Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Desert Fox]

That's actually my prediction. I don't think we can expect any better.

It's a shame though, but better than the alternatives; new trial or affirmation of the convictions.

The trouble is that Nencini's verdict is just completely incompetent (Edit: And incomprehensible).
He cannot actually be that stupid? He has to know that his verdict makes no sense?
Why didn't he just go the route of "Reasonable Doubt but I think she is guilty?"

 

[LondonJohn]

The trouble is that Nencini's verdict is just completely incompetent (Edit: And incomprehensible).
He cannot actually be that stupid? He has to know that his verdict makes no sense?
Why didn't he just go the route of "Reasonable Doubt but I think she is guilty?"

I suspect the answer to the last question may be as follows:

Firstly, Nencini (and his court) was bound by the judicial truth - as handed down and reiterated by the Supreme Court - that Guede acted in concert with others. Nencini accepted this as a starting truth, which was inviolable since the SC had deemed it so.

Next, in the warped system produced by the clumsy overlay of an adversarial system over an inquisitorial one, Nencini's court tasked itself with a "truth-finding" mission of determining who these other participants must have been. Therefore, rather than considering the actual evidence that pertained to Knox and Sollecito in its own right, his court considered it in the light of the assumed multiple-attacker "truth".

I believe that it was this sort of flawed reasoning (and flawed procedure) that resulted in a top-down conclusion of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. I believe that the bottom-up case was then - subsequently and consequently - constructed to fit this overarching "guilty" narrative. That (in my view) is why there are so many horrendous errors in the Nencini Report regarding factual evidence, inference and argument: it wasn't these things that led to the ultimate verdicts, but instead it was the verdict that was then "supported" by the actual evidence.

As just one example: if one starts (as I believe Nencini's court did) with the verdict of guilt for Knox and Sollecito, then one must view the break-in through that lens. This will then lead one to "reason" (in a logical back-to-front manner of course) that there would have been no reason for Guede to break in through Filomena's window, that the break-in must therefore have been staged, and that only Knox and Sollecito would have had the motive to stage the break-in. Therefore (this "reasoning" concludes) Knox and Sollecito are guilty of staging the break-in, and in an error of circular reasoning, this in turn supports the notion of their guilt in the murder!

I believe one can apply similar thought processes to most (if not all) of the "reasoning" given in the Nencini Report. I believe that the report is a clumsy, inaccurate, error-strewn and embarrassing effort to construe the evidence in a way that fits the prior judgement of guilt on the murder charges, rather than the correct way of letting the evidence (and the inferences gleaned from the evidence) lead to a verdict.

 

[carbonjam72]

Systemic Confirmation Bias?

I suspect the answer to the last question may be as follows:

Firstly, Nencini (and his court) was bound by the judicial truth - as handed down and reiterated by the Supreme Court - that Guede acted in concert with others. Nencini accepted this as a starting truth, which was inviolable since the SC had deemed it so.

Next, in the warped system produced by the clumsy overlay of an adversarial system over an inquisitorial one, Nencini's court tasked itself with a "truth-finding" mission of determining who these other participants must have been. Therefore, rather than considering the actual evidence that pertained to Knox and Sollecito in its own right, his court considered it in the light of the assumed multiple-attacker "truth".

I believe that it was this sort of flawed reasoning (and flawed procedure) that resulted in a top-down conclusion of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt. I believe that the bottom-up case was then - subsequently and consequently - constructed to fit this overarching "guilty" narrative. That (in my view) is why there are so many horrendous errors in the Nencini Report regarding factual evidence, inference and argument: it wasn't these things that led to the ultimate verdicts, but instead it was the verdict that was then "supported" by the actual evidence.

As just one example: if one starts (as I believe Nencini's court did) with the verdict of guilt for Knox and Sollecito, then one must view the break-in through that lens. This will then lead one to "reason" (in a logical back-to-front manner of course) that there would have been no reason for Guede to break in through Filomena's window, that the break-in must therefore have been staged, and that only Knox and Sollecito would have had the motive to stage the break-in. Therefore (this "reasoning" concludes) Knox and Sollecito are guilty of staging the break-in, and in an error of circular reasoning, this in turn supports the notion of their guilt in the murder!

I believe one can apply similar thought processes to most (if not all) of the "reasoning" given in the Nencini Report. I believe that the report is a clumsy, inaccurate, error-strewn and embarrassing effort to construe the evidence in a way that fits the prior judgement of guilt on the murder charges, rather than the correct way of letting the evidence (and the inferences gleaned from the evidence) lead to a verdict.

Would it be fair to describe this method of analysis employed by Nencini as a kind of "confirmation bias", in a systemic sense. That the system itself can no longer produce a finding of innocence, given the "procedural facts" that are accepted as immutable?

