Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

I do believe there is something quite stinky going on in this case, and it goes beyond just some PR campaign on part of the defense.

That's the thing. What is it that's stinky?

Even if it was the stinkiest, smelliest, stenchiest case in history (which it isn't--it's actually similar to hundreds of murder cases all over the world) there are very very simple steps that could wipe out all the vapour. The first place to start would be having AK recover her memory. Frankly, I don't think she lost it in the first place; no psychological expert testified in her favour at her trial.

I recently started watching a couple of the "real-life" crime mystery shows on network TV. You know what? They're all like this one. They all have victim's family's saying one thing. They have an attorney saying something else. And a sheriff. And one, two, three or more suspects saying yet more.

In the middle of the "mystery" is a victim.

Yet, unlike this one, a lot of them leave out any analysis right down to where the cell towers are located, how CCTVs work, how the jury is constituted, and all the minutiae that I rather enjoy.

When you think of it, the Perugia case really boils down to this: "Where were you, Amanda?" Even a million-dollar PR campaign can't answer that simple question.

 

[Kermit]

If you can't fit the luminol prints into a plausible scenario, how can you be sure they have anything to do with the crime?

Any one element of evidence by itself does not tell the story.

In the same way, you could challenge me and say: "So how does Signora Lana hearing more than one person prove that Amanda was there?"

I wouldn't be able to tell you, based on that one element of evidence.

However, when you add it all up, it would be naive to dismiss the case against Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy. Their Italian lawyers are certainly taking it all very seriously.

Your "proof" that the luminol prints aren't Amanda's is that there aren't any prints of hers in Meredith's room. I should let professional forensic personnel come up with the scenarios, but perhaps Amanda own body position at the time of her alleged (and first round convicted) murder participation was such in a relative position to the victim that her shoes / feet didn't get wet with blood nor make prints as she left the room. However, when she/they returned, and definitely now in her bare feet, she stepped in blood or on bloodied material and made the prints.

You can't put that scenario down, because that's basically how you describe Rudy getting the blood on his bare feet in your FOA version of the bathmat print.

I don't think he made the print at the exact moment he was washing the shoe

That's not what you said in a prior post here and that's not the version of FOA. In both instances, Rudy is described as taking off his shoe and at that moment making the print.

"the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat."

If you now believe that Rudy didn't make the bathmat print at the time of your vision of him washing his feet in the bidet in a very difficult acrobatic maneouver, could you please update the FOA page.

Also, and more important, now that I've answered your question about how Amanda could have made some of the luminol prints, please answer this question: will FOA recognise that the "Pink Hobbit Foot" which is used to insinuate that Rudy made the bathmat print, is unjustifiably undersized at 23 cm long, and will you please take out that image and accompanying text from the FOA website?

 

[stilicho]

You say trust the experts, but when the experts make absurd claims we don't get to just ignore them. What from the coroner proves there must have multiple attackers? Do you actually buy the reasoning employed?

What is the print evidence? Is this the amount of bruising claim---that because there were so many bruises it must have two attackers? You don't really buy that line of logic do you?

The medical examiner certainly thought the wounds were consistent with multiple attackers. Since neither of us have seen the results of the autopsy, we aren't experts, and the defence experts couldn't even agree with one another, I'd have to go with the science.

I'd have to see some evidence of confirmation bias or some other problems with the medical examiner's office to have the same level of doubt you have. This is what we had seen in halides1's tales of corruption in the Houston crime lab, the Washington state lab, and other similar cases. There's none of that here so there's no basis for doubt other than personal incredulity.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Kermit writes:

Any one element of evidence by itself does not tell the story.

That's not the problem. The problem is that none of the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele fits into a plausible scenario linking them to the crime, and all of it can be explained some other way.

The evidence against Guede, however, not only proves his guilt, but fits into a scenario that is entirely plausible.

That's not what you said in a prior post here and that's not the version of FOA. In both instances, Rudy is described as taking off his shoe and at that moment making the print.

I didn't say "at that moment."

Also, and more important, now that I've answered your question about how Amanda could have made some of the luminol prints

You haven't answered that question.

please answer this question: will FOA recognise that the "Pink Hobbit Foot" which is used to insinuate that Rudy made the bathmat print, is unjustifiably undersized at 23 cm long, and will you please take out that image and accompanying text from the FOA website?

