Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[NotEvenWrong]

Discussions aren't photos and videos.

As I recall there were links to blogs but no links to any visual proof of the seven car parade thru town with lights flashing.

If you had visual proof of something; say, for example a break-in through a 2nd floor window; would you believe it true or would you then say it was edited and doctored and thus unreliable?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Bill,
When you were 20, if someone placed you in a foreign country where you were unfamiliar with the language and customs, and something traumatic happened to you -- if people then put your behavior under a microscope for the next, oh say 7 years, would any of your behaviors appear "weird"? What if they did things like selectively edit a video of you kissing your girlfriend on loop?

I'm sorry, but the people who focus on behavior are just as ridiculous as the people who can't even put a plausible guilt timeline together based on the facts. This is simply justifying bullying behavior. You're (not "you" you, but the people who engage in this behavior) blaming the girl who had her life ruined for not acting exactly how the biased incompetent people think she should have acted. And then if she's crying and sad, she is faking. If she is laughing because someone told her a funny joke, she's a monster. When you go down this route of analyzing behavior, a bully is bound to find something they just don't like about her. It is victim blaming, and it is disgusting. You can't blame someone who had their life ruined by an angry mob of retards. "Oh if you just would have acted a little more normal. You would have been fine! It's your fault! Oh not THAT normal, the other way! Now don't cry because we don't want you to seem fake! Don't smile either! That makes you look evil in the face of a tragedy. Just sit there. OH HEAVENS NOT LIKE THAT." I mean really? It's insane, these people should just keep getting their cheap thrills from the National Enquirer and Jerry Springer and leave real people alone.

 

[Desert Fox]

Bill,
When you were 20, if someone placed you in a foreign country where you were unfamiliar with the language and customs, and something traumatic happened to you -- if people then put your behavior under a microscope for the next, oh say 7 years, would any of your behaviors appear "weird"? What if they did things like selectively edit a video of you kissing your girlfriend on loop?

I'm sorry, but the people who focus on behavior are just as ridiculous as the people who can't even put a plausible guilt timeline together based on the facts. This is simply justifying bullying behavior. You're (not "you" you, but the people who engage in this behavior) blaming the girl who had her life ruined for not acting exactly how the biased incompetent people think she should have acted. And then if she's crying and sad, she is faking. If she is laughing because someone told her a funny joke, she's a monster. When you go down this route of analyzing behavior, a bully is bound to find something they just don't like about her. It is victim blaming, and it is disgusting. You can't blame someone who had their life ruined by an angry mob of retards. "Oh if you just would have acted a little more normal. You would have been fine! It's your fault! Oh not THAT normal, the other way! Now don't cry because we don't want you to seem fake! Don't smile either! That makes you look evil in the face of a tragedy. Just sit there. OH HEAVENS NOT LIKE THAT." I mean really? It's insane, these people should just keep getting their cheap thrills from the National Enquirer and Jerry Springer and leave real people alone.

Rules are already different as is. . . . .I was in France during the late 80s during a Med Cruise of my ship. I got lost and asked a police officer for directions. That is something that is not uncommon in the US. The officer however in no way wanted to help at all.

 

[tsig]

If you had visual proof of something; say, for example a break-in through a 2nd floor window; would you believe it true or would you then say it was edited and doctored and thus unreliable?

You have a film of the police parade perp walk?

 

[Desert Fox]

You have a film of the police parade perp walk?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

You have a film of the police parade perp walk?

I also don't have a video of the moon landing. Conspiracies everywhere, let me tell ya.

 

[Kauffer]

Behaviour

Kauffer - I disagree. I do not think "confirmation bias" covers this.

Erin Burnett is sincere as an individual. She says she's stuck on Amanda's behaviour as an indicator of......... what? Erin Burnett, the journalist, has in front of her both Paul Callan and Steve Moore, who themselves can have a fairly decent donnybrook about what the evidence is and what it means....

But Burnett kept defaulting to herself as an individual and abandoned being a journalist, "then there was Amanda's behaviour." (No wonder CNN is #10!)

No less than Katie Couric on one of her very first afternoon shows had no less than Raffaele Sollecito on. Couric is not a lightweight, not at all. Yet there she had Sollecito in front of her, and all she could ask him, really, was to explain Amanda's behaviour!

If Couric had actually read Sollecito's book, she'd have found he dealt with that. Sollecito said that in the Questura he was uncomfortable with Amanda's behaviour, but not because it was "inappropriate" per se. As an Italian, he could read the cues from the cops as they observed the same behaviour, and he thought that Amanda was naive - but that his role was one of support, and not criticism at a time of grief. Besides, taking her aside on the wild assumption they were now suspects was not anywhere near his thoughts: and saying, "listen, you know how people say that you're odd? Well, this is one of those times and even though I'm okay with it, I'm quite sure you cannot read the tea-leaves as to what's going on with Napoleoni!" He did not do that. Twenty-twenty hindsight says that would have been support - but then again, it had never occurred to him that the murder would be pinned on them!

