Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What I do feel is that the DNA evidence is so sparse in the Knox case and that the evidence of a conviction-obsessed prosecutor and police so strong in the case that a jury would be justified in feeling that the existing DNA evidence could have resulted from willful or careless contamination.

I assume that the reason you include the prosecutor in this statement is that there was an opportunity for the prosecutor to have contaminated the evidence. As this would appear to be extremely unusual (the prosecutor would not as far as I am aware be involved in the chain of custody at all), I assume there is some evidence that such an opportunity existed. Could you let me know what this is?

If there is no such evidence, then what possible relevance does whether the prosecutor was "conviction-obsessed" or not have to the question of contamination?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
We're talking about a rape and murder of a roommate and your subsequent framing of your boss.

You keep repeating this despite the fact it has been addressed. The police interrogation wasn't even valid under Italian law and the accusation of character defamation lawsuit you claim was concluded has only been charged. No trial on this has occurred.

Not to mention, the interview in question was after the behavior that was observed by the police, not before.

Amanda Knox performed a cartwheel and did the splits before being questioned by Italian police about the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, a court has heard.


You don't have the facts in the case correct yet you repeat your errors as evidence supporting your conclusions.

...Again, the "thing about throwing a noisy party" wasn't to you but to SG, who'd never heard about it before. I threw wild parties when I was in university, too, but never got a citation. Maybe I was just lucky.

Talk about unrelated information. A noisy party is what? Evidence of a Satanist cult or sex orgy inclined young woman?

 

[JihadJane]

Keep in mind that we are not talking about only the floor exercise episode. We are not talking about only the underwear shopping episode. We are not talking about only the kissy face antics in the police station. We are not talking only about any of the other reports of Knox's attitude which are not normal in someone who has just discovered a friend brutally raped and murdered. We are not taking each separate demonstration of incongruous behavior in isolation and judging the entire trial on the merits of that one point.

Yes, but what is it about these supposedly incongruous behaviors, taken as a whole (or separately), that supports the particular theory that she has just murdered/raped her friend?

 

[Eyeron]

You know, I read the Wiki and it doesn't say anything about these kinds of things happening.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
It sounds as though there are two issues here: (1) Is Ms Knox guilty?

The issue is about how cultural expectations may have contributed to a false conclusion about the meaning of a person's behavior. The issue is about convicting a person because once it is clear the prosecutor had no case, face saving, a natural human reaction, took over and the prosecutor could not back down from his original bizarre beliefs he concocted about the case.

... (2) Is the Italian justice system too primitive to properly handle rape-murder cases?...

Absolute utter straw man.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

...and the improbabilty that Knox and Solecito would have carried the murder weapon back to Solecito's apartment and put it in his kitchen. Were they really so in need of keeping kitchen knives that they wouldn't have just disposed of it?

<snip>

I think that it is improbable that someone who had almost singlehandedly conceived and executed the largest and most deadly terrorist truck bombing in the history of the U.S. would flee the scene in a car with no license plates and keep an illegal, unregistered firearm with him while he was doing it.

But there you are.

There are entire careers based on listing the mind-numbingly stupid things that criminals do. Examples are easy to find. I won't start a recitation here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

stillicho: IIRC, Skeptigirl lives (or did until recently) in and around Seattle, WA.

And has since 1982. And I lived in Seattle until ~ 1988.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The cartwheels are a red herring.

DR

Say it loud, DR. I'm not sure that the idea is getting across.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Talk about unrelated information. A noisy party is what? Evidence of a Satanist cult or sex orgy inclined young woman?

Unrelated information that YOU requested a source for. Why did you do that if it was of no relevance?

A noisy party has only been claimed as evidence that Ms Knox may not live up to the alleged portrayal in the US media.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What of their whereabouts the night of the murder? Is it not correct that their alibi had been shown to be false by multiple witnesses?

So far all I've seen on that was the unsourced list of evidence in a forum post that was linked to.

Knox gave conflicting statements about her whereabouts the night of the murder. Outside of the police interrogation I'm pretty sure she and her boyfriend consistently reported being at his flat.

 

[quadraginta]

Keep in mind that we are not talking about only the floor exercise episode. We are not talking about only the underwear shopping episode. We are not talking about only the kissy face antics in the police station. We are not talking only about any of the other reports of Knox's attitude which are not normal in someone who has just discovered a friend brutally raped and murdered. We are not taking each separate demonstration of incongruous behavior in isolation and judging the entire trial on the merits of that one point.

Yes, but what is it about these supposedly incongruous behaviors, taken as a whole (or separately), that supports the particular theory that she has just murdered/raped her friend?

Cherrypick much?

