Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Mach,
Your statement above indicates your deeply-held belief in guilt and your devotion to prejudice over science or fair, logical thinking.

If the presence of blood in a specimen or stain cannot be confirmed by a scientifically valid test, then one cannot logically assume that blood was present. If one can confirm that blood is present by a valid and highly specific test, and there are no contraindications to the specificity, then one can conclude the presence of blood.

Your thinking reminds me of the Holy Inquisitors who refused to believe Galileo's evidence supporting Copernicus and his other work demonstrating sunspots.

But your reasoning is wrong. The lack of a 100% confirmation does not make a piece of circumstantial evidence disappear.

Your comparison with Galileo is egregiously erroneous: it was in fact Galileo who was not able to confirm Copernicus' theory. He had evidence, but was circumstantial evidence. Though, the Church stated that he may not draw such conclusion and only stick to the theory within divulgative books, unless he had a 100% certain confirmation.

It was the Church who said - like you (!) - that if you don't have a direct proof, than you must assume the opposite conclusion.

It was the Church request of a "confirmatory test" that was logically crap. Galileo's "holistic" ("osmotic") approach was correct. He had valid circumstantial evidence for supporting the theory, albeit he lacked a complete experimental confirmation.

 

[Kauffer]

How does one prove one's innocence?

Would an alibi where two (or more) witnesses saw the suspect at a different location at the time of the crime qualify? Or being locked in a jail cell at the time of the crime?

I give the examples above since individuals with those proofs of innocence have been wrongfully convicted in the US.

Remember that due to a decision by the prosecutor not to obtain the temperature of Meredith's body until long after it was discovered, the prosecution did not have a reliable estimate of her time of death. Indeed, during the first level trial, the prosecution adjusted the claimed time of death later in order to cast doubt on Amanda and Raffaele's joint alibi.

I point out that the prosecution ignored digestive evidence and cell phone evidence that Meredith's time of death was between about 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm and most likely was between 9:00 and 9:30 pm.

Yes yes. I admire your passion. She came within a whisker of incontrovertible proof of innocence.

 

[Kaosium]

Amanda Knox has been devastatingly unlucky that the circumstances of the murder have meant she has been unable, by a whisker, actually to prove her innocence, but with regard to the lack of evidence of her presence in Meredith Kercher's bedroom, she has surely been very lucky indeed.

I agree that luck played a part, but so did circumstance. The previous week Amanda was staying with Raffaele and returning to the cottage mainly to shower and change. When they did the DNA collection in Meredith's bedroom they didn't sweep down everything but concentrated on Meredith's body, clothes, and items like her purse that look liked they bore evidence of the murder.

 

[Machiavelli]

Okay, but if there wasn't blood detected with the luminol AND there wasn't blood detected with the more sensitive TMB, then why would you even think the prints were made in blood?

It can only be because you want it to fit a specific narrative so badly that you will overlook science.

Of course I would always conclude it is blood. I don't see a scientific or logical reason why I shouldn't.
Not only TMB is less sensitive and less specific than luminol. It is also that in order to come to a different conclusion, I would need to have at least a number of alternative, probable substances with the property of reacting to luminol and not to TMB. In fact there is not a single alternative substance that reacts to luminol but not to TMB. There is no evidence of it in the flat, and there is no suggestion that a substance with such property exists in nature.
Thus, there is no reason why a negative or positive TMB test could add or take information, except on telling that whatever substance it was it must have been left only little of it or a very high dilution.

But then: why everybody misses the point that luminol prints evidence is much more than just about a chemical substance?
It is about a dynamic, how were these prints produced, how many people and how were they "walking"; and why the coincidence of prints proven to be in diluted blood found on the scene; and why evidence of cleanup (towels, luminol swirls on floor, splashed mat with bloody prints and clean floor without bloody prints, a missing shoeprint tha comes back in luminol); and why double DNA Knox + Meredith in Filomena's room....

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes yes. I admire your passion. She came within a whisker of incontrovertible proof of innocence.

The conviction was political one way or the other. . . . .Not sure the evidence would matter at all even if there was something even stronger as far as evidence. They did not want to accept Patrick's iron clad alibi for example.

 

[Kauffer]

My question for you is what does it take to prove her innocence?

It is very clear that the murder took place before 10:00 PM and probably before 9:30 PM because of the digestive evidence and there is computer evidence that puts Amanda and Raffaele at his apartment at 9:23 and there is nothing that ties Rudy to Amanda/Raffaele. Not a phone call, not a text, not an email. There is nothing that even shows Amanda ever set foot in Meredith's bedroom let alone having been involved in a murder.

Rudy on the other hand left dozens of pieces of his physical evidence in Meredith's bedroom. Rudy originally said that Amanda and Raffaele were not there and Meredith died around 9:30 only 7 minutes after Raffaele downloaded the video Naruto to his computer. Granted Amanda and Raffaele are not on a cctv camera at some restaurant the entire evening, but their alibi is pretty strong.

What is sad is the morons that ignore it.

You are right of course. Police and forensic bungling has likely robbed Ms Knox of proof of innocence - the failure to take the body temperature combined with the trashing of the computers. But this should not have mattered. There simply isn't any proof of guilt.

 

[Wattson]

Of course I would always conclude it is blood. I don't see a scientific or logical reason why I shouldn't.
Not only TMB is less sensitive and less specific than luminol. It is also that in order to come to a different conclusion, I would need to have at least a number of alternative, probable substances with the property of reacting to luminol and not to TMB. In fact there is not a single alternative substance that reacts to luminol but not to TMB. There is no evidence of it in the flat, and there is no suggestion that a substance with such property exists in nature.
Thus, there is no reason why a negative or positive TMB test could add or take information, except on telling that whatever substance it was it must have been left only little of it or a very high dilution.

But then: why everybody misses the point that luminol prints evidence is much more than just about a chemical substance?
It is about a dynamic, how were these prints produced, how many people and how were they "walking"; and why the coincidence of prints proven to be in diluted blood found on the scene; and why evidence of cleanup (towels, luminol swirls on floor, splashed mat with bloody prints and clean floor without bloody prints, a missing shoeprint tha comes back in luminol); and why double DNA Knox + Meredith in Filomena's room....

If it's not blood then it's a different narrative. There is a logical explanation for everything you just stated.

 

[Samson]

Actually no, I haven't misunderstood where the burden of proof lies. I merely point out that if the defendant can prove her innocence, then the case is over. Ms Knox has not proved her innocence, notwithstanding your comments; the prosecution however has not met it's burden, nevertheless. I believe she is innocent though. If they had gone to Gubbio straight from Mr Solllecito's flat for example, there would have been no case. But that too would not have been proof of innocence; they just would not have tried to make a case for guilt.

Ms Knox is not the one who must prove her innocence, but if challenged to do so, she can. Unfortunately in her public statements she has failed to address the issues that furnish the proof she could not be involved, and the courts were operating under instructions, first from Mignini, then the ISC.

Mignini has stated that if the break in is not staged Amanda is innocent, yet she has not grasped the importance of demonstrating the break in was unstageable. This can be done by multiple logical and forensic pathways.

 

[Kauffer]

In my judgment, the lack of duodenum contents and the presence of not fully digested material in the stomach are two strong indicators out of many that the TOD was before 10 PM. If competent, honest people had examined Mr. Sollecito's computer, that might be enough to prove innocence.

Oh I think we can safely conclude from all the relevant evidence, in particular, Sophie Purton's, that Ms Kercher died much earlier than 10pm. Of course the body temperature not being taken at the earliest opportunity was a howler. Do you know how narrow a range for TOD that would have provided? For the computer evidence I fear we would have needed the analysis of Ms Knox's as well as Mr Sollecito's machines. One computer, one alibi, they might have argued and spun a different slightly crazier narrative.

 

[Machiavelli]

If it's not blood then it's a different narrative. There is a logical explanation for everything you just stated.

You may bring in as a defensive argument the idea that an alternative narrative that answers all questions is possible.
I think you realize that, as long as the defence has no alternative substanceto propose and no alternative dynamic, or requires to assume a series of improbable events with no evidence to support them, then your argument is weak; and the piece of circumstantial evidence stands.

It's obvious that when the defence says "it's another substance", and then says "we have no clue what substance could be", the argument is weak. It's weaker than the accusation narrative, it's just obvious, you don't need to be a genius to see that.
It would be enough but the same goes for the other alternative explanations: improbable, weaker.

 

[Numbers]

But your reasoning is wrong. The lack of a 100% confirmation does not make a piece of circumstantial evidence disappear.

Your comparison with Galileo is egregiously erroneous: it was in fact Galileo who was not able to confirm Copernicus' theory. He had evidence, but was circumstantial evidence. Though, the Church stated that he may not draw such conclusion and only stick to the theory within divulgative books, unless he had a 100% certain confirmation.

It was the Church who said - like you (!) - that if you don't have a direct proof, than you must assume the opposite conclusion.

It was the Church request of a "confirmatory test" that was logically crap. Galileo's "holistic" ("osmotic") approach was correct. He had valid circumstantial evidence for supporting the theory, albeit he lacked a complete experimental confirmation.

Mach,

I'll take the opportunity of your off-base statements to make a few points. At a minimum, I will provide a definition of circumstantial evidence, copied from Wikipedia. I will point out that all of science is based on what would be considered "circumstantial evidence" in a court.

Galileo's evidence that the planets moved around the sun included his observations through a telescope that 1) Venus showed phases, and 2) Jupiter had moons (the 4 Galilean ones). Direct evidence supporting Copernicus would be impossible: Either 1) one would need to take a video of the planets for say, one year or more from a point well above the plane of the solar system while co-moving with the system, or 2) God would need to provide testimony.

Court evidence is either "circumstantial" or "direct", where "direct" evidence would be, generally, either "testimonial" or perhaps "photographic" eye-witness or confessional documentation of a crime during its commission.

From Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence:

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance, a witness saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether or not evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually circumstantial evidence. A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant’s firearm killed the victim provides circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt can be inferred. (Note that an inference of guilt could be incorrect if the person who actually fired the weapon was somebody else.)

On the other hand, the additional circumstantial evidence of the defendant's fingerprint on the trigger would dovetail with this piece to provide corroborating evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is especially important in civil and criminal cases where direct evidence is lacking.

 

[Samson]

In my judgment, the lack of duodenum contents and the presence of not fully digested material in the stomach are two strong indicators out of many that the TOD was before 10 PM. If competent, honest people had examined Mr. Sollecito's computer, that might be enough to prove innocence.

Chris, I am certain that a research hospital can furnish proof Meredith could not survive anywhere near 10pm. Yet Nencini in fact seems to allow guilt for both with that time of death, though I have not read his report. But the break in and the duodenum tell me I would not accept a confession from Amanda as being at the cottage when Meredith died. I would be trying to find an explanation for the false statement. This seems straightforward to resolve, and in all honesty, the failure of the great USA to deal with these items keeps me riveted.
I expect nothing from Italy.

 

[Kaosium]

But your reasoning is wrong. The lack of a 100% confirmation does not make a piece of circumstantial evidence disappear.

Your comparison with Galileo is egregiously erroneous: it was in fact Galileo who was not able to confirm Copernicus' theory. He had evidence, but was circumstantial evidence. Though, the Church stated that he may not draw such conclusion and only stick to the theory within divulgative books, unless he had a 100% certain confirmation.

It was the Church who said - like you (!) - that if you don't have a direct proof, than you must assume the opposite conclusion.

It was the Church request of a "confirmatory test" that was logically crap. Galileo's "holistic" ("osmotic") approach was correct. He had valid circumstantial evidence for supporting the theory, albeit he lacked a complete experimental confirmation.

He also had something wrong: the sun moved too, (and isn't the center of the universe either) which is why his theory couldn't match the evidence. It was more right than the geocentric view but the latter had one thing going for it, there is a perspective from which it appears everything revolves around the Earth: ours. And of course it's from our perspective that all the observations were made which is what made up the evidence.

No one champions heliocentrism anymore either, but the debate served to further human knowledge, though it would have been served better without the book burnings, imprisonments and whatnot. Galileo was a bit of a smartass and calling powerful people Simplitico isn't very wise. He should have kept in mind the advice of a fellow Italian called 'Machiavelli' or something like that who advised 'never do a powerful person a small injury.'

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,

I'll take the opportunity of your off-base statements to make a few points. At a minimum, I will provide a definition of circumstantial evidence, copied from Wikipedia. I will point out that all of science is based on what would be considered "circumstantial evidence" in a court.

Galileo's evidence that the planets moved around the sun included his observations through a telescope that 1) Venus showed phases, and 2) Jupiter had moons (the 4 Galilean ones). Direct evidence supporting Copernicus would be impossible: Either 1) one would need to take a video of the planets for say, one year or more from a point well above the plane of the solar system while co-moving with the system, or 2) God would need to provide testimony.

Direct evidence of earth rotation is actually possible, through measurement of: 1) Ferrel law, 2) Coriolis force, 3) force of gravity latitude gradient. Also earth revolution can be shown directly by triangulation measurements. In fact direct evidence would require knowledge about gravity and other technical equipment Galileo didn't have (thus he developed some erroneous "direct" demonstrations, such as the tidal movement). It was impossible to have a direct evidence at his time.
It may happen that direct evidence is impractical to achieve or impossible.

That Jupiter had moons and Venus had phases is an example of indirect, therefore circumstantial evidence. It's an analogy. It's like looking at a diluted print in blood, and make an inference about a latent print in luminol both on the same crime scene.

Galiei published a divulgative science book in Italian supporting such circumstantial evidence. The Church decided that unless he had direct evidence, he should stick to supporting the opposing theory.

 

[MDDVS]

Direct evidence of earth rotation is actually possible, through measurement of: 1) Ferrel law, 2) Coriolis force, 3) force of gravity latitude gradient. Also earth revolution can be shown directly by triangulation measurements. In fact direct evidence would require knowledge about gravity and other technical equipment Galileo didn't have (thus he developed some erroneous "direct" demonstrations, such as the tidal movement). It was impossible to have a direct evidence at his time.
It may happen that direct evidence is impractical to achieve or impossible.

That Jupiter had moons and Venus had phases is an example of indirect, therefore circumstantial evidence. It's an analogy. It's like looking at a diluted print in blood, and make an inference about a latent print in luminol both on the same crime scene.

Galiei published a divulgative science book in Italian supporting such circumstantial evidence. The Church decided that unless he had direct evidence, he should stick to supporting the opposing theory.

Hmm? You're confusing rotation with translation...

 

[Machiavelli]

Hmm? You're confusing rotation with translation...

I don't think so.

 

[MDDVS]

I don't think so.

Well, Numbers was talking about translation of the Earth but you mention rotation movement in your reply to him.

 

[MDDVS]

But yes, Galileo didn't have evidence for his theory. Quite the contrary, his theory was at odds with the best astronomical observations at the time.

 

[Samson]

I don't think so.

There is a serviceable analogy between observations being assembled to suggest Amanda's guilt, and observations assembled by Ptolemy, epicyles, to suggest a geocentric solar system.
In both cases the beginning of the solution is to begin with no suppositions.
Claudio Hellmann understood this, yet it does not take a great man, and a heroic seeker of justice, just a journeyman judge from any field.
It actually does not need a judge at all.
All appeals to authority to look for fire behind the smoke should have been laid to rest with his simple elimination of witnesses who were far too late to the party, and the determination the break in was easy, certainly not unlikely.

Add to this the highly unlikely sufficiency of two suspect dna items to keep the defendants under lock and key, and it is case closed for critical thinkers 101.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, Numbers was talking about translation of the Earth but you mention rotation movement in your reply to him.

Well, but rotation would be a proof that the Sun does not revolve.