It is still a requirement to tell an internally consistent story though, and there do appear to be self-contradictory and flatly incorrect elements to the Nencini opinion. For this reason, I believe a reversal and re-trial, or an outright dismissal for lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as both still possible.

Perhaps wishful thinking.

 

[Desert Fox]

Would it be fair to describe this method of analysis employed by Nencini as a kind of "confirmation bias", in a systemic sense. That the system itself can no longer produce a finding of innocence, given the "procedural facts" that are accepted as immutable?

It is still a requirement to tell an internally consistent story though, and there do appear to be self-contradictory and flatly incorrect elements to the Nencini opinion. For this reason, I believe a reversal and re-trial, or an outright dismissal for lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as both still possible.

Perhaps wishful thinking.

I think the Italian Supreme Court will approve the verdict.
I think Nencini could make up anything.
If the European court of Appeals sees the case however, I think their opinion will be scathing.

 

[acbytesla]

I think the Italian Supreme Court will approve the verdict.
I think Nencini could make up anything.
If the European court of Appeals sees the case however, I think their opinion will be scathing.

I'd like to think the Italian Supreme Court has some kind of brain. But given their last decision, I don't see any evidence of one. I don't hold a lot of hope that they will right this wrong as they seem to order a guilty verdict in this case and Nencini delivered that despite the evidence.

But Nencini's motivation is even worse than Massei which I didn't think possible.

Time will tell.

 

[Samson]

Following is a link to a very long article. It seems to be a very independent and well researched piece. Too long though.

http://kirkomrik.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/a_prank_a_cigarette_and_a_gun_018.pdf

She concludes it was a prank involving AK and RS, that Guede murdered alone, and they returned to clean up. Something like Sherlock?
She relies on the CCTV, KOKO, Curatolo etc, so has wasted huge energy, but she discusses the evidence logically and carefully.
PMF hate it.

 

[acbytesla]

I wish just one person who believes they are guilty would set forth an organized argument.

That's really impossible DF when the facts don't support a guilty argument. I could say the following if I was arguing for guilt.

That Meredith's DNA on the knife blade. Rafffaele's DNA was on the bra clasp. He also left his footprint on the bath mat. These combined with the Luminol footprints should be enough to convict the two. We know that Meredith had never visited Raffaele so it is highly unlikely that Meredith's DNA came to be on the knife blade any other way. The same could be said about Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp.

To them, this and what THEY describe as Amanda's strange behavior is certainly incriminating. But they refuse to acknowledge the possibility of contamination or out and out fraud as if the possibilities of either of these two factors are impossibilities, even though bonafide experts in the field say that not only are they are a possibility that they are in fact a probability. They also won't acknowledge that you really can't tell who that bathmat print belongs to.

I was on the debate team in high school and received a debate scholarship for college. Follow that up with almost 30 years selling IT equipment and the one thing I know, is it is better to have the facts on your side. The most important thing I learned in sales was if the facts are not on your side, get a new job....It sure makes it a lot easier to make a living when your selling a product that you don't have to dance around the facts.

 

[Bill Williams]

Following is a link to a very long article. It seems to be a very independent and well researched piece. Too long though.

http://kirkomrik.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/a_prank_a_cigarette_and_a_gun_018.pdf

She concludes it was a prank involving AK and RS, that Guede murdered alone, and they returned to clean up. Something like Sherlock?
She relies on the CCTV, KOKO, Curatolo etc, so has wasted huge energy, but she discusses the evidence logically and carefully.
PMF hate it.

Perhaps the best-fit analysis of who this person is concerns their response to questions. Read this response and see a whole host of "own goals" in relation to their crednetials...

Q: This is all psycho-babble ********. How do you KNOW what Amanda thinks?

A: I hear that one a lot. First, it is fallacious to imply that one has to “know” someone to know if they did something or not. Suppose I never met a guy. Suppose I don’t “know” him. If a girl gets pregnant and I test her DNA, then compare it to that guy’s DNA, and it matches, I know he likely ********** her. Any questions?

So, seriously, if you read the intro I specifically stated that I would establish the conclusion based on evidence, not psychology. The psychology is just the backdrop used for instructional purposes after the fact, after I show the “who” and the “why”. I don’t know diddly **** about Amanda (not much) … and I don’t need to. Narcissists operate on the principle of secrecy – they have to be able to dissemble and fool others as to their intent. That’s the secret formula to their success. They trick people into trusting their good intentions. They are confidence artists pure and simple.

And the three things they hate the most are psychology, smart people and authority. Now, can you see why? Watch all the AMK apologists out there. Most of their venom is held for those that expose their true intent and those that would place obligations on them (such as courts): Within a few weeks it is clear that you are a narcissist that doesn’t care about anyone but yourself, and doesn’t play well with your betters, with those that look better than you, are smarter than you and are liked more than you, so, complete your potty training or no invitations to things like Halloween parties. This is called a time-out. Know what I’m saying?