I also said, in that same post,

I'm among the first to condemn criticism of demeanor as some sort of magic window into the secret soul of a defendant. I made that clear in my first post in this thread. Even an overall trend of such is not sufficient in my mind to constitute a kind of a priori proof. This does not mean that such considerations are utterly without merit, or that the sum total of a protracted demonstration of such incongruity has zero relevance to an investigation.

Is it your contention that no aspect of a person's behavior can provide any clues or insight of any sort?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Knox gave conflicting statements about her whereabouts the night of the murder.

Good point.

This element of the case looks to be one of the things that raised police and psosecutor suspicions, with no cross cultural barrier or misunderstanding at all. Standard police work is standard police work. Conflicting alibi is sometimes just poor memory (you were buzzed, maybe, and you gave the police a lousy statement) and sometimes part of an attempted cover up of a crime.

This doesn't change the bizarro prosecutor narrative of a Satanic cult, nor other evidentiary issues raised in this discussion.

DR

 

[JihadJane]

Good point.

This element of the case looks to be one of the things that raised police and psosecutor suspicions, with no cross cultural barrier or misunderstanding at all. Standard police work is standard police work. Conflicting alibi is sometimes just poor memory (you were buzzed, maybe, and you gave the police a lousy statement) and sometimes part of an attempted cover up of a crime.
This doesn't change the bizarro prosecutor narrative of a Satanic cult, nor other evidentiary issues raised in this discussion.

DR

Or the result of a coerced confession.

Standard police work is standard police work, after all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A "sign of nervousness"? C’mon....don't be so completely ridiculous...to even suggest her actions were because she was "nervous" is idiotic.

Obviously the jurors weren't completely moronic and disagreed with your "assessment"....

Was it a sign of guilt? Not necessarily…..but it certainly “raises suspicions”…..to simply discount it is really, REALLY stupid. People who are nutcases and sociopaths often act….well nutty and sociopathic.

Honestly….it’s not like we are trying to figure out some complex electromagnetic problem here…this isn’t that difficult to figure out.

You don't seem to understand what I've asked because it has zero to do with the jury and 100% to do with triggering the police to suspect involvement.

So try again.

What would be the conclusion the police would have drawn about Knox after observing her behavior in the police station?

The behavior led the police to suspect Knox. That is what they said when they described the behavior to the jury.

Shortly after the police observed Knox's behavior, the prosecutor came up with the scenario that the killing was about a Satanist ritual and after that he came up with the killing being part of a sex orgy and revenge for Kercher not wanting to join in. To say those are pretty far fetched conclusions to draw from observing cartwheels in a police station is an understatement.

 

[tesscaline]

All this talk of the DNA on the knife...

On the news last night, reporters had a phone interview with an "expert" (I have no idea of the person's credentials, or involvement, so I can't speak to the truth of that part) who said that the DNA on the knife isn't even relevant, as the knife isn't even the murder weapon. They offered as explanation for that claim that the knife did not match the wounds on the victim, nor did it match a print of the knife left on the bed sheets (I'm assuming in blood, though I may be wrong there). It was also said that the "real" murder weapon has still not been found.

Does anyone have any information about whether or not the knife is/was actually the murder weapon?

 

[Philip]

I assume that the reason you include the prosecutor in this statement is that there was an opportunity for the prosecutor to have contaminated the evidence.

Your assumption is incorrect.

If there is no such evidence, then what possible relevance does whether the prosecutor was "conviction-obsessed" or not have to the question of contamination?

The pressure from the conviction-obsessed prosecutor could have led someone in the chain of custody to willfully contaminate the evidence or at least his hyping of the case and his leaks of evidence and outrageous claims engendered a circus atmosphere where boasting and curiosity could have led to unauthorized viewing of the evidence and thus careless handling.

Given the police's bungling of other areas of the case including inappropriate leaks of information, mishandling of the crime scene, and abusive interrogation, I don't think it unreasonable to think the likelihood of mishandling of the evidence is enough to dismiss the DNA evidence since there was so little.

Contamination doesn't even have to be considered the most likely alternative; it just has be considered likely enough to cause reasonable doubt.

Again, the expert quoted by JihadJane claimed that the DNA evidence is so weak that suggesting contamination by the police is not even necessary to dismiss the DNA evidence.

It seems so difficult for some people to understand that it shouldn't be up to the defendant's lawyer to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was not DNA left by the defendant on items in the process of committing a murder. It's up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was DNA left by the defendant on items in the process of committing a murder. That includes establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that there was not willful or accidental contamination.


As someone else pointed out, I think many people are exhibiting the just-world fallacy: It's assumed the defendants must be guilty, otherwise they wouldn't have been convicted.


