Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Would she be safe in the UK?

One of those dodgy places is Italy, to which the UK will refuse to extradite due to prison conditions. Maybe Amanda Knox should move to the UK--she'd be safe there.

I assume you have the Badre and Rancadore cases in mind. This is what the defence consultant charged with investigating Italian prison conditions had to say following the Badre decision:

"The Royal Courts of London decision against the Court of Florence set a serious precedent; in fact, on 17 March, another British judge negated the extradition of Domenico Rancadore wanted by the Palermo Court for Mafia-related activities. Both decisions reinforce the international concern on the way in which Italian institutions are not abiding by their international obligations vis-à-vis the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

"UK Justice humiliates Italy twice for her systemic violation of human rights in prisons"

http://www.radicalparty.org/en/rnn-...e-her-systemic-violation-human-rights-prisons

However, I do not believe this would render Ms Knox safe. The Italians would merely have to give specific assurances and that would be sufficient, but only if we retain the EAW in its current form, which is far from certain. Ms Knox should stay where she is for the time being until this nonsense is resolved - as it surely will be.

 

[Kaosium]

Speaking of luminol, this motion to preclude filed by a criminal defense lawyer is interesting:

http://archive.13wmaz.com/news/pdf/318MotiontoExcludeLuminol.pdf

And a fascinating postscript:

Heh, great post.

Diocletus, do you suppose the judge would have been moved had the police and prosecutor sung out 'Turnip Juice!' and 'Horseradish!' in unison as the judge deliberated on this issue?

 

[Diocletus]

Heh, great post.

Diocletus, do you suppose the judge would have been moved had the police and prosecutor sung out 'Turnip Juice!' and 'Horseradish!' in unison as the judge deliberated on this issue?

Well . . . yes. After all we're talking about Georgia here, and everyone knows that there are a lot of uneducated rednecks there easily impressed by such antics.

No offense to Georgia Tech.

 

[Planigale]

This is complete and utter nonsense.

In fact, the autopsy report is entirely consistent with a sole assailant. The wounds are entirely compatible with being inflicted by (and in reality were logically inflicted by) just one knife - a short, narrow-bladed knife. A knife of exactly the type of profile that was found imprinted in Kercher's blood on the bed sheet......

The DNA on Sollecito's knife and the bra clasp are entirely unreliable and should therefore be totally discounted. I have no idea what is meant by the "blood stain pattern", and how on Earth this could possibly point to an "unequivocal deduction" of multiple attackers.

The truth about the matter is this: the prosecutors decided - seemingly on the basis of their own whims/prejudices and their a priori theory of the crime - that things would necessarily have looked very different had Guede been the sole attacker. They decided that if Guede had been the sole attacker, Kercher would necessarily have fought hard against him, and would therefore have had defensive wounds on hands/arms/etc. They also decided that Kercher "must" have been totally restrained (at least by both arms) at the time of the stabbings, meaning that at least one other person had to have been present to do the restraining when the stabbings occurred. And lastly, of course, they decided that Sollecito's kitchen knife was used, but knew that this knife couldn't have caused one of the wounds, so they necessarily decided that there were at least two knives used - ergo at least two attackers.

All of this is utterly bogus and improper "reasoning". It's based on nothing more than baseless conjecture, prejudice and confirmation bias. Historical hard evidence shows that it's entirely possible for a single menacing attacker, who is stronger than the victim and armed with a deadly weapon, to force the victim into a state of passive compliance. This matter has been discussed and dealt with here several times before.

So, in fact, the autopsy evidence and all the other credible evidence is wholly compatible with Guede, as the sole attacker, threatening Kercher into compliance (possibly using the well-worn technique along the lines of "if you struggle or shout, I will kill you with this sharp knife, but if you do what I say and keep quiet, I won't hurt you"), such that things ended up with her on all fours and Guede behind/on top of her with his knife held to her throat with one hand. Then, at some point and for some reason (I believe it was when Guede initiated a sexual assault), Kercher struggled and probably screamed out, precipitating the knife wounds (which were all made with the same single knife - Guede's knife).

There is a truism in the UK that covers this situation "Lay back and think of England", I do not know if British women are uniquely patriotic or if there is an equivalent for other nationalities, but a man with a knife is a powerful argument. (FWIW met with a similar situation one night in Kilburn I ran screaming down the middle of the road - no drivers stopped, but I survived unscathed other than being hooted at).

 

[Desert Fox]

God love us. There's more outside than there are inside, as the saying goes.

Well, you pretty much prove that you don't really care much about the politics outside your own sphere either. . . .

The thing is that there really is no evidence of Amanda being involved in Meredeth's murder. Seen it from your own posts where you never actually post anything of substance. If it is not evidence that convicted, the only thing it really leaves is politics.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is a truism in the UK that covers this situation "Lay back and think of England", I do not know if British women are uniquely patriotic or if there is an equivalent for other nationalities, but a man with a knife is a powerful argument. (FWIW met with a similar situation one night in Kilburn I ran screaming down the middle of the road - no drivers stopped, but I survived unscathed other than being hooted at).

Trying to put myself in a woman's shoes, if I was being raped at knife point by a stranger, my female roommate, and her new boyfriends, I would be more likely to resist because it is far more likely (I would argue almost certainly) that they are going to kill me. If I live, I can point them out after all. a single stranger is much more likely to let me live.

 

[Kauffer]

It has to be this:

Quote:
Evidence is a logical concept, it is not an object located within a small space.


Thanks for clearing that up, Mach. I've been confused until now about how it is possible for so many people to be so convinced that forensics are irrelevant when it comes to determining guilt or innocence.

Just focus on the logic and forget the objects. Presto!

Of course the small space he is referring to is Ms Kercher's bedroom. And we still don't know from him how four people managed to fit in there amidst all the stabbing and the bleeding such that Ms Knox left no trace of herself and Mr Sollecito, apparently, a few cells. A good exercise is actually to mark out the space, block off the parts of the space that have furniture and try to conceive of a reconstruction of the crime that a) fits into the space and b) permits for the absence of physical evidence that we point to. You could do it in a courtroom. It would be extremely revealing.

 

[Bill Williams]

God love us. There's more outside than there are inside, as the saying goes.

Well, you pretty much prove that you don't really care much about the politics outside your own sphere either. . . .

The thing is that there really is no evidence of Amanda being involved in Meredeth's murder. Seen it from your own posts where you never actually post anything of substance. If it is not evidence that convicted, the only thing it really leaves is politics.

..... and after-all this is a skeptics site.

I don't think I've ever seen Supercal post anything of substance other than ad hominem.

Machiavelli, at least, deals with evidence, even if he thinks, "Evidence is a logical concept, it is not an object located within a small space."

Griffinmill thinks Machiavelli is honourable.

To each their own.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Heroic?! Like John F. Kennedy and PT-109? Heroic like Churchill and Londoners holding fast during the London blitz? My God, this is lunacy.

Heroic in the same way as Hiroo Onada, I suppose. "Machiavelli" has by now expended tens of thousands of words in a crusade against science and reason.

Vecchiotti was bribed!

Peter Gill was duped by Vecchiotti!

Scientific data is not important!

Luminol is the one, true test for blood!

Any tribe of footers, any gaggle of anti-vaxxers, any mob of truthers, would be proud to have "Machiavelli." They too would laud him as a hero. I parse through his screeds and recall what H.L. Mencken said about Harding's inaugural address: It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh.

 

[Diocletus]

Heroic in the same way as Hiroo Onada, I suppose. "Machiavelli" has by now expended tens of thousands of words in a crusade against science and reason.

Vecchiotti was bribed!

Peter Gill was duped by Vecchiotti!

Scientific data is not important!

Luminol is the one, true test for blood!

Any tribe of footers, any gaggle of anti-vaxxers, any mob of truthers, would be proud to have "Machiavelli." They too would laud him as a hero. I parse through his screeds and recall what H.L. Mencken said about Harding's inaugural address: It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh.

Speaking of luminol, see para. 2 of this report. Pretty forceful stuff:

http://netk.net.au/Tasmania/PoliceReport.pdf

It is clear that the Neill-Fraser case involves serious deficiencies in forensic procedures. If we were to identify those errors promptly, we would be in a position to act proactively to prevent or respond to the possibility of similar errors in other cases.
The forensic scientist said that when looking for indications of blood:
we can use a test called a screening test or a confirmatory test. So in this case I used a screening test. (639)12
The correct procedure is to use a screening test and a confirmatory test. To have used a screening test without a confirmatory test represents a fundamental error in this case.
The materials used for a screening test (Luminol, for example) are relatively cheap and can be used to cover large areas. The liquid chemical material is sprayed over an area, and with the lights out one looks to see if it glows in the dark. If it does it is indicative of the possibility of blood being in that area which is glowing. However, the screening tests used in this case (Luminol and Hemastix) will also give a positive reaction to around 100 substances including paints, metals, fruits, vegetables and bleach based cleaning agents. It can also give the appearance of a positive response when it is not in contact with any reactive substance. Luminol has an inherent glow, and if the scientist sprays too much of the substance onto a surface, it will appear to give a glow response which is merely an accumulation of the overspray.
This means that the results of screening tests are not admissible as evidence in court unless they are accompanied by follow-up confirmatory tests which identify a particular substance. This is because on their own screening tests prove nothing. They are merely indicative of a possibility. That possibility is that blood is present at the test location.
That this is so has been internationally recognised for many years now, and is well established in the decided cases and in the scientific literature.

 

[Machiavelli]

Heroic in the same way as Hiroo Onada, I suppose. "Machiavelli" has by now expended tens of thousands of words in a crusade against science and reason.

You mean, against a bunch of delusional conspiracy theorists who proclaim themselves liberal rationalists.

 

[Matthew Best]

I parse through his screeds and recall what H.L. Mencken said about Harding's inaugural address: It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh.

Excellent!

 

[Samson]

You mean, against a bunch of delusional conspiracy theorists who proclaim themselves liberal rationalists.

You posted that digestion science must be abandoned in this murder case because the evidence is Meredith ate earlier than 7 30pm. This is a sufficient post to prove Charlie Wilkes' post unassailable.

 

[Desert Fox]

You mean, against a bunch of delusional conspiracy theorists who proclaim themselves liberal rationalists.

I am curious, do you believe that American police or prosecutors ever manufacture evidence against defendants?

 

[anglolawyer]

Rather than descend to unworthy insults, Mach, how about you explain why negative TMB and lack of confirmatory testing were considered so irrelevant by Nencini, whose approach you share, that he didn't even mention them?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Diocletus,

Thanks again. This is worth repeating: "Luminol has an inherent glow, and if the scientist sprays too much of the substance onto a surface, it will appear to give a glow response which is merely an accumulation of the overspray." link. The luminol application in the hallway was very heavy, a point conceded even by Colonel Garofano, no friend of the defense.

There is also a quotation at this link from Thomas Cromwell, a judge in Canada: "In their study of miscarriages of justice in Britain, Canada and Australia, Professors Sangha, Roach and Moles identify recurring problems common to the experience of those jurisdictions. These include the use of preliminary tests as conclusive evidence, the failure to identify or disclose procedural errors in the use of scientific methods or tests, misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the significance of findings and experts going beyond their area of expertise or not explaining their findings or controversies and uncertainties in the science in a clear, impartial manner."

And this from the same link is relevant: "It is clear from the above that evidence concerning the results of screening tests which are not accompanied by corresponding confirmatory tests which identify the particular substance involved (if any) are inadmissible for the purpose of criminal proceedings. This was confirmed in the Victorian case of R v Smart in 2008 where Lasry J stated:
'although I would admit the evidence in relation to the blood stains which are confirmed to be blood by scientific analysis and which produce relevant DNA profiles, I would not admit the evidence in relation to the luminol positive areas where there is no confirmatory testing.17'

That is the approach which should have been taken in Ms Neill-Fraser’s case."

IIRC I have posted on this case previously, but I had almost forgotten about it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Turnipjuice !

Rust________!

Cleaning supplies_________!

A whole host of possible substances_________!

Not blood___________.

 

[Planigale]

Trying to put myself in a woman's shoes, if I was being raped at knife point by a stranger, my female roommate, and her new boyfriends, I would be more likely to resist because it is far more likely (I would argue almost certainly) that they are going to kill me. If I live, I can point them out after all. a single stranger is much more likely to let me live.

To be fair they may only have been after my purse, but one thinks the worst, two males one small planigale and a knife = panic.

 

[Machiavelli]

You posted that digestion science must be abandoned in this murder case because the evidence is Meredith ate earlier than 7 30pm. This is a sufficient post to prove Charlie Wilkes' post unassailable.

"Digestion science" is only your self-proclaimed muse, nothing but an invocation from yourself. I taught you instead a little of basic statistics, but just to show the actual context in which digestion statistics science must be applied here (statistic science must be applied to a specific condition), and you seemingly didn't absorb it. You went on claiming - this is what you said more or less literally - even that 10 minutes earlier "must" be considered "much more likely", no matter what's the position of the figure would be on the Gauss curve! Which is pure insanity. The actual statistic picture says that in the applied case if you are ready to accept a 90 minutes delay as "the most likely", this means you are ready to accept a 100 minutes delay as "close to the most likely". You don't unserstand that you imply a mathematical intorno whenever you decide a value, and you don't understand the distribution of values is more varied the more extreme the farther they are located towards the "tails" of the curve (which is where you want to locate it), a percentile where the tolerance and variability becomes huge. Yet, you want to "locate" it there as the most likely value while - at the same time - you want to deny tolerence for its variation; which is pure nonsense.

On the same topic I also reminded how the gastric emptying argument is actualy an alibi argument, and I pointed out how this argument becomes completely pointless since there is absolutely no alibi valid for the two suspects beyond 8:30/8:40 pm. The few spot-like claimed computer interactions at times like 9:18 are not an alibi.

I pointed out how, on the other hand, the digestion argument is a defensive argument not a refutation of the evidence (thus an alibi) therefore it would even require to meet, in principle, an extremely high standard of certainity.
I did not argue about the delusional statement that their alibi should be considered "osmotically sound", I didn't spend time on that since any rational observer understands that the situation of the two suspects' alibies is absolutely catastrophic.

Statistics is too difficult, ok. Galileo Galilei's method also caused confusion among the pro-Knoxes (Numbers mistook the roles, as if Galileo was the one claiming that when "standards" of "absolute certainity" are not met than you need to accept the contrary theory, and that analogies - like blood footprints on bathmat and luminol prints - are not circumstantial evidence - while instead it was the Cardinal Mazzarino crowd who took this side, and it was Galileo's science who endorsed circumstantial evidence!).
Let's turn to something more simple. Addition and subtraction. You have an example for where the pro-Knoxes managed get lost on something as simple as that: an expression with a subtraction and a division to calculate Guede's penalty. Like calculating a discount down from the price tag when you by a car from a a salesman on a special offer day. They got it wrong. Kaosium said he surrenders. For how incredible this might be, some people like Kaosium here get lost about this calculaion; but if you get even this calculation wrong I'm not surprised if you don't understand circumstantial evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is a truism in the UK that covers this situation "Lay back and think of England", I do not know if British women are uniquely patriotic or if there is an equivalent for other nationalities, but a man with a knife is a powerful argument. (FWIW met with a similar situation one night in Kilburn I ran screaming down the middle of the road - no drivers stopped, but I survived unscathed other than being hooted at).

How horrible for you. But obviously you had a viable escape route to use, plus it was in a public place with other people around. But I'd argue that it's a very, very different situation to be cornered in a private house, especially if the assailant is significantly bigger and stronger and is the only one with access to a deadly weapon.

It's long been a proven technique of home intruders - particularly males against females - to force their victim into compliance through use of the simple (and usually incredibly effective) technique of promising not to harm them if they comply, and conversely threatening to injure or kill them if they do not comply. Even a 6-year-old could understand the psychological bargain being struck here.

And many times the intruder really only does go as far as tying up the victim etc before robbing the place and escaping - that's why it works so well. After all, if the victim knew with any degree of certainty that the intruder's intentions were to kill or seriously injure (or sexually violate) her from the very beginning, then obviously the better thing to do would be to fight back from the very beginning. But most who are placed in that invidious position (a form of Sophie's choice in some ways) quickly arrive at a line of reasoning which concludes that their "least bad" option is to comply, since there's at least a decent chance that the intruder will be as good as his word, and since the other option (i.e. not complying and fighting back) virtually guarantees injury or death.

And I believe that this is probably exactly the way in which Guede - as a sole intruder/attacker that night - forced Kercher into a "least bad" decision to comply and allow him to manoeuvre her and place his knife at her throat. I think that at some moment she decided to abandon this strategy (in my view, most likely when Guede initiated a sexual assault, at which point Kercher became painfully aware that Guede intended to violate her), which is in turn what prompted Guede to stab her in the neck.