I think I’m going to start the “National piss off a Narcissist” day. What can you do to absolutely, positively guarantee you will infuriate them? Trick them. Fool them, make them the mark. Humiliate them and expose their false veneer. Okay, no, don’t try that at home. But it IS true.​

Doesn't know diddly about AMK, yet in the next sentence ascribes narcissism to her?

And about AMK Apologists? "And the three things they hate the most are psychology, smart people and authority."

This person is a genius.

 

[Samson]

Perhaps the best-fit analysis of who this person is concerns their response to questions. Read this response and see a whole host of "own goals" in relation to their crednetials...

​

Doesn't know diddly about AMK, yet in the next sentence ascribes narcissism to her?

And about AMK Apologists? "And the three things they hate the most are psychology, smart people and authority."

This person is a genius.

Bill, it turns out she is slightly younger than Knox. The fact is she is able to be impartial and detailed on the forensics of TOD and lone killer. Much is rubbish, but pretty good for her age.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, it turns out she is slightly younger than Knox. The fact is she is able to be impartial and detailed on the forensics of TOD and lone killer. Much is rubbish, but pretty good for her age.

Sigh. On the internet everyone is allowed an opinion. It's not as if this wasn't about a grisly murder of someone else that young woman's age.

Found this, though, from a real-live Florida criminal attorney who keeps a blog.

The New Amanda Knox Verdict is Ridiculous. WTF Italy?

https://crimcourts.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/the-new-amanda-knox-verdict-is-ridiculous-wtf-italy/​

The court, in its decision, rejected the the prosecutor’s theory of the case. But, they still found her guilty. To do so, they still relied upon the worst of the government’s evidence, the discredited DNA evidence, and MADE UP a new theory about what happened out of thin air. The capper is that the court found that Knox delivered the fatal blow with one knife, which does not match the imprints at the scene. He then finds that Sollecito also cut the victim with a different knife, which has never been found or put into evidence. The judge is literally making stuff up. He invented a two-knife theory to try to make his ruling fit the facts.​

So which one should I listen to? Someone who invents "best-fit analysis"? Which as another name, "GIGO"?

Or this Florida criminal attorney?

 

[Anode]

Following is a link to a very long article. It seems to be a very independent and well researched piece. Too long though.

http://kirkomrik.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/a_prank_a_cigarette_and_a_gun_018.pdf

She concludes it was a prank involving AK and RS, that Guede murdered alone, and they returned to clean up. Something like Sherlock?
She relies on the CCTV, KOKO, Curatolo etc, so has wasted huge energy, but she discusses the evidence logically and carefully.
PMF hate it.

I couldn't get past the "executive summary" on page 5. They were tipped off that MK was on her way home by Jovana Popovic, the woman who was there to say they didn't need to go to the train station and since AK doesn't have to work tonight why don't you guys go over and punch MK in the face and steal her stuff as a prank! Yeah, 'cause that's likely to have happened... There's 200 more pages of this. You want to talk CT? Jovana, if you figure out that you don't need us to go to the train station and if AK doesn't have to work, make sure you spy on MK and let us know when she's on the street approaching home so we can go get Rudy, whom we hardly know to assault her and play an awesome prank. We can steal her stuff, return it afterwards and never tell her who did it.

Do you want to talk about what's likely? If I were Raf and I didn't suddenly found me and my new beau free for the evening? Sex, lots and lots of sex. Don't leave the house...

 

[RandyN]

The easiest solution to make the case go away though would have been to mumble something about reasonable doubt while implying that AK is actually guilty. Ties up everything neatly and the case is done.

Well the time and the judge who should have done that would have been Nencini in his courts decision in this second appeal case. The ISC is suppose to be relegated to procedural matters of the trial. So this would be "the train has left that station already" scenario.

But it is Italy and their courts have shown themselves from bottom to the top to be wacky illogical simplistic and mostly likely rottenly corrupt entities with no compass or method to ever be corrected...so don't expect much.

The easiest thing would have been for the ISC to follow its own laws and affirm Hellmann's court verdict since it was procedurally correct and basically unassailable.

But now they are deep in a hole of their own making and honestly they have been too stupid to stop digging. It will be the ECOHR that shames Italy into handing over the shovel now.

There is some truth in the saying...sometimes you just cant fix stupid!

The honorary leader of the ISC is a 911 truth-er. Any questions?

The defense has a limited amount of time to file an appeal to the ISC. I'm guessing the prosecution stands pat this time...

 

[Desert Fox]

That's really impossible DF when the facts don't support a guilty argument. I could say the following if I was arguing for guilt.

They largely seem to do drive-by posting. . . .Those that argue for guilt don't seem willing to stop and discuss. I know what the boiler-plate arguments are for guilt but I would actually like one willing to discuss them.

 

[anglolawyer]

I couldn't get past the "executive summary" on page 5. They were tipped off that MK was on her way home by Jovana Popovic, the woman who was there to say they didn't need to go to the train station and since AK doesn't have to work tonight why don't you guys go over and punch MK in the face and steal her stuff as a prank! Yeah, 'cause that's likely to have happened... There's 200 more pages of this. You want to talk CT? Jovana, if you figure out that you don't need us to go to the train station and if AK doesn't have to work, make sure you spy on MK and let us know when she's on the street approaching home so we can go get Rudy, whom we hardly know to assault her and play an awesome prank. We can steal her stuff, return it afterwards and never tell her who did it.

Do you want to talk about what's likely? If I were Raf and I didn't suddenly found me and my new beau free for the evening? Sex, lots and lots of sex. Don't leave the house...

I always had my doubts about Jovana. First she needs a lift then all of a sudden she doesn't. Sure. Like that happens. And rather than just call Raf and say so she comes round in person only to find Amanda there. It's obvious isn't it? Popovic and Lumumba. Maybe Guede joined in. Think about it.

 

[Desert Fox]

So which one should I listen to? Someone who invents "best-fit analysis"? Which as another name, "GIGO"?

Or this Florida criminal attorney?

Did want to make one minor comment. . .
If I was on a jury and the physical evidence of the crime was solid but the motive just did not wash, I could see finding guilt.

 

[Samson]

I always had my doubts about Jovana. First she needs a lift then all of a sudden she doesn't. Sure. Like that happens. And rather than just call Raf and say so she comes round in person only to find Amanda there. It's obvious isn't it? Popovic and Lumumba. Maybe Guede joined in. Think about it.

In this siesta, this young lady has beaten the crap out of Massei and Nencini in proposing a crime scenario that let's the staged break in cohabit with a Rudi alone scenario. I thought it was impossible, but she has put it together. It is a rusty bucket of nails more than a message in a bottle, but still an honest attempt.

 

[anglolawyer]

In this siesta, this young lady has beaten the crap out of Massei and Nencini in proposing a crime scenario that let's the staged break in cohabit with a Rudi alone scenario. I thought it was impossible, but she has put it together. It is a rusty bucket of nails more than a message in a bottle, but still an honest attempt.

I know it's not her theory, but Rudy as stager seems much more plausible than Amanda and Raf. I don't believe it for a second of course. So she is an 'involvementer' then?

 

[Samson]

Did want to make one minor comment. . .
If I was on a jury and the physical evidence of the crime was solid but the motive just did not wash, I could see finding guilt.

Desert Fox, that is the smoking gun scenario. Why challenge it, but this case is identical to the Sarah Scazzi case. I read the IIP last night on that one.

 

[Samson]

I know it's not her theory, but Rudy as stager seems much more plausible than Amanda and Raf. I don't believe it for a second of course. So she is an 'involvementer' then?

She has studied the case ok, she is what I think is termed feisty, she states that Amanda Knox should be off the streets (who shouldn't be then?, but when I posted the link I assumed she was a mature woman. If I knew then what I know now I would have done it differently.
Her dissertation is interesting only for people that read on the case looking for new information that others have researched for their own projects.

She watched the video repeatedly and concluded there was no glass on top of clothes when the crime scene was unaltered.
I have no idea whether she is right, but I can easily imagine a student revisionist obsessing on details that could contradict convention.

 

[LondonJohn]

She has studied the case ok, she is what I think is termed feisty, she states that Amanda Knox should be off the streets (who shouldn't be then?, but when I posted the link I assumed she was a mature woman. If I knew then what I know now I would have done it differently.
Her dissertation is interesting only for people that read on the case looking for new information that others have researched for their own projects.

She watched the video repeatedly and concluded there was no glass on top of clothes when the crime scene was unaltered.
I have no idea whether she is right, but I can easily imagine a student revisionist obsessing on details that could contradict convention.

I don't agree with her thesis at all, and I don't think it is supported by the evidence and certain key inferences from the evidence.

But I'd make two points: firstly, it would be interesting and instructive for her to come here to discuss the case and defend her thesis - and I think that there's an interesting (and well-conducted) debate to be had. And secondly, in response to someone else's comments about how she was being received elsewhere, I looked elsewhere to find out. I find it both ironic and hilarious to observe many of the more strident pro-guilt commentators making themselves look confirmation-biassed, defensive, patronising, rude, ignorant, "last-word"-obsessed and plain stupid in their interactions with her - when they (I am guessing) are trying to project exactly the opposite set of attributes