Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Matthew Best]

OK. As you said, "The next bit is very confusing because it relates to what Knox and Sollecito say they were doing on the evening of Nov 1st."

 

[commandlinegamer]

Did the cashier corroborate? Did she pay cash? Did he positively identify the person as Amanda?

Dunno, but I think we can be absolutely sure it was not Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.

 

[stilicho]

All I'm saying is that I'm more skeptical than the average juror. This isn't a particularly high bar from what I've learned and I certainly know I'm more of a skeptic than 95% of the population.

Anyway I don't find statements from the perps or the DNA evidence particular convincing. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and I think needs to be looked at in more detail. The lynchpin for me is the relationship between Rudy and the others. Generally speaking I'm not a huge fan of circumstantial cases and given the unusual setup with multiple killers I think that the prosecution has to really explain a plausible story that fits the facts.
The DNA evidence would help a lot more if it had been handled better and if it was more clear cut.

Let me get this clear.

You would throw out the witnesses. You would throw out the statements. You would throw out the DNA evidence. You would throw out the physical evidence. You would throw out the faked burglary. You would throw out the moved body. You would throw out the locked bedroom door. You would throw out the lies about the police calls. You would throw out the footprints. You would throw out the luminol evidence. You would throw out the murder weapon. You would throw out the JUL 2009 'dream sequence' testimony. (I could go on of course).

What exactly would you *keep*?

This goes for MB, too. You'd throw out almost everything that a normal run-of-the-mill murder investigation would include. There are thousands of cases like this every week all over the world and you'd each throw out all the evidence every single time.

 

[stilicho]

...the unusual setup with multiple killers...

And this is where you're mistaken. It is not unusual to have more than one person participate in a murder. It's less common but not unusual.

And in this case the control over the others (including the victim) was exerted by Ms Knox. This is something that is made abundantly clear during the investigation and the trial. It's even made clear by her continued exertion of control over her friends and family.

And it wasn't "multiple killers" either. It was one fatal blow and that was administered by the individual who wielded the murder weapon. It was multiple accomplices who are equally responsible for "mortal danger" as the murderer under Italian law.

 

[NewtonTrino]

On the basis of your first post here (above), NewtonTrino, I am afraid that I do not see you have shown yourself particularly sceptical. You say you have followed the case closely, but you do not seem to have taken the most elementary steps to check out what happened. I had not followed it closely but it was not hard to find another side to the story.

Is it not the essence of scepticism that you would have done that before making such a strong conclusion?

Actually I've wavered as more facts came to light. I'm definitely more towards the some evidence of guilt side than I was. Being able to change your position as new facts come up is the essence of being skeptical.

I still think the Italian jury system is broken. Their appeals process seems superior though.

 

[Fiona]

Why do you think the Italian jury system is broken ?

 

[stilicho]

I still think the Italian jury system is broken.

No. It's just different, NT.

They have a different way of accomplishing justice than we do under the judge and jury system. There is a president of the court and another qualified judge who work with the jury to decide cases. The prosecution works closer with the investigators than in North America.

And their form of the Supreme Court is *obliged* to respond to appeals unlike the UK or Canada.

If anything, what I've discovered about the Italian system is that it's far more democratic and far less demagogic than our own. There is less "appeal to authority" than we have although one week in comparing them hardly makes me an expert.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Let me get this clear.

You would throw out the witnesses. You would throw out the statements. You would throw out the DNA evidence. You would throw out the physical evidence. You would throw out the faked burglary. You would throw out the moved body. You would throw out the locked bedroom door. You would throw out the lies about the police calls. You would throw out the footprints. You would throw out the luminol evidence. You would throw out the murder weapon. You would throw out the JUL 2009 'dream sequence' testimony. (I could go on of course).

What exactly would you *keep*?

This goes for MB, too. You'd throw out almost everything that a normal run-of-the-mill murder investigation would include. There are thousands of cases like this every week all over the world and you'd each throw out all the evidence every single time.

I wouldn't THROW out the witnesses, I just wasn't aware we had any (to the crime). I would certainly take anything said under interrogation with a grain of large salt if we don't have a video of it.

Even if you keep the DNA it's not very compelling due to it's circumstantial nature. E.g. they LIVED IN THE HOUSE! The knife test isn't repeatable so I would personally chuck it based on that. The bra strap could easily have been tainted. So the DNA is only compelling to me circumstantially.

The faked burglary has nothing to tie it directory to Knox or her boyfriend, only circumstantial.

Locked bedroom door same thing, circumstantial.

Again most of this stuff is not direct physical evidence. It all points to a possible coverup but it's POSSIBLE it's all coincidence. Given the complexity of the murder I think we need more if we want to pin it on someone besides Rudy Guede.

Honestly almost all of this evidence is pretty circumstantial IMHO. HOWEVER, if it can all be fit into a theory of the crime involving the three of them it becomes stronger. I just don't see how they can prove any kind of connection between the three of them though... a theory isn't enough without a better explanation of what happened.

 

[NewtonTrino]

And this is where you're mistaken. It is not unusual to have more than one person participate in a murder. It's less common but not unusual.

That don't know each other? Show me some similar cases then.

And in this case the control over the others (including the victim) was exerted by Ms Knox. This is something that is made abundantly clear during the investigation and the trial. It's even made clear by her continued exertion of control over her friends and family.

ROTFLMAO. Seriously? Did you read her email home? She's a ditz.

And it wasn't "multiple killers" either. It was one fatal blow and that was administered by the individual who wielded the murder weapon. It was multiple accomplices who are equally responsible for "mortal danger" as the murderer under Italian law.

Either way they had to be working together in some manner. Your theory is Amanda plotted this and tricked Guede into it? That sounds insane.

 

[Cicero]

She may well have been portrayed that way in Italy, but that has not been the case in the UK (where Meredith Kercher came from). Some newspapers here have portrayed Knox as a saint, some as a cold-hearted killer, some in between.

Europe is not a monolithic entity.

I thought the British considered themselves only geographically part of Europe, while not ideologically part of Europe. Hard to imagine how any newspaper in any country could portray Amanda as the "Fort Knox" of chastity.

 

[Bill Thompson]

We all know how deadly cartwheels can be.

 

[stilicho]

I wouldn't THROW out the witnesses, I just wasn't aware we had any (to the crime). I would certainly take anything said under interrogation with a grain of large salt if we don't have a video of it.

Even if you keep the DNA it's not very compelling due to it's circumstantial nature. E.g. they LIVED IN THE HOUSE! The knife test isn't repeatable so I would personally chuck it based on that. The bra strap could easily have been tainted. So the DNA is only compelling to me circumstantially.

The faked burglary has nothing to tie it directory to Knox or her boyfriend, only circumstantial.

Locked bedroom door same thing, circumstantial.

Again most of this stuff is not direct physical evidence. It all points to a possible coverup but it's POSSIBLE it's all coincidence. Given the complexity of the murder I think we need more if we want to pin it on someone besides Rudy Guede.

Honestly almost all of this evidence is pretty circumstantial IMHO. HOWEVER, if it can all be fit into a theory of the crime involving the three of them it becomes stronger. I just don't see how they can prove any kind of connection between the three of them though... a theory isn't enough without a better explanation of what happened.

So you'd throw it out? That's all I asked. If you'd throw out all the evidence presented and examined at the trial then I doubt you'd ever get a conviction in any case.

What you may not realise is that almost all convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. It's not a bad thing either. There are a few that aren't (shoplifting comes to mind) but I can't think of many examples that don't require it.

Can you?

 

[stilicho]

Either way they had to be working together in some manner. Your theory is Amanda plotted this and tricked Guede into it? That sounds insane.

My theory (and I won't speak for the prosecution) is that Guede was their drug connection only. AK knew him from the boys downstairs. I think he was the first one to freak out and flee after she cut Meredith's throat.

They all had to flee but he fled the furthest since witnesses saw him at a dance club later on NOV 02. AK and RS only went out to the plaza where a witness saw them talking animatedly and they left the cottage quickly since Meredith's scream might have alerted someone to call the police.

Remember that the tow-truck driver saw a car resembling Sollecito's in front of the house and the other witness who AK and RS confronted noticed the tow-truck driver. They were all in the same area at the time of Meredith's murder. You have multiple witnesses placing them at the cottage at the time they both stated they were watching a movie at Sollecito's place.

 

[Fiona]

I wouldn't THROW out the witnesses, I just wasn't aware we had any (to the crime).

We do have witnesses to the crime: they just aren't talking. I find this is fairly usual in murder cases. You?

I would certainly take anything said under interrogation with a grain of large salt if we don't have a video of it.

Interesting. I take it that in America there is always video of police questioning? That is not true in this country though there is an audio tape usually. It is fairly recent in the scheme of things (1984 I think) and I wonder how they ever got any convictions in the past.

Even if you keep the DNA it's not very compelling due to it's circumstantial nature. E.g. they LIVED IN THE HOUSE!

Of course it is circumstantial. All DNA evidence is cirucumstantial and that has been explained before, upthread.

The knife test isn't repeatable so I would personally chuck it based on that.

So you do not accept that LCN DNA testing can ever be used? Fair enough. That is an arguable position and many would agree.

The bra strap could easily have been tainted.

It is a curious thing that you demand a narrative for motive which requires wild speculation to provide and yet you do not provide any such narrative as to how this tainting could have happened. Not a scrap.

So the DNA is only compelling to me circumstantially.

Are you sure you know what "circumstantial" means?

The faked burglary has nothing to tie it directory to Knox or her boyfriend, only circumstantial.

Well there is their footprints in blood in the room. Let me guess: they are "circumstantial". Why so they are. There is the fact that there is no evidence that anyone else was there apart from Guerde, Knox, and Sollecito: and Guerde has neither reason not opportunity to fake a burglary. Did the pixies do it?

Locked bedroom door same thing, circumstantial.

Certainly. Pixies again?

Again most of this stuff is not direct physical evidence.

CAn you point me to any domestic murder where there is direct physcial evidence? It is surely very rare?

It all points to a possible coverup but it's POSSIBLE it's all coincidence.

Yes, anything is possible. I think we should just abandon criminal justice because we can never get a conviction at all if your standards are adopted. Certainly not in murder cases if all circumstantial evidence is to be excluded. It is a pity: but at least we wont be spending much on keeping folk in jail, so look on the bright side

Given the complexity of the murder I think we need more if we want to pin it on someone besides Rudy Guede.

Oh I don't think we can rely on Guede's conviction can we? After all it is possible he was there at her invitation; it is possible they were into heavy petting and he had no condom so they got no further. That would account for his dna inside her. It is possible he went to the toilet: why we even have strong circumstantial evidence that he did (though of course we cannot rely on that); it is possible the pixies came in and murdered her while he was in the toilet; it is possible that he tried to help her and that is why his fingerprints and stuff are in the room (not to mention the consenual encounter which preceded it). It is possible she died as he tried to help her: and he panicked and fled: well you might. It is possible he thought he might come under suspicion and so went dancing: or he did not think of any possibility of that and so went dancing: people react to murder in different ways, I am told. Maybe that was his way? It not very decent or very caring: one might prefer he went to the police: but he had no reason to be very well disposed to the police so maybe that is just his way of being?

Nope. I do not think we can rely on his conviction: so if you start a "Friends of Guede" website and campaign don't forget to link it here.

Honestly almost all of this evidence is pretty circumstantial IMHO.

Sure

HOWEVER, if it can all be fit into a theory of the crime involving the three of them it becomes stronger. I just don't see how they can prove any kind of connection between the three of them though... a theory isn't enough without a better explanation of what happened.

So you want people to make up a story when they do not know? And you call that scepticism? I call it going beyond what the evidence will support

I think this is an argument from incredulity

 

[stilicho]

That don't know each other? Show me some similar cases then.

Here's one with which I am quite familiar. I hope your astonishment is mere affectation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Reena_Virk

There are several others, including women as the ones exerting control over the murder, that are mentioned at PMF. (You are coyly suggesting that neither AK nor RS knew RG. This is, as you know, false.)

 

[Cicero]

I
Again most of this stuff is not direct physical evidence. It all points to a possible coverup but it's POSSIBLE it's all coincidence.

Couple all the "coincidences" together and it strains credulity to imagine that "Fort Knox" is not involved in this murder.

 

[stilicho]

Couple all the "coincidences" together and it strains credulity to imagine that "Fort Knox" is not involved in this murder.

It's more than involvement. The PMF site has two years of following the case closely and there is overwhelming evidence that without Ms Knox being in that place at that time then Meredith would still be alive.

 

[NewtonTrino]

It's more than involvement. The PMF site has two years of following the case closely and there is overwhelming evidence that without Ms Knox being in that place at that time then Meredith would still be alive.

Which of the evidence presented do you consider overwhelming?

Also I'm curious if anyone else on this thread ever watches a TV show called "The First 48". They basically follow homocide detectives around with camera and showcase the investigation from the very beginning until they are charged. This show has definitely changed my thought processes with regards to criminal investigations.

I'm also curious what people think of in general about talking to the police. There are quite a few good reasons to never talk to the police without a lawyer present (and sparsely even then). Is this something most people would agree or disagree on? And why?

I have social obligations tonight but I should have some time to respond more tomorrow.

 

[Micromegas]

Couple all the "coincidences" together and it strains credulity to imagine that "Fort Knox" is not involved in this murder.

I've said this repeatedly. Put all the pieces together and, without a coherent alternative scenario, it's very persuasive.

-Mike

 

[Fiona]

I have absolutely no problems talking to the police. I am well aware that many people do have such concerns: or object because of a general anti-authority stance. And I would not wish to cooperate without knowing the reason for any questions since I do not believe in random stop and search or anything like that. But if they have a reason to talk to me then I see no reason not to.The police are part of what makes a civilised society work, IMO