Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

The prosecution claimed that Amanda covered Meredith with the duvet because she didn't want to look at the corpse. Mignini boldly said that only a woman would cover the body. He insisted it had to be the act of a woman.

I found the original attribution:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5537365.ece

The prosecutor singled out the placing of a duvet over Kercher’s body as “extremely important from a psychological point of view”. He argued it indicated pity and respect for the victim: “Amanda, especially as a woman, couldn’t bear that naked, torn female cadaver.”

That story is from 18 JAN 2009, which is before the trial even began. However, as we know, the case revolved around forensics and witnesses rather than any psychological profile. Looks like the quote is a non-starter although you've featured it on your site.


------------

EDIT: Bruce, I have an idea to help your site's presentation. Instead of boldly making claims that may or may not be sourced, why not produce the source? In the case of a newspaper article, this should be simple, and you can include the actual quote instead of a deceptive quip. It makes a difference when the quote is attributable to trial evidence or to someone intending to write a book.

 

[shuttlt]

Is there anyoneone else on this site thats not one of the 100% sure people?

We've seen about a half a percent of the information presented in court and none of it isn't tainted in at least one theory of the case.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I found the original attribution:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5537365.ece

The prosecutor singled out the placing of a duvet over Kercher’s body as “extremely important from a psychological point of view”. He argued it indicated pity and respect for the victim: “Amanda, especially as a woman, couldn’t bear that naked, torn female cadaver.”

That story is from 18 JAN 2009, which is before the trial even began. However, as we know, the case revolved around forensics and witnesses rather than any psychological profile. Looks like the quote is a non-starter although you've featured it on your site.


------------

EDIT: Bruce, I have an idea to help your site's presentation. Instead of boldly making claims that may or may not be sourced, why not produce the source? In the case of a newspaper article, this should be simple, and you can include the actual quote instead of a deceptive quip. It makes a difference when the quote is attributable to trial evidence or to someone intending to write a book.

I posted this before but will again: Here is what Mignini said about it in closing arguments: "It is Amanda who later covers the cadaver with a blanket -- a form of pietas, of respect for the victim. An unknown male would not have any need to cover the body. As a woman, and friend, she couldn't stand to see that nude, battered cadaver that she was responsible for."

Come on. He's still running with the same idea. First of all, whether it was Amanda, Rudy, Raffaele, who covered the victim, it was not an act of respect. That is just plain stupid reasoning. Secondly, he states "an unknown male would not have any need to cover the body"--but a woman would? This whole issue is just random nonsensical thinking.

Edit: There is also nothing to substantiate "compassion" by covering up the body. If you're going to do a psychological profile, then at least root your conclusion based on some sound psychological study or principle. Someone's backwards musings with no relation to fact or reality aren't good enough when someone wants to make authoritative statements towards making a psychological profile in this way. Our intuition is not always right. Psychology is an actual field of study, not some little trinket where we can just make it up and call it sound.

If you want to go looking for a study that shows the covering up of a body is likely to be a female killer or that covering the body is usually an act of compassion, you will be looking forever, because you will never find it.

And if that's what Mignini thought then he should have done his homework. In fact, from a strategic standpoint this was beyond stupid of him anyways since the judges seemed to think Amanda and Raffaele felt remorse after the crime as a mitigating factor in sentencing. How foolish.

 

[Mary_H]

"We've seen about a half a percent of the information presented in court."

Good point, shuttlt. This points up the primary difference between the innocentisti and the colpevolisti.

The first group want Amanda to be innocent, so they look for data that support her innocence. The second group want her to be guilty, so they look for data that support her guilt.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi RWVBWL -- sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by your last question.

I, too, enjoyed your discussion of your "experiment," and find your speculation on whether Rudy was there when Amanda got home to be novel.

I am in Seattle -- the night is young! ;-)

Hi Mary H,
Ah, to be a young night owl, again!
Have fun up north, the night is still young, if you are young enough to enjoy it!
I am planning on trying to be on the beach in a few hours when the sun comes up, but I can't get to sleep, so I'll post some more. As far as what I was asking, I just wondered your thoughts about my theories...

I recall reading that Rudy Guede, after being busted with the lawyers laptop computer, went back and apologized to them, saying that he did not steal it, or something to that effect. So he has a concious, I guess. But either he did steal it, or someone else did.

When busted for the murder of Miss Kercher, Guede said that he did not do it, again. He even apologized to the Kercher Family. He would seem to definately have a concious. But either he did stab Miss Kercher, or someone else did. I still find it strange that when Guede was first busted in Germany, he made no mention of Raffaele or Amanda at the time.

So if the murder of Miss Kercher was the first one Guede was involved in, would it not be possible, in the few hours that he went out clubbin', that he might have had the some of those same guilty concious feelings arise?
And since he probably left FAST after Miss Kercher was stabbed in the throat, for she probably made some kind of loud screaming noise, (which she probably would not have made if her throat was slashed in front instead of stabbed), well I bet that after a few hours of thinking it over, that same concious might have made Guede wonder if she had died or not and that was the reason that he might have had to come back to the scene of the crime in the early morning hours of darkness.
As Guede most likely had Miss Kercher's cell phones, and her rent money, well I would think that her missing+never found apartment keys were on him too.
With those keys, there is no reason to climb in thru the window of Filomena's room, but there is a good reason to break that window and see if anyone is there, before he went inside.
RWVBWL

 

[BobTheDonkey]

"We've seen about a half a percent of the information presented in court."

Good point, shuttlt. This points up the primary difference between the innocentisti and the colpevolisti.

The first group want Amanda to be innocent, so they look for data that support her innocence. The second group want her to be guilty, so they look for data that support her guilt.

I think it's more like this:

One side wants Amanda to be innocent, regardless of what evidence there is to the contrary.

The people in the middle (like me, surprisingly) want to find out the truth, and as such are looking for evidence one way or the other. So far, there have been no solid, evidence based refutations of the evidence against Amanda - and this is problematic.

On the other side are those who have been convinced by the evidence that Amanda is guilty. I do not think it is maliciousness toward Amanda on their part, as you would make it seem.


Honestly, I don't actually care one whit either way - Amanda either did it or she didn't - my purpose in being here was initially to help sort out the truth/cut through the fallacious arguments. The prevalence of fallacious arguments and not much else from the Pro-Amanda camp, along with the evidence presented, leads me to believe that she's guilty. I continue to post in this thread only to point out problems with logic (even if mine's not always right).

 

[Mary_H]

RWVBWL, you and I are probably about the same age, but I have no interest in getting up early to greet the sun, that's all.

I definitely believe Rudy has a conscience. I don't think he went there to hurt Meredith, and when he did, going dancing at a disco was an act of strong denial -- his way of expressing that he hoped everything was going to turn out okay.

I think if he had enough of a conscience to return to the scene, then he would have had enough of a conscience to call the police to summon help for Meredith. I just can't see him going back to the scene of the crime with all the dangers that would entail for him.

Also, I believe the profilers are calling his crime scene "disorganized," and going back to "tie up loose ends" seems more