I have to ask the threadgoers a couple of questions in relation to the supposedly inadequate alibis. Exactly what were you doing the entire night four nights ago? Are you sure your memory is correct? Can you prove that you were doing what you remember doing? What if the testimony of your significant other doesn't count because he or she may thought to be just protecting you or even involved in a crime with you?

Some of you with night shift jobs may be able to prove what you were doing with time-clocks or security video. If you were on the computer all night, you'll have a system and firewall log and file record.

IIRC, I was so sick that I went to sleep early. My girlfriend and I are weird and have separate bedrooms and she sleeps soundly, so she couldn't even testify that she knew I didn't go out that night.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So the fact the Cartwheels made worldwide headlines had no significance?

Amanda Knox did cartwheels and splits at police station after Meredith Kercher murder
Police: Coed Slay Suspect Knox Did Cartwheels After Murder
Cops Cite Amanda Knox's 'Strange Attitude' After Roomie's Murder
Meredith Kercher murder trial: Court hears how Arrested Amanda Knox did cartwheel in cell
Knox did 'splits after Meredith murder'



Kind of boring.

Maxpower correctly observed Scrut's posts while you are defending his gratuitous insults.

Part of you knows I am an intelligent reasonable person and the other part of you can't quite admit it. As for the bickering, I'm not too interested other than clarifying the facts as they pertain to the thread.

That's an impressive compilation of information, Skeptigirl.

I am now convinced that Knox performed a cartwheel.

 

[quixotecoyote]

As someone else pointed out, I think many people are exhibiting the just-world fallacy: It's assumed the defendants must be guilty, otherwise they wouldn't have been convicted.

Your wiki link describes the just-world fallacy as more of a "blame-the-victim" mentality than a belief that accused people are guilty.

 

[quadraginta]

You don't seem to understand what I've asked because it has zero to do with the jury and 100% to do with triggering the police to suspect involvement.

So try again.

What would be the conclusion the police would have drawn about Knox after observing her behavior in the police station?

The behavior led the police to suspect Knox. That is what they said when they described the behavior to the jury.

Well it's a good thing that no American law enforcement would ever let a thing like suspicious behavior fool them into suspecting anyone.

You do know that the reason Jeffrey MacDonald was retried and convicted in a different venue years after his original acquittal was because his in-laws felt that his demeanor years after the crime was out of character and convinced a federal attorney to reopen the case?

Shortly after the police observed Knox's behavior, the prosecutor came up with the scenario that the killing was about a Satanist ritual and after that he came up with the killing being part of a sex orgy and revenge for Kercher not wanting to join in. To say those are pretty far fetched conclusions to draw from observing cartwheels in a police station is an understatement.

You're right. It is far-fetched to claim that those scenarios are solely the result of Knox's cartwheels.

Now substantiate your claim that they were.

There seems to be some glossing over the fact that motive isn't even a necessary element of conviction in the first place. It may or may not be helpful in trying to solve a crime, but it is not required for proving guilt.

Your contention seems to be that no other element of the crime raised any questions in the minds of investigators, and that nothing but this one episode of bend-and-stretch was responsible for their concerns about Knox's involvement.

I don't think that you have demonstrated that to be true. I know that you make the claim loudly and often, but that doesn't constitute proof.

Perhaps things are a great deal different in Italy. I mean that it would normally be unusual to consider Knox and her boyfriend as possible suspects. In the U.S the very first shadow of suspicion will be cast on spouses, lovers, relatives, friends, and acquaintances.

The reasons for this are "far-fetched". It is because most such crimes are committed by someone in those groups.

The "break-in" certainly couldn't have raised any suspicions. Just because the window glass was on top of the strewn clothes or that nothing was stolen is no reason to think that something might not be as it seemed. Obviously, since such violent crimes are statistically rare as the result of a B & E the fact that the B & E looked staged was insignificant. It must have been a B & E.

There would be no reason to question inconsistent and malleable stories and unverifiable or contradicted alibis. After all, they had floor exercises.

The police didn't only have the inconsistencies uncovered during their interrogations, they had all of the interactions with the suspects up to that point.

If this had happened exactly the same way in the U.S. we wouldn't be hearing xenophobic rants about bigoted and provincial Italians, or even about bigoted D.A.s. We'd be hearing rants about the tragic slide into amoral, psychotic lawlessness of American youth.

 

[JihadJane]

As someone else pointed out, I think many people are exhibiting the just-world fallacy: It's assumed the defendants must be guilty, otherwise they wouldn't have been convicted.

Also known as the "They're in Gitmo, they must be terrorists" fallacy.