Not a chance. The print on the mat is about 10 percent shorter than the reference prints for either Guede or Sollecito. Guede may have put less weight on the bathmat print than he did on the reference print. But the shape is consistent with the shape of his reference print, with the long toe and the narrow instep.

 

[HumanityBlues]

The medical examiner certainly thought the wounds were consistent with multiple attackers. Since neither of us have seen the results of the autopsy, we aren't experts, and the defence experts couldn't even agree with one another, I'd have to go with the science.

I'd have to see some evidence of confirmation bias or some other problems with the medical examiner's office to have the same level of doubt you have. This is what we had seen in halides1's tales of corruption in the Houston crime lab, the Washington state lab, and other similar cases. There's none of that here so there's no basis for doubt other than personal incredulity.

There's nothing that scientifically proves more than one attacker was necessary. Consistent with multiple attackers means.....nothing. An attack by one person can still be consistent with multiple attackers.

 

[stilicho]

That's not the problem. The problem is that none of the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele fits into a plausible scenario linking them to the crime, and all of it can be explained some other way.

The evidence against Guede, however, not only proves his guilt, but fits into a scenario that is entirely plausible.

More arguments from incredulity. Just because you don't like the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there, wasn't presented at trial, wasn't cross-examined, and wasn't judged acceptable or not in their convictions.

I don't like all this "they got high and went nuts" part of the scenario, either. Pot just doesn't do that to people. But the whole "we got so high" junk came from the mouths of AK and RS and not from the prosecution. I think they said they couldn't remember not because of marijuana use but because they had been caught lying and knew that saying anything further would just implicate themselves even more.

One can hardly blame the prosecution or the judges for incorporating the "got high, went nuts" junk into their narrative when the witnesses-cum-suspects became so uncooperative and contradictory. The narratives work just as well if the pair were in complete control of their faculties when they entered Meredith's room and proceeded, along with RG, to subdue, torture, and finally murder her.

@HumanityBlues: There's nothing that scientifically proves more than one attacker was necessary. Consistent with multiple attackers means.....nothing. An attack by one person can still be consistent with multiple attackers.

Yet you aren't a scientist, aren't an expert, and are hand-waving away those who are and who performed the forensics tests that were the basis for the prosecution case. I don't know how you do it. Let's also not forget the staged burglary and their shifting and unsupportable alibis that had almost as much to do with putting AK and RS under closer scrutiny.

 

[HumanityBlues]

@HumanityBlues: There's nothing that scientifically proves more than one attacker was necessary. Consistent with multiple attackers means.....nothing. An attack by one person can still be consistent with multiple attackers.

Yet you aren't a scientist, aren't an expert, and are hand-waving away those who are and who performed the forensics tests that were the basis for the prosecution case. I don't know how you do it. Let's also not forget the staged burglary and their shifting and unsupportable alibis that had almost as much to do with putting AK and RS under closer scrutiny.

I'm not a scientist but I know enough principles to recognize the parsing of words in order for the casual simpleton to assume conclusiveness when that's not the case. As far as I know Fulcanelli has no scientific background whatsoever yet many here seem to take his word as gospel on scientific evidence. How odd. And then when people who actually do have some scientific knowledge speak on the case here, you call them charlatans.

I finally finished wasting my time reading Darkness Descending. For the most part the book was ****, but the Garafano (a scientist) section is interesting. Even in a book that is completely purporting a guilty Raffaele and Amanda, Garafano had to admit there's nothing amongst the scientific objective evidence that proves Amanda Knox's guilt.

"One can hardly blame the prosecution or the judges for incorporating the "got high, went nuts" junk into their narrative when the witnesses-cum-suspects became so uncooperative and contradictory."

You're excusing a fanciful narrative that no one of a reasonable mind can say out loud with a straight face, and then saying the judges had no choice?

"The narratives work just as well if the pair were in complete control of their faculties when they entered Meredith's room and proceeded, along with RG, to subdue, torture, and finally murder her."

No they don't.

 

[Fiona]

Once again, HumanityBlues, you really do seem to be founding on incredulity,and not much more. You have not seen the evidence of the injuries: none of us has, because that part of the trial was held in private out of respect for the victim's family.

As has been said repeatedly, one can nitpick any one piece of the evidence: but Quadraginta's wall is still built and that is the problem the defence cannot seem to get around. Of necessity they try to break it down into atoms: but the whole is more than the sum of its parts: BobtheDonkey (and others) have shown that the piling up of coincidence upon coincidence is the truly absurd narrative presented.

You are correct about Anne Coulter's general stance, from what I have seen discussed on this board and at PMF. But it is curious that you appear to deny any merit in her argument because of who she is: this is not a rational position. Coulter may believe in the guilt of the defendants for right reasons or wrong: but the discussion about bringing her in to the shows which have been discussing the case is based on the fact that she was asking tough questions, and that was largely absent in the coverage of the case in the USA. You say you have seen little of it: perhaps you should rectify that. There are at least some here who were led to investigate the case because the case presented in the American media was so absurd and one-sided.

At present your position does not seem to be rational: at least not as you have presented it here. I have not seen anyone base on a trust in authority, as you charge. That is Kestrel's line also: but I do not read that in any of the posts here. A belief that a fair trial in a country which abides by due process and the rule of law will lead to a result which is likely to be correct is not an appeal to authority. None of us is unaware of the failings in all justice systems: the false conviction and the false acquittal can happen anywhere, and they do. But if we do not start from the notion that the system usually works we have to abandon the whole idea of criminal justice. I am not ready to do that.

I do not usually look for reasons to distrust convictions in the courts unless there is a good reason to believe there has been miscarriage of justice. There is no such reason in this case. There are parts of the case which are weaker and the narrative is not satisfying: but the fact of the death remains; the fact of the changing stories; the dna on the knife; the dna on the bra clasp; the footprints and the mixed dna in bathroom and hall and Filomena's room; the staged break in; the movng of the body after death; the accusation against an innocent man; the use of the computer and cell phones when two of the defendants said they were asleep; the witness testimony; and on and on and on. Against this we have what? Judges are juries are not infallible - who could disagree? The whole of the Italian justice system and every body in it is corrupt/incompetent? Not buying that, sorry. The narrative presented does not make sense? No: but neither does any alternative narrative, so far proposed, which fits all the facts we do have.

In the end there has been a long trial which considered evidence we have seen and more that we have not. It was conducted in public and the defence had excellent legal representation and plenty of funds. The accused have been convicted and in this country at least there would be no grounds for appeal that I can see (though very likely an appeal would be heard because justice must be seen to be done and it is a high profile and serious case). In Italy the appeal is automatically allowed and it re-examines what has been heard in far more detail than is possible in the USA or the UK.

I do not see any reason for that to lead to a different outcome. Although the facts are considered de novo, in practical terms it is not much different from an appeal here. An appeal here rests on new evidence or a fault in the process and I see neither. Although the system is different in practice what does the fresh hearing promise? I imagine that in most cases appeals in Italy are successful on the same grounds as here: fresh evidence or faulty process: I think that because I presume that the conviction was based on evidence, just as it is here: and it is not about the mood of the decision makers etc. All the factors which influence small group decision making are in play there as they are here: but it is not whim; it is not arbitrary. People take the responsibility seriously. And in Italy they must justify the decision they reach, as well.

In those circumstances only fresh evidence or faulty process could normally lead to a different outcome, no matter what is considered. So far I do not see the fresh evidence anywhere in the arguments: and nor do I see any suggestion that the processs was flawed. the defence are trying, as they should. But generalities from Hampikian and his pals is not fresh evidence; the questions about the implications of the pattern of injuries are not new; the footprint discussions are not. There is nothing here. And Knox herself agrees that the process was fair: I have seen nothing which leads me to disagree with that

There may be something in the report to show a fault in one way or the other: and I will wait for that. For now there is nothing at all.

ETA: I forgot to mention one other reason for overturning a conviction: that is where the verdict is perverse. I think that some here are really arguing that that is the situation: but it will not fly. One cannot really say that no reasonable person could have reached the conclusion they did on the basis of the evidence presented; and that is what one would have to show. It is a non-starter

 

[HumanityBlues]

Once again, HumanityBlues, you really do seem to be founding on incredulity,and not much more. You have not seen the evidence of the injuries: none of us has, because that part of the trial was held in private out of respect for the victim's family.

As has been said repeatedly, one can nitpick any one piece of the evidence: but Quadraginta's wall is still built and that is the problem the defence cannot seem to get around. Of necessity they try to break it down into atoms: but the whole is more than the sum of its parts: BobtheDonkey (and others) have shown that the piling up of coincidence upon coincidence is the truly absurd narrative presented.

You are correct about Anne Coulter's general stance, from what I have seen discussed on this board and at PMF. But it is curious that you appear to deny any merit in her argument because of who she is: this is not a rational position. Coulter may believe in the guilt of the defendants for right reasons or wrong: but the discussion about bringing her in to the shows which have been discussing the case is based on the fact that she was asking tough questions, and that was largely absent in the coverage of the case in the USA. You say you have seen little of it: perhaps you should rectify that. There are at least some here who were led to investigate the case because the case presented in the American media was so absurd and one-sided.

At present your position does not seem to be rational: at least not as you have presented it here. I have not seen anyone base on a trust in authority, as you charge. That is Kestrel's line also: but I do not read that in any of the posts here. A belief that a fair trial in a country which abides by due process and the rule of law will lead to a result which is likely to be correct is not an appeal to authority. None of us is unaware of the failings in all justice systems: the false conviction and the false acquittal can happen anywhere, and they do. But if we do not start from the notion that the system usually works we have to abandon the whole idea of criminal justice. I am not ready to do that.

I do not usually look for reasons to distrust convictions in the courts unless there is a good reason to believe there has been miscarriage of justice. There is no such reason in this case. There are parts of the case which are weaker and the narrative is not satisfying: but the fact of the death remains; the fact of the changing stories; the dna on the knife; the dna on the bra clasp; the footprints and the mixed dna in bathroom and hall and Filomena's room; the staged break in; the movng of the body after death; the accusation against an innocent man; the use of the computer and cell phones when two of the defendants said they were asleep; the witness testimony; and on and on and on. Against this we have what? Judges are juries are not infallible - who could disagree? The whole of the Italian justice system and every body in it is corrupt/incompetent? Not buying that, sorry. The narrative presented does not make sense? No: but neither does any alternative narrative, so far proposed, which fits all the facts we do have.

In the end there has been a long trial which considered evidence we have seen and more that we have not. It was conducted in public and the defence had excellent legal representation and plenty of funds. The accused have been convicted and in this country at least there would be no grounds for appeal that I can see (though very likely an appeal would be heard because justice must be seen to be done and it is a high profile and serious case). In Italy the appeal is automatically allowed and it re-examines what has been heard in far more detail than is possible in the USA or the UK.

I do not see any reason for that to lead to a different outcome. Although the facts are consdired de novo in practical terms it is not much different from an appeal here. An appeal here rests on new evidence or a fault in the process and I see neither. Although the system is different in practice what does the fresh hearing promise? I imagine that in most cases appeals in Italy are successful on the same grounds as here: fresh evidence or faulty process: I think that because I presume that the conviction was based on evidence, just as it is here: and it is not about the mood of the decision makers etc. All the factors which influence small group decision making are in play there as they are here: but it is not whim; it is not arbitrary. People take the responsibility seriously. And in Italy they must justify the decision they reach. as well.

In those circumstances only fresh evidence or faulty process could normally lead to a different outcome, no matter what is considered. So far I do not see the fresh evidence anywhere in the arguments: and nor do I see any suggestion that the processs was flawed. the defence are trying, as they should. But generalities from Hampikian and his pals is not fresh evidence; the questions about the implications of the pattern of injuries are not new; the footprint discussions are not. There is nothing here. And Knox herself agrees that the process was fair: I have seen nothing which leads me to disagree with that

There may be something in the report to show a fault in one way or the other: and I will wait for that. For now there is nothing at all.

I don't have time to respond to all of this, but the whole "there are plenty of clues but no proof=proof" does not fly with me. Plenty of coincidences does not equal proof of anything. It's a lame argument.

There was a whole book dedicated to the multitude of coincidences that purported to show that Tom D'Antoni was D.B. Cooper. The reasons appeared compelling and there were many of them, but the problem was he wasn't D.B Cooper.

Edit: Oh ya, why would I give Anne Coulter more than 5 seconds of my time? I'm not going to go step by step through any "tough" questions (cough cough) she may ask. She's an idiot. I don't know her reasoning at all. I really don't care. She's an absolute dishonest moron and is a terrible advocate for anyone. There is almost nobody worse that I can think of.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't have time to respond to all of this, but the whole "there are plenty of clues but no proof=proof" does not fly with me. Plenty of coincidences does not equal proof of anything. It's a lame argument.

There was a whole book dedicated to the multitude of coincidences that purported to show that Tom D'Antoni was D.B. Cooper. The reasons appeared compelling and there were many of them, but the problem was he wasn't D.B Cooper.

Where was Amanda on the night of the murder?

 

[Fiona]

I don't have time to respond to all of this, but the whole "there are plenty of clues but no proof=proof" does not fly with me. Plenty of coincidences does not equal proof of anything. It's a lame argument.

There was a whole book dedicated to the multitude of coincidences that purported to show that Tom D'Antoni was D.B. Cooper. The reasons appeared compelling and there were many of them, but the problem was he wasn't D.B Cooper.

Edit: Oh ya, why would I give Anne Coulter more than 5 seconds of my time? I'm not going to go step by step through any "tough" questions (cough cough) she may ask. She's an idiot. I don't know her reasoning at all. I really don't care. She's an absolute dishonest moron and is a terrible advocate for anyone. There is almost nobody worse that I can think of.

Ok: you deny the value of evidence and you deny that any case can be made by an accumulation of such evidence: you prefer to live in a world where all of that can be hand waved away as "coincidence". There is not much I can do about that

As to you comments on Anne Coulter: I think you are condemned out of your own mouth: it matters not who makes a case: only the merits. You disagree and there is nothing to be said about that

We will agree to differ.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Ok: you deny the value of evidence and you deny that any case can be made by an accumulation of such evidence: you prefer to live in a world where all of that can be hand waved away as "coincidence". There is not much I can do about that

As to you comments on Anne Coulter: I think you are condemned out of your own mouth: it matters not who makes a case: only the merits. You disagree and there is nothing to be said about that

We will agree to differ.

I didn't say a case couldn't be made, but that doesn't necessitate that it's a good case, and no, I don't see a credible case here, and I see a lot of BS being excused or "explained" very strangely. But yes, we will not agree.

On your other note, if you want to defend, interpret, analyze and critique Ms. Anne Coulter, be my guest. You will be wasting a lot of time. No one should be blamed for not even getting to the merits of the argument of an idiot like her.

It doesn't matter who makes the case? Interesting. I was not aware of this rule.

 

[Agatha]

BobTheDonkey, I wonder how many more times you will have to ask that question before one of Knox's defenders answers it?

Humanity Blues, if Anne Coulter says the sky is blue, or the the sun is roughly 93 million miles from the earth, do you automatically discount what she says because of the abhorrent views she holds on other issues? That seems less than sceptical to me.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't have time to respond to all of this, but the whole "there are plenty of clues but no proof=proof" does not fly with me. Plenty of coincidences does not equal proof of anything. It's a lame argument.

There was a whole book dedicated to the multitude of coincidences that purported to show that Tom D'Antoni was D.B. Cooper. The reasons appeared compelling and there were many of them, but the problem was he wasn't D.B Cooper.

While I haven't read the book, I suspect what all this shows is that one has to be careful with coincidences, rather than that they cannot be a reasonable way of establishing 'truth'. Perhaps you could suggest where the D.B. Cooper argument went wrong?

It seems to me that there are at least two common errors in the arguments by coincidence. One has been covered already, that it is easy to overestimate the independence of events, and thereby make the events appear artificially improbable. The other is that the odds of a given set of coincidences in and of themselves aren't very helpful. The odds of my winning the lottery are millions to one against, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen by chance alone, or that our default position should be to assume cheating if we find out somebody has won. What we need is the odds of guilt, given all these coincidences rather than looking at the odds of the coincidences in isolation.

Personally I think that the coincidences in this case are a powerful argument for guilt, but I do think we need to be careful when multiplying up coincidences, or being too awed the odds of a particular set of events.

 

[shuttlt]

Going back to the odds, I think what a lot of people want to say is "Look at Amanda! What are the odds of a girl like her committing a murder? They must be a million to one against!". This is all very well until one of her friends is murdered. More interesting probabilities might be:

What is the probability of her having committed a murder given that somebody she knows has been murdered?
What is the probability of her having committed a murder given that someone she lives with has been murdered?
What is the probability of her having committed a murder given that someone she lives with has been murdered and she was first on the scene?

Clearly the odds here are still quite low, but I suggest they are a long way away from 1 in a million and a great many coincidences that make guilt more likely have been missed out. Since none of us know exactly what any of these probabilities are all this is somewhat academic. I do think though that they do provide a reasonable justification for looking at Raffaele and Amanda, standing on the doorstep as the police arrive with body of Meredith locked inside with some some small initial suspicion. What might those initial odds be 1/1,000? 1/500? 1/100? I don't know, but it's a long way from lottery winning odds.

 

[Kermit]

Charlie Wilkes told me, about the question about how Amanda could have made some of the luminol prints "You haven't answered that question.

I thought I did, Charlie. I said that there's a scenario where she didn't necessarily get her feet or shoes wet with blood at the moment of the murder for which she has been convicted (pending appeal), because of the relative physical location and distance between her feet and the victim's mortal wounds.

At a slightly later moment, she was in her bare feet (or socks), got them wet with blood (FOA itself says there were blood soaked towels around), and then made the prints.

Given the fact that Raffaele's alibi places Amanda outside of his apartment during the course of the evening, I don't think this scenario is too far fetched to contemplate.

In any case, that's my speculation. It's clear that Judge Massei, the co-judge, and the jury also found sufficient and convincing evidence to find Amanda and Raffaele guilty. Judge Micheli, in Rudy's sentencing report also made reference to incriminating evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. Several review judges also found the same during the investigative stage.

 

[quadraginta]

Going back to the odds, I think what a lot of people want to say is "Look at Amanda! What are the odds of a girl like her committing a murder? They must be a million to one against!". This is all very well until one of her friends is murdered. More interesting probabilities might be:

What is the probability of her having committed a murder given that somebody she knows has been murdered?
What is the probability of her having committed a murder given that someone she lives with has been murdered?
What is the probability of her having committed a murder given that someone she lives with has been murdered and she was first on the scene?

Clearly the odds here are still quite low, but I suggest they are a long way away from 1 in a million and a great many coincidences that make guilt more likely have been missed out. Since none of us know exactly what any of these probabilities are all this is somewhat academic. I do think though that they do provide a reasonable justification for looking at Raffaele and Amanda, standing on the doorstep as the police arrive with body of Meredith locked inside with some some small initial suspicion. What might those initial odds be 1/1,000? 1/500? 1/100? I don't know, but it's a long way from lottery winning odds.

Looked at from a purely statistical POV, I don't know if the breakout in Italy is similar, but in the U.S. the odds aren't against at all. It's more along the the lines of 9/1 in favor of the perp in a murder being someone known to the victim and probably close to the victim, rather than the act of a random stranger. This is among the reasons that serial killers can be so hellishly difficult to apprehend. No apparent connection with the victim. As has been pointed out in this thread by others simple B & E's rarely end in murder, nor for that matter do rapes. The infrequent times that they do are often distinguished by the fact that the victim could ID the perps, because they already know them.

Using that sort of logic the odds that those two were involved almost starts at 1/500. Hanging aimlessly around the doorstep of a murder scene pretending casual cluelessness and providing incompatible and inconsistent stories wouldn't raise "some small initial suspicion" in American cops, it would set off alarm sirens and flashing strobe lights even before any other evidence was gathered.

Going "by the odds" would be one of the least generous ways of judging the likelihood of Knox and Sollecitos' guilt.

 

[shuttlt]

Looked at from a purely statistical POV, I don't know if the breakout in Italy is similar, but in the U.S. the odds aren't against at all.

You're almost certainly right. Please put this down to lack of sleep on my part.

It's more along the the lines of 9/1 in favor of the perp in a murder being someone known to the victim and probably close to the victim, rather than the act of a random stranger. This is among the reasons that serial killers can be so hellishly difficult to apprehend. No apparent connection with the victim. As has been pointed out in this thread by others simple B & E's rarely end in murder, nor for that matter do rapes. The infrequent times that they do are often distinguished by the fact that the victim could ID the perps, because they already know them.

Hanging aimlessly around the doorstep of a murder scene pretending casual cluelessness and providing incompatible and inconsistent stories wouldn't raise "some small initial suspicion" in American cops, it would set off alarm sirens and flashing strobe lights even before any other evidence was gathered.

True (though the word "pretending" does imply one has already made up ones mind), but somebody has to discover the body, or at least be first on the scene. Chances are that person is going to be connected to the victim in some way. I suspect the odds are very much better than 1/1,000 under those circumstances of this "person" being the killer, I was trying to be generous and cover the spread of what might strike people as vaguely plausible.

Going "by the odds" would be one of the least generous ways of judging the likelihood of Knox and Sollecitos' guilt.

I'm inclined to agree, and yet many people do appear to be struck by the feeling that she is too unlikely a killer for the police, or anyone else to suspect unless the evidence is absolutely overwhelming (I don't wish to open up a debate about whether it is, or isn't overwhelming).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

questions answered and not answered

BobTheDonkey, I wonder how many more times you will have to ask that question before one of Knox's defenders answers it?

Humanity Blues, if Anne Coulter says the sky is blue, or the the sun is roughly 93 million miles from the earth, do you automatically discount what she says because of the abhorrent views she holds on other issues? That seems less than sceptical to me.

Agatha,

I believe that Amanda was at Raffaele’s flat for most or all of the evening. There seems to be the view at this forum that Raffaele presently believes Amanda was elsewhere for a long time on the night of the murder. Maybe so, but I doubt it. Here are two quotes from Raffaele’s diary:

“Another thing of which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.”

“they are keeping me in jail because there is a kitchen knife with a
trace of Meredith's DNA. It seems like a horror movie ... Looking back
and remembering it came to mind that the night dad sent me an sms
message of goodnight to be indiscreet (knowing that I was with
Amanda), then the day after Amanda repeated to me that if she had not
been with me at this time she would be dead. Thinking and
reconstructing, it seems to me that she always remained with me, the
only thing I do not remember exactly is when she left in the early
evening for a few minutes.

I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then return
Home.”


Do you (and does Bob, Stilicho, Quadraginta, Fiona, and Fulcanelli) support the principle that the fsa files should in all cases involving DNA forensics be released to the defense? I am not asking whether you think that the files were released in this case (that has already been debated here without resolution); I am asking for a general answer, and I have previously documented that such release is near universal. How many times will I have to ask this question before I get a straight answer?

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ann Coulter

Humanity Blues, if Anne Coulter says the sky is blue, or the the sun is roughly 93 million miles from the earth, do you automatically discount what she says because of the abhorrent views she holds on other issues? That seems less than sceptical to me.

Agatha,

Just doing a quick read, I see at least four problems with the Ann Coulter piece on this case (http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnC...crosse_players_killed_meredith_kercher?page=1). First, the bra clasp was not bloody, it was dusty (and dust has DNA). Second, the crime scene could not have been that secure, or the bra clasp would have been in the same place. Third and most importantly, is the statement that she attributed to Knox in quotes: "I think it is possible Raffaele went to Meredith's house, raped her, then killed her and then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he pressed my fingerprints on the knife."

This is bogus. What she actually wrote was, "Raffaele and I have used this knife to cook, and it's impossible that Meredith's DNA is on the knife because she's never been to Raffaele's apartment before. So unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned the blood off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, then tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well the next couple of days, well, I just highly doubt all of that." Ann Coulter’s quote is a truncated version of an English translation of an Italian translation of what Ms. Knox originally said (http://www.sciencespheres.com/2009/11/crucible-of-perugia.html).

Fourth, she refers to bloody footprints when she should say luminol-positive footprints. Given the lack of a positive result when the prints were tested for blood, calling them bloody is an overstatement.

Chris