Tuesday, September 19, 2017

A [brief] Rebuttal to a Rebuttal

First of all I'm flattered that someone took the time to listen to our hour long second episode on the Evidence issue surrounding Amanda Knox [which we did because it was something Lisa's FBI friend kept harping on]. And I'm even more flattered that they spent an entire day composing a rebuttal, if not a very compelling one.

I'd be interested to discuss the broader merits of what is evidence etc.  The legal theory is always fascinating, as are the tests for what is reasonable and practical especially in criminal law.

Alas the blogger has written some scathing attacks on others I know vaguely, like Liz Houle, so the interest in this case is less a matter of innocent curiosity than contrived tactics to undermine and discredit in a pretty nasty way.  The same old same old.  

Breaking off, if I may. I do wish Lisa had asked her FBI expert friend during her interview whether Zuckerberg, Jobs, Oprah or J.K. Rowling were official "experts" when they conducted their campaigns to change the world.  Or were they simply bright people with clever ideas and plenty of gritty determination?

President Trump is  a particularly bad example of a guy who rose to the top not based on qualifications, but simply on his loud-mouth ability to influence people and a huge helping hand from daddy.  So there is the good side to shimmering, bright-eyed passion and a dark side. How do we tell the difference?  

The good is inspiring words and deeds that bring people together for the better. It's obvious effort and perspiration.  It's hard won results.  The bad is bitter criticism, shallow barbs, tough guy know-it-all talk, me, myself and I, bullying and negligible results beyond those for the man at the centre of his own echo chamber.  But I digress.

I will respond to just three of the "arguments" fielded.

1. There was evidence of semen on the pillow but the judge refused to have it tested to prove it... 

Pretty incredible psychology here.  If the semen was such a clear and present big deal, why wasn't it not entered into evidence during the first trial, or the first appeal?  If it was so important, why allow two entire trials to pass under the proverbial bridge, one of them which focused the defense case absolutely on DNA and reviewing DNA?

To take the comment at face value: so the judge didn't have it tested, that means it was semen?  If it was semen why wasn't any of it inside or on Meredith's body? Why was it on a pillow under her body, under a duvet?  If it was semen why/how did the forensic folks somehow miss it?  Oh they intentionally overlooked it? This seems like know-it-all-talk which is odd given the subject matter of evidence.  There is so much undisputed evidence, so why grasp at something that wasn't even part of the trial narrative?

The most obvious counter to this is why was no semen found in Knox's bed or Sollecito's bed, or anywhere else in either villa/apartment?  And because no semen was found, does that mean Knox wasn't having sex with anyone, and that Sollecito wasn't having sex with Knox?  

2. It's a bit ridiculous to downplay the DNA in Meredith's body because it was from skin cells...

I'm not sure it's been "downplayed". I believe I said it was a difficult problem. The vaginal swabs were tested for semen and tested negative. The issue is if Meredith were raped, and if someone is murdered, often that [murder] occurs after [and in a sense because of] the rape.  If rape was part of the motive, then why didn't the burglar/rapist/murderer make sure he got sexual satisfaction for his efforts?  If he went to the trouble to break in and steal, and covered up, then why spend all that time on the shitty aspects of the crime and not enjoy himself?

Also, many who rape their victims are forced to go to a lot of effort to dispose of them, to destroy their own traces.  We see this with Steven Avery who incinerated his victim after raping her, and with Travis Alexander, who was carefully washed under a shower, shortly after having sex with his murderer, as well as after he was murdered.

But coming back to the operative question:

If he went to the trouble to break in and steal, and cover up, and clean, and take off his shoes then why only spend all that time on the shitty aspects of the crime and not enjoy himself?

This contradiction is explored quite cleverly in this clip from Backdraft.

At 2:27  Ronald does the arson version of Hannibal Lecter's best scene.

So, whoever is doing this knows the animal well, doesn't he? He knows him real well, but he won't let him loose. He won't let him have any fun, so he does not love him. Now who doesn't love fire? And is around trychtichlorate all day long?

Applying this criminal psychology direct to the Knox case: 

So, whoever is burglarising/raping [but not raping] and killing [badly], doesn't know the animal well, does she? She doesn't know him well at all, and yet she won't let him [the rapist] loose. She won't let him have any fun, so she does not love him. Now who doesn't love rape?  Well, a woman most of all. Who doesn't love rape and is around marijuana all day? 

3. Raffaele + Vaseline.

It's interesting that you bring up Raffaele in the context of Vaseline.  Sollecito had been caught watching bestiality porn in the temporary phase when he shared his university digs with other dudes. These same guys said he masturbated constantly, and on his own Facebook page, he indulged his faithful with tales and hopes of getting high. He'd been charged for drug possession. He had, by his own admission, mommy issues. He was also into the violence-porn of Japanese manga.  Of the three suspects, which was the most likely to be interested in Vaseline and deviant sex?

I'm really not sure how a normal mind would make the leap from a Vaseline tub in someone's room to sort of "naturally assuming" it had been rubbed all over the naked victim's bloodied body.  But a deviant mind might make that connection automatically, depending on his particular brand of violence porn. 

See, as Ronald would say, that wasn't such a long trip after all.

P.S. Speaking of long trips.  When Sollecito gave this interview at Broadcasting House, he was asked if he - since he was in England - would visit Meredith's grave.  In fact he was 10 miles away, around 47-48 minutes by car. Sollecito said he wasn't comfortable with the idea just then. He wanted to do it when everything was over. Has he become more comfortable with the idea since then, now that the case has been settled in his favour?

No comments: