, first opening Meredith’s airway to the atmosphere, then transecting Meredith’s Right Superior Thyroid Artery.


h.  A thin stream of bright-red blood spurted from this artery to its exterior environment, probably through the cuts made in her skin to the outside by both knives.

(Consistent with bleeding from both cuts, Follain, in his book “A Death In Italy” states that Guede saw that blood was coming out of the left side of Meredith’s neck. Follain also states that Francesco Camana of the Rome forensic police, in Camana’s written report, that spurts of blood in the middle of Meredith’s chest made her sweatshirt more bloody on the right side than on the left side)


i. The large knife was Knife-36, which had been brought to the murder room from Sollecito’s kitchen.

This series continues here.


Amplifying Certainty #3 above:

The Large Knife (Labelled Exhibit 36) was stained with Meredith’s DNA, came from Sollecito’s kitchen, in which, according to Knox, and independently corroborated, Meredith had never been. There is irrelevant, obfuscatory argunent as to whether Meredith’s blood was on that knife; the fact of her DNA is certain.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/21/15 at 04:41 PM | #

Cardiol, nice work as usual.

Even if you want to get into the nitpicky ‘‘things we know for certain’‘, by only referencing what Cassation has already ruled on:

Cassation (2008) said that Knox and Sollecito were too dangerous to be released prior to trial, and that there was very strong evidence against them.

Cassation (2010) said that Guede was definitely involved, but that he had accomplices.

Cassation (2013) said that Knox’s calunnia was to divert attention from herself, hence the ‘‘aggravating factors’‘.  Basically, her false accusations should be considered evidence of the underlying murder.

Cassation (2013) said that Knox’s and Sollecito’s trial was fair, and left the Massei verdict intact.  They didn’t order a new trial, they just allowed them to redo their appeal.  This fact has long been misrepresented in the U.S. media.

Cassation (2013) said that the Hellmann court was supposed to be conducting a defence appeal, not retrying the case, something this panel seems to be doing itself.  That panel was brutal in criticising how Hellmann took a ‘‘piecemeal’’ approach, trying to explain everything separately, instead of coming to a conclusion that ‘‘BEST’’ explains ‘‘ALL’’ the evidence.

Basically, this panel seemed to be reducing their findings only to what other panels have ruled (while missing these things).  It kind of smacks of Knox saying that she is innocent only because their is no evidence ‘‘solely’’ in Meredith’s bedroom.

While your listings are incredibly detailed and thorough, in a sense they ‘‘should’’ be irrelevant to the Cassation appeal.  The top court is only to rule on procedure, process and findings, not to retry the case.

Really, the bulk of the Knox/Sollecito final appeals should have been dismissed simply for being outside Cassation’s mandate.

Reminds me of that juror, Genny Ballerini, who was in the news not long ago.  She didn’t seem to realize she was participating in an appeal, not a new trial, and wondered why the prosecution didn’t call evidence or witnesses.  But the Cassation judges don’t have an excuse.

Anyway, please keep it up.  Incredible detail shown here.

Posted by Chimera on 05/21/15 at 05:10 PM | #

Well done, Cardiol! I do wish though the knife had been broken open (think the point was made in DD) as some blood could have seeped there) but that is just by the by.

As far as your RD #7 is concerned, I believe the transport of that knife establishes pre-meditation in the murder of Meredith.

Posted by Ergon on 05/22/15 at 01:39 AM | #

You all do know the paperback edition of WTBH will be out June 18, with a new afterword? Hope that Giuliano Mignini isn’t libelled further.

Posted by Ergon on 05/22/15 at 01:41 AM | #


“the transport of that knife establishes pre-meditation”- I am not so sure.

It is entirely possible that Knox was carrying the same knife in her bag for several days prior to this incident.

Switching off their cell phones simultaneously is perhaps a better evidence.

Posted by chami on 05/22/15 at 02:04 AM | #

Disagree. Had been in Perugia more than a month, no evidence she carried a knife for ‘self-protection’ before. Had an unopened set of kitchen knives, but meets someone six days ago, and borrows his kitchen knife?

Posted by Ergon on 05/22/15 at 02:24 AM | #

Ergon - Thanks for the update.

First thought was that you were teasing, but you are completely right.  Mind blowing.  My questions for everyone:

(1) Who would publish a ‘‘revised’’ memoir, given how the sales from the last one tanked? (Only 5% of the published books actually sold).

(2) HarperCollins still faces a potential lawsuit from the last book, or many lawsuits.  Why expose themselves again?

(3) Knox’s calunnia for framing Patrick was confirmed by Cassation in 2013, and Cassation attached aggravating circumstances.  Essentially, she framed him to divert attention.  This wasn’t in the last book, (even though Cassation ruled before the book was released), so how will she address it?

(4) While Cassation (2015), threw out the murder charge, it did not address the calunnia against Patrick.  Hellmann at the first appeal, in fact, INCREASED her sentence for it.  Massei (2009), Hellmann (2011) and Cassation (2013) all ruled against Knox.  Do they not know this?

(5) As Peter keeps us posted, Knox has a 2nd calunnia trial starting June 9th.  In otherwords, Knox will release the book ‘‘WHILE SHE STILL REMAINS ACCUSED OF A FELONY’‘.  Do they not know this?

(6) Sollecito and co-author Andrew Gumbel are facing similar charges for Raffy’s own blood money book.  Do they not know this?

(7) Also, depending on how the 5th Cassation panel justifies the acquittal, it still may be overturned.  Did she not learn anything about celebrating prematurely?  Do they not know this?

(8) The first several chapters of the last book were of Knox talking about her sex life.  Did anyone at HarperCollins actually ‘‘read’’ Knox’s book before giving the final okay?  My guess is no.

(9) Most of Knox’s book contains provably false accounts, (just as omitting her lawyer Giancarlo Costa and omitting her true relationship with Federico Martini), and falsely accuses many justice officials of crimes, (Mignini and Rita Ficarra).  Do they not know this?

(10) Knox’s ‘‘final acquittal’’ was less than 2 months ago.  How did she get a book out this quickly?  Is it mostly a rehash of the last one, or has she been working on it the whole time?

(11) If this is a ‘‘mainly’’ new book, did Knox have another ghostwriter do it, or did she write it herself?

(12) Will Knox tone down the things she accuses the police and court officials of, or will she up the ante?

(13) Will there be any major contradictions between ‘‘this’’ book, and the one Diane Sawyer helped launch in Spring 2013?

(14) What country(ies) will the book be published in?  Will Knox provide any insight as to why the U.K. and Italy (and soon all of Europe), refused to publish in 2013?

Just my 2 cents .... is there any way to get an early release book (or the day it is bought), and mail a few copies to the higher ups in Italy?  Let the Italian public get a copy BEFORE the Cassation 5th panel comes out?  Seriously though .... June 9th is when her 2nd calunnia trial starts.  Coincidence, or a way to rub it in?

Posted by Chimera on 05/22/15 at 02:57 AM | #

Question: If Knox has been ‘‘fully and definitively acquitted’‘, why is she still asking for handouts to fund her defence?  Wasn’t that link removed recently?

Posted by Chimera on 05/22/15 at 03:01 AM | #

Hi, Chimera. I’m sure copies will be sent to Italy as soon as it appears in bookstores.

It also will be available through Amazon UK June 09 as well, not June 18 as I mistakenly wrote.

Interesting it will be released just 74 days after the SC decision. Timed to appear before the motivation report’s out?

Posted by Ergon on 05/22/15 at 05:24 AM | #

Regarding pre-meditation, I too believe it is an open question. K emulated others. Who’s to say that S didn’t encourage K to carry a knife for protection? Maybe K was inspired by S’s knife-carrying schtick.

The other problem with the pre-meditation is that unless one knows the dynamic of the attack, it’s difficult to say with certainty what was actually pre-meditated.

You have K carrying a knife. We don’t know when she decides to take it. We don’t know if she does it at S’s insistence.

On the night of the murder, K and S hang out at p. Grimana long enough for Curatolo to see them several times between 21:30 and 23:00. If K has the knife already, do they discuss and detail the attack then? Is a plan formulated two hours prior to the murder really qualify as pre-meditation? By contrast, see Adam Lanza.

If the intent was to kill, why initiate the rape? Was the intent to rape and kill? If kill, why at the cottage? Certainly if murder was anticipated it would have been far better to do the killing elsewhere, especially with knives.

K and S didn’t know they would be free that night from previous engagements.

When was intent to kill formed? Was it a vague notion without any planning (as the sloppiness of the aftermath and cleanup suggests) or was it an attack planned in advance, according to a certain program, but a program which perhaps got scrapped due to unfolding events?

I think pre-meditation remains an open question. I don’t think even Micheli raises it. One also needs to consider how Italian law defines it and whether that definition is applicable in this case.

I agree with Chami that the phones are a better indication of some type premeditation, more than the knife. If K was on a drug/cocaine habit during that time period, she could have been crazy enough to think that having a big knife in her purse would be fun and ‘cool’.

Posted by Olleosnep on 05/22/15 at 06:09 AM | #

The 5th Court seems to have followed in the footsteps of the Hellmann Appeal. It doesn’t even make sense. There is no way that they are going to be able to write their blunders away. If they end up sounding like Hellmann than they are just as bad as that decision and deserve the same treatment that the the Cassation Court handed down by striking the Appeal. They can’t claim ignorance as this would make them look bad too. They will not be able to talk about political pressure either or the fact that they just wanted the whole thing to end and just go away. These are purely conjectures on my part. Maybe they will blame the system?

Posted by Vinnie on 05/22/15 at 08:28 AM | #

To me, the multiple superficial ‘nicks’ in the skin - surface wounds, prior to the fatal wounds - indicate that the trapped rape and humiliation was planned, but the murderous intention itself perhaps only arose very latterly, possibly after the Certain scream.
The knives would have been needed for the taunting and humiliation.

Many thanks again to Cardiol, for the clarity especially.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/22/15 at 10:02 AM | #

Yes, premeditatIng a murder for two hours would qualify as premeditation. That’s an easy question.

As far as assuming that Amanda Knox chose to carry the knife to emulate Sollecito,  it’s a wild assumption. 

I agree with Ergon.

Posted by JohnQ on 05/22/15 at 11:07 AM | #

“...Judge Bruno asserted, Inappropriately, Deceptively, and Prejudicially.”

A sign of utter corruption, because as Chimera said, the Supreme Court doesn’t have an excuse.

Posted by JohnQ on 05/22/15 at 11:13 AM | #

@JohnQ- regarding premeditation, it’s not that simple. US state laws vary regarding timing required for there to be premeditation. Also there is this:

PREMEDITATION. A design formed to commit a crime or to do some other thing before it is done.
    2. Premeditation differs essentially from will, which constitutes the crime, because it supposes besides an actual will, a deliberation and a continued persistence which indicate more perversity. The preparation of arms or other instruments required for the execution of the crime, are indications of a premeditation, BUT ARE NOT ABSOLUTE PROOF OF IT, AS THESE PREPARATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN INTENDED FOR OTHER PURPOSES (my emphasis), and then suddenly changed to the performance of the criminal act. Murder by poisoning must of necessity be done with premeditation. See Aforethought; Murder.

More pertinent to this case is the definition of premeditation in Italian law:

“Come elementi della premeditazione anche oggi si designano quelli contenuti nella definizione del Carmignani, e cioè: un elemento psicologico (freddezza e pacatezza d’animo), un elemento ideologico (riflessione), un elemento cronologico (un lasso di tempo tra la determinazione e l’azione)”.

And I have read at least one case in Italy where a court ruled that an hour of time was not enough to form intent equal to that of premeditation.

Lanza is a classic example of premeditation, where it is obvious he methodically considered all elements of his assault, making preparations even several months prior. We don’t know that K and S spent any time thinking about killing poor Meredith.

Bringing knives is not sufficient because you cannot exclude that K and S intended to use them for other purposes, taunting and scaring being a strong possibility. Also there is no obvious “deliberation and a continued persistence” which constitute core elements of premeditation. Premeditation is about “pre-meditating” on the act, reflecting on what should be done, how it will be done, etc.

There are no obvious signs of that in the results of the attack. It is just as likely that knives could have been brought and used to scare Meredith into compliance. But K and S became infuriated with Meredith’s resistance, and K furiously dealt the fatal blow after Meredith’s scream.

You cannot logically exclude this scenario based on the evidence. If more was known about the dynamic of the attack, (i.e. if it was two phased, with a fight leading to rape, an interlude where kidnapping and murder was considered, and then an attempt to execute that) then one could very probably show the presence (or lack) of premeditation. But as it stands, there is not enough evidence to confirm premeditation, only to possibly suggest it as one option.

Posted by Olleosnep on 05/22/15 at 09:44 PM | #

Of course there are those who absolutely hate this web site for the simple reason that after the so called final verdict came down, they thought they were home free. Not So. The forces of stupid who have been convinced by Gogarty Marriot’s propaganda and have only read (If they read at all) the lies and misinformation which was disseminated to the American media, cannot understand why this site will simply “Not shut down.” They are at best confused little people with only the minimum of education and intelligence who want their news, and their religion, prepackaged into sound bites that they can understand. So in reply to them “No! We are not going away and we will continue to tell the truth that Amanda Knox, Raphael Sollecito and Rudy Guede raped tortured and murdered Meredith Kercher. Knox will end up like Casey Anthony… ie Scared to go out of the house. But unlike Anthony, Amanda Knox will resort to drugs once more because she knows she is guilty and that will eat away at her eventually.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/22/15 at 10:22 PM | #


Did I mention US law?

Posted by JohnQ on 05/22/15 at 10:26 PM | #

@ Olleosnap - Interesting citation.

However, what you missed in citing U.S. laws in that most states don’t require the prosecutors to prove premeditation when the victim is sexually assaulted, forcibly confined, or kidnapped, or a witness.  It is simply classified as ‘‘felony murder’‘, or ‘‘murder in furtherance of another crime’‘.  If Meredith was stabbed to ‘‘stop her screaming’‘, or to ‘‘prevent her from reporting the sexual assault’’ then it could be very easily argued that Knox was killing a witness to a crime, and use the clean-up is just corroboration of that intent.  And yes, death sentences get handed down in these such cases (depending on the state).

Here at home (I’m Canadian), a murder is—by law—first degree murder, when it happens during sexual assault, forcible confinement or kidnapping.  [cc 231(5)].  The law specifically says that is the case, regardless of whether it is actually deliberate and/or planned out.

In both Canada and the U.S., generally speaking first degree murder in such cases applies to both the killer(s) and any accomplice(s).

Olleosnap, you are right in the sense that premeditation can still be considered an open question, since we don’t know for sure the dynamic.  But it would answer an awful lot of the questions if Knox ‘‘did’’ plan it out.

Posted by Chimera on 05/23/15 at 12:53 AM | #

@ Olleosnap & Chimera - Re Premeditation

We mustn’t forget to take into account the relevance of what it is that is Premeditated.

Under Italian Law doesn’t death in the furtherance of a Criminal Act (committing a premeditated felony-sexual-assault using means which were foreseeably lethal, and actually were lethal.), amount to a premeditated, intentional homicide?

Isn’t that Punishable in Italy?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/23/15 at 05:26 AM | #

I suppose this also highlights the difficult distinction between conscious intention and subconscious intention.
Planning practical details shows conscious involvement. There should also be conscious awareness of fatal possibilities ( ‘foreseeably lethal’ as Cardiol says).

However there can also be strong emotions and impulses of hatred and resentment and envy, resident in the subconscious without the person being sufficiently aware that these have the potential to spontaneously erupt in cruel destruction, including murder.
Whether the person should be aware - or be made aware - of their subconscious is another point. Obviously, as a counsellor I am all for this! But also aware that it needs to be done with sensitivity. Releasing the subconscious too drastically is a known harm.

Normally, in a balanced person, subconscious impulses are restrained by conscience, willpower, and a dutiful recognition of following the law.

Not be of the judiciary, I don’t know, but I would imagine it is not always an easy thing to establish what exactly was conscious or not (when it’s needed to do so).

And of course the use and abuse of drugs and drink remove inhibitions, and allow unfettered expression of the subconscious - which is why this can be so dangerous.

(None of which excuses any crime or criminal intent in the slightest - am just trying to understand the complexity).

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/23/15 at 10:57 AM | #

Cardiol - I am pretty strongly in favour of the ‘‘premeditation’’ theory, at least on Knox’s part.  But my point was that in sexual assault cases in Canada and the U.S., proving intent to commit murder is irrelevant.

SeekingUnderstanding - Probably concrete planning (preparations) are about the only provable way.  But understand, that we are trying to probe the mind of someone who is irrational.  Normal people don’t stage break ins or throw rocks at cars for fun.

This just occurs to me: why the focus on figuring out Knox’s motive? 

Suppose that Meredith had been killed only by a man, or group of men.  Suppose it had been a sexual assault (of some form), and later it was decided, even if later, to silence her.  Bit of a double standard.

Men do kill women during sex assaults.  It is a reality.  Yet, I have never heard of one raising the defence ‘‘I had no motive to do it.’’  They deny the crime, yes, but don’t use this defence.

I also have never seen anyone trying to understand why a man would commit such a gruesome murder.  Knox has been portrayed, even here, as someone who let things escalate, or did drugs impair her inhibition? 

Also, for men accused of such crimes: it is assumed that 1) they killed her because they enjoyed it, or 2) it was done so she wouldn’t go to the police.  In either case, the assumption is that the killing was intentional.

Knox, just like Jodi Arias, has done women a huge disservice.  Far from being treated worse, both women have been cut huge breaks because of it.

There was never too much consideration why Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo, Russell Williams or Robert Pickton did their crimes.  Society just said they were evil.

Posted by Chimera on 05/23/15 at 11:57 AM | #

I became involved with this case helping where I could to understand Knox’s psychology and state of mind.
I felt it was necessary to explain some of the perplexities and contradictions in the case.
I am only too well aware of the lack of normality. Understanding anyone’s motives, for anything, is usually essential to arrive at a grasp of the truth within the event.

Here we may well never know the whole truth - as indeed the Kerchers themselves said some time ago. Obfuscation, deception and manipulation have been major players all along.
It may be that we need to develop a deeper understanding of crime as carried out by females, since a destructive female will very likely be articulate and very manipulative.

For myself, I hold onto facts that are Certain (as Cardiol so well unfolds), and enduring truths from psychology that have proven credibility.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/23/15 at 01:30 PM | #

Seeking Understanding,

I meant it (mostly) tongue-in-cheek.  Just an observation (pardon the sarcasm), that male killers/sex offenders don’t seem to receive the same type of scrutiny by the public.  They are just dismissed as ‘‘evil’‘.

Seriously though, the work done on this site is very admirable.  Please don’t take it as an insult.

My own take - Knox reminds me of people that I used to know, and I see bringing the truth out in Meredith’s case as a worthwhile cause.  Her lies and distortions only get more twisted.

Posted by Chimera on 05/23/15 at 01:52 PM | #

Yes, I’m sure we’re both on the same journey!
I think it’s a serious point : are ‘pretty’ females more able to ‘pull the wool’ over (some) people’s eyes…and thereby get away with…murder? And/or are sexy females more able to entice men into collaboration or being their ‘agent’?
If so, we jolly well do need to discuss how and why!

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/23/15 at 02:01 PM | #

Regarding premeditation in Italian law, I found this article which seems to give a good overview:

with the conclusion being that premeditation is not clearly defined in legal code and is open to wide interpretation.

I read somewhere else (but can’t find the article now) that premeditation as an aggravating factor to murder is most often applied to terrorist actions, organized crime activity, kidnap + murder cases.

Regarding this case, Nencini quotes Massei’s sentencing in his report, noting that the rape also constitutes an aggravating factor to the murder which would lead to a sentence of life imprisonment. However the Italian legal code also requires the judge to consider other factors that can be attenuating circumstances, per article 133, second part:

I don’t know how the application of article 133 typically plays out in similar cases in Italy. One would have to look at a significant batch of cases with similar conditions (i.e. rape + murder) and see if the resulting sentences are similar to what Massei + Nencini did, or if Massei + Nencini stand out for either being too light of a sentence, or too harsh.

Posted by Olleosnep on 05/23/15 at 02:15 PM | #

@ SeekingUnderstanding - Isn’t your Counsellor’s Distinction between Conscious and Unconscious equivalent to the Legal Distinction between Objective and Subjective?

It is currently settled in Common Law Jurisdictions that sane adults are held to the Objective Standard of “Knowing”.

Does Italy espouse the Subjective Standard?  Should She? Will She? Bruno et al may argue that She does.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/23/15 at 02:46 PM | #

Probably, Cardiol - I’m sure you know much more about it than I do, - that’s interesting.

Poor lovely, principled Meredith - she deserves SO much better than someone’s subjective contrived ‘best truth’...

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/23/15 at 08:15 PM | #

Well, this is a bit ‘‘old news’‘, but here is another infamous killer ‘‘confessing’’ that she saw someone else committing a murder that she actually did.

This killer gets into trouble, and her interrogators actually bring up the topic of premeditation, and she sees a way to get out of it.

I imagine the incoherent rambling would sound a lot like Knox.  Good part starts about 24 minutes in.  Lot of evasion, never answering the actual questions.

Posted by Chimera on 05/24/15 at 09:49 AM | #

Interesting, Chimera…especially the body language of the part you mention - hand to face and nose etc, and the deep *sighs* and exhalation - and using the ‘pretty’ poor-little-me voice.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 05/24/15 at 11:21 AM | #

I believe the attack on Meredith was premeditated thanks to the fact that both Sollecito and Knox turned their cell phones off.  Knox bought the knife with her to ensure that she had the upper hand over Meredith. 

Knox would have been well aware that any altercation would have lead Meredith to complain to their house mates, most likely leading to discord.  Anything beyond an argument, ie the sexual humiliation, would have lead Meredith to go to the police, and Knox would not allow this to happen.  Knox knew full well that the attack she intended to carry out would have to conclude with Merediths silence or her drug fuelled party days would have to come to an end.  For this reason I am certain that the murder was premeditated.

Posted by MHILL4 on 05/24/15 at 02:08 PM | #

MHILL4, you make an excellent point.  Do people who assume that this was intended as a prank or anything other than a murder not realize that they’re implying Knox intended to carry out a knife attack and leave Meredith alive to tell the roommates and the police?

Posted by JohnQ on 06/09/15 at 07:20 AM | #

MHILL4 & JohnQ, I agree that Meredith’s murder was pre-meditated, but both Knox & Arias have a psychopathology that enables an invincible denial of their pre-meditation.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 06/09/15 at 09:07 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry When Not Itself Nefariously Influenced, Italy’s Supreme Court Usually Sustains A Hard Line

Or to previous entry “What It Feels Like To Be Wrongly Accused” Could This Be Your First Draft, Amanda Knox?