Kauffer - I "get" all the criticisms you point to above. But there are simply too many people who get stuck on this behaviour issue - and the very, very, very strange observation about it is, most people who comment on it readily agree that it has nothing to do with the murder itself.

And the dots beg for connecting which are not, apparently, connected.

If one thinks this has nothing to do with the murder, what thrill does one get from commenting on this at all?

You see, really, their behaviour was no different than others. Filomena's in lawyering up for purely practical purposes. Was she cold towards Meredith in doing that? Even if so, would that in a million years implicate Filomena in a murder?

There's something going on here that is not quite "confirmation bias." Seasoned detectives zero'd in on behaviour, one judge saying that they did not need evidence because "common sense" indicated their guilt. Journalists with no shabby reputation zero-in on behaviour..... to the point of asking Raffaele to make an excuse for someone else's behaviour, when he himself is sitting right there, willing to speak about his own innocence!!!!

There's something going on here that is not quite "confirmation bias."

There is something more. You are right. Wasn't it an Italian meme which everybody started to replicate? Who shot the infamous "endless kiss" video? Wasn't that the start of it? There was something about her the Italian authorities didn't like - some attitude that didn't translate - the 'angel face' idea - the American idea - something she said at the crime scene - some look - something non verbal - not crying at the 'right' time - a perfect storm of small factors combining together at the same time which caused her to be judged differently.

It started at the cottage not the questura and then it became a rolling stone. Shopping was bad; eating a pizza was bad. She was a suspect within minutes. Every TV journalist who got interviews, not just Couric has brought up 'behaviour'. Weren't they all following suit? But the PGs who came later to the case - the internet crowd, it's real confirmatory evidence. I like the way Hellmann dealt with it.

 

[Numbers]

Bill,
When you were 20, if someone placed you in a foreign country where you were unfamiliar with the language and customs, and something traumatic happened to you -- if people then put your behavior under a microscope for the next, oh say 7 years, would any of your behaviors appear "weird"? What if they did things like selectively edit a video of you kissing your girlfriend on loop?

I'm sorry, but the people who focus on behavior are just as ridiculous as the people who can't even put a plausible guilt timeline together based on the facts. This is simply justifying bullying behavior. You're (not "you" you, but the people who engage in this behavior) blaming the girl who had her life ruined for not acting exactly how the biased incompetent people think she should have acted. And then if she's crying and sad, she is faking. If she is laughing because someone told her a funny joke, she's a monster. When you go down this route of analyzing behavior, a bully is bound to find something they just don't like about her. It is victim blaming, and it is disgusting. You can't blame someone who had their life ruined by an angry mob of retards. "Oh if you just would have acted a little more normal. You would have been fine! It's your fault! Oh not THAT normal, the other way! Now don't cry because we don't want you to seem fake! Don't smile either! That makes you look evil in the face of a tragedy. Just sit there. OH HEAVENS NOT LIKE THAT." I mean really? It's insane, these people should just keep getting their cheap thrills from the National Enquirer and Jerry Springer and leave real people alone.

NotEvenWrong,

This is a very accurate description of the guilters' approach and even that of the police and prosecutors.

The guilters' have a number of cards in their hand (they share a single one):

1. The Phony "Evidence" card. This card states, for example:

1.1 Luminol test CL means blood has been detected by the CL, because there's blood somewhere else in the same cottage. Never mind that all forensic scientists all insist that a confirmatory blood test must be done to make a definitive statement that blood has been detected.

1.2 The DNA allegedly "detected" on Raffaele Sollecito's kitchen knife's blade in a groove that only Stefanoni can see was from Meredith Kercher. Never mind that this sample registered as "too low" on Qubit quantification, meaning that there is no evidence that any DNA at all was in the sample. Furthermore, it can't possibly be contamination, because Stefanoni stated that contamination never occurred in her lab - never mind that the quantification records she reluctantly turned over to the defense do show clear instances of contamination. And never mind that the sample was LCN, and Stefanoni's lab used none of the special procedures needed to prevent contamination when LCN DNA is analyzed, as used by labs qualified to work with LCN DNA. And also never mind that Stefanoni's procedure to amplify and profile this DNA remains a mystery, and never validated, contrary to accepted DNA analysis methods.

1.3 The DNA on the Meredith's bra clasp was from Raffaele. Never mind that the bra clasp also had DNA from several other males, which means it was contaminated. Never mind that video records of the forensic police finding the bra clasp shows them handling it with dirty gloves, in ways suggestive that they may be contaminating it. Never mind that the bra clasp had been left in the cottage uncollected for 46 days after the murder was discovered, apparently stepped on (bent out of shape), and found not where it was initially observed. Never mind the the bra clasp DNA was intentionally degraded after its analysis by the storage method used by the forensic police.

2. The behavior card, as you describe above. This seems to be the most common guilter card.

3. The misogyny card. This is closely related to the behavior card. One must have a witch hunt directed at a young female.

4. The race card.

5. The anti-American card.

6. The authoritarian card. The court must always be right - but only if its judgment conforms to the bias of guilt.

 

[Desert Fox]

I hate that Amanda is called racist when it was really the cops story with her former boss.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your analogy is quite wrong. There is no mis understanding here. We are using the updated freer translation of Mignini's words, which you provided. Let's remind ourselves what Mignini said, according to you:

"Even if you are saying there is no evidence of Knox in the murder room she could have instigated it and been in another room while the crime happened. But I don't believe that. I'm telling you she was there and there is proof of it."

Once again, the proof of Ms Knox being in Ms Kercher's room cannot be inferred from any evidence of her presence outside the room - Mignini's only possible argument. Similarly there is no evidence outside Ms Kercher's room that permits a conclusion that Ms Knox was inside the cottage at the time of the murder. There are plausible, alternative explanations.

You have been, despite being challenged to do so, unable to offer any reconstruction of the murder in Ms Kercher's room that accounts for the lack of physical evidence of two alleged assailants compared to the substantial physical evidence left by a known, confirmed assailant.

That's embarrassing for you. You will have noticed that your hero, the Machiavelli character has disappeared from the board since Diocletus demonstrated that his denials with regard to the hiding of evidence by the prosecution were erroneous. (...)?

What?
Diocletus "demonstrated" something?



I think I will fade for a while soon because you are not interesting interlocutors, when arguments become too dumb and repetitive, at a certain point my interest reaches exhaustion, would a big waste of my time to follow even the wildest delusions.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A better word than presumptive is needed

What thinkest thou, my fine skeptics? Is the name of the tests - presumptive - being tossed about not appropriate?

moije2,

You may have hit upon an important part of the problem. Luminol detects the possibility of blood. The word presumptive is entrenched in the literature, but if I could replace it with another word, I would.

 

[Kauffer]

No. No one knew about the Flourometer use because it wasn't done during an incidente probatorio. Just like the re-runs of the knife and bra clasp--they were done after the incidente probatorio and were unknown to the defendants.



There is no record of any antibody test, it's not even mentioned in the SALs. Also, contrary to your erroneous statement, the DNA is definitely human because it was detected by a human-specific process (RT-qPCR). Moreover, there are suppressed profiles derived from some of these spots.



When the prosecution deliberately hides exculpatory evidence, and then lies about it, most people consider that a crime.

What?
Diocletus "demonstrated" something?



I think I will fade for a while soon because you are not interesting interlocutors, when arguments become too dumb and repetitive, at a certain point my interest reaches exhaustion, would a big waste of my time to follow even the wildest delusions.

Yep, he did - above.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

been there, done that with respect to the police convoy

Discussions aren't photos and videos.

As I recall there were links to blogs but no links to any visual proof of the seven car parade thru town with lights flashing.

tsig,

Why rely on fallible memory when I provided a link back to the original discussion here? The two citations were to the Daily Mail and to the book "Murder in Italy," on p. 159. If you go back to the earlier thread, you will also see who Candace Dempsey's sources were for this portion of the book. Within the last day or so I also provided a way to find the AP footage showing the cars leaving the police station with lights and horns on, and Charlie Wilkes provided a link to a documentary with similar footage.

 

[Kauffer]

The ability to speak

What?
Diocletus "demonstrated" something?



I think I will fade for a while soon because you are not interesting interlocutors, when arguments become too dumb and repetitive, at a certain point my interest reaches exhaustion, would a big waste of my time to follow even the wildest delusions.

We make arguments for innocence based on rational criteria; you and your cohorts obsessed by notions of osmotic evaluation of the circumstantial evidence as a whole, cannot put together a timeline of events that fits a narrative of guilt, fail to provide any citations from academic literature supporting your claims with respect to the proper interpretation of the forensic evidence and believe it is entirely unnecessary to produce any evidence whatsoever of Amanda Knox at the scene of the murder in Meredith Kercher's bedroom.

Additionally you make factually inaccurate statements about the forensic evidence in this case and the methods employed to produce the results declared in court, together with further unevidenced claims about Ms Knox.

And now you come back with talk of wild delusions and call us uninteresting and our arguments dumb. Hilarious!

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you for the translation Vibio.
This can be sensibly used by the defence as full and final acknowledgement that there is no evidence Amanda was in the room. There is no reason for Mignini to say this otherwise. More material for a file to help newcomers to the case who find it difficult to believe there is no physical evidence that Amanda was involved in a murder in a bedroom. The judge implies there is, by declaring she plunged the knife while in the bedroom.

To those who have been arguing along the theme " Knox in the murder room" over the last days: something you should know, is that "placing Knox in the murder room" is not a task for any court under Italian law. No judge would be required to determine whether a guilty party was in the murder room.
The task of a court is to determine legal responsibility.

 

[Kauffer]

Law

To those who have been arguing along the theme " Knox in the murder room" over the last days: something you should know, is that "placing Knox in the murder room" is not a task for any court under Italian law. No judge would be required to determine whether a guilty party was in the murder room.
The task of a court is to determine legal responsibility.

Is it? You mean there must be a guilty verdict? Someone has to be held responsible for the crime at trial? The task of a court, surely, is to allow a proper hearing of the evidence and the task of the judges to render a verdict based on the evidence. But in this trial we have seen probative evidence left outside the court. But for most people, I think, it would be an essential element in a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to demonstrate that the alleged perpetrator was in fact actually en scene at the time she was supposed to have stabbed someone to death. Yes, I think it's fair to say that pretty much all juries would want that question settled.

 

[Machiavelli]

We make arguments for innocence based on rational criteria; you and your cohorts obsessed by notions of osmotic evaluation of the circumstantial evidence as a whole, cannot put together a timeline of events that fits a narrative of guilt, fail to provide any citations from academic literature supporting your claims with respect to the proper interpretation of the forensic evidence and believe it is entirely unnecessary to produce any evidence whatsoever of Amanda Knox at the scene of the murder in Meredith Kercher's bedroom.

Additionally you make factually inaccurate statements about the forensic evidence in this case and the methods employed to produce the results declared in court, together with further unevidenced claims about Ms Knox.

And now you come back with talk of wild delusions and call us uninteresting and our arguments dumb. Hilarious!

You mean self-defined "rational" criteria.
You know, the fact is just I can see how your "arguments" would look like before a court.

I don't think the pro-Knoxes are in a position for lecturing others about their accuracy grade, when we consider the mass of unfounded silliness they shovel every day.

Btw, about luminol, I cited Webb et al., Tobe et al., Barni et al., and others; nobody else was able to disprove the existence of multiple studies finding out that Luminol is by far the most sensitive blood test, and more specific than TMB.

And besides the rest of observations that we could do again and again about the absence or weakness of "innocent" alternatives, the problem is nobody seems to get that evidence is based in the principle of "probable alternative". Not on confirmation or probative tests. No, it's not scientific findings, it's not certain proof, it is alternatives what determines the nature of evidence; evidence is logic, not physics, remind that; alternatives is what matters, it's the standard, not the shape and features or ither disciplines, but just the strength of alternative, it's something much "upstream" on a logical hierarchy.

 

[Machiavelli]

Is it? You mean there must be a guilty verdict? Someone has to be held responsible for the crime at trial? The task of a court, surely, is to allow a proper hearing of the evidence and the task of the judges to render a verdict based on the evidence. But in this trial we have seen probative evidence left outside the court. But for most people, I think, it would be an essential element in a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to demonstrate that the alleged perpetrator was in fact actually en scene at the time she was supposed to have stabbed someone to death. Yes, I think it's fair to say that pretty much all juries would want that question settled.

Look, Italian jurisprudence has codified about 8 different ways for someone to be guilty of concurring to murder, only two of those options imply an actual contact between the murderer and the victim. The other six ways establish exactly the same charge, and don't require the physical presence of the murderer. There is no difference as for legal responsibility between them, the penalty is identical. Only a "minor role" could make a difference, but a minor role requires specific evidence and there is no such evidence here.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

To those who have been arguing along the theme " Knox in the murder room" over the last days: something you should know, is that "placing Knox in the murder room" is not a task for any court under Italian law. No judge would be required to determine whether a guilty party was in the murder room.
The task of a court is to determine legal responsibility.

It's too bad it isn't to determine the truth. In all honesty, it's not in the U.S. either. The D.A. exists to build a case. I guess it is the same in Italy, except it is the P.M. who builds the case.

 

[Kauffer]

Guilt

Look, Italian jurisprudence has codified about 8 different ways for someone to be guilty of concurring to murder, only two of those options imply an actual contact between the murderer and the victim. The other six ways establish exactly the same charge, and don't require the physical presence of the murderer. There is no difference as for legal responsibility between them, the penalty is identical. Only a "minor role" could make a difference, but a minor role requires specific evidence and there is no such evidence here.

What? Ms Knox was held to have stabbed Ms Kercher to death! You don't think this requires proof of "actual contact between murderer and victim"? In a small space ? Blood slopping about? Her presence not required? No physical evidence in the room required?? Seriously? Please explain why not? Just as a matter of common sense if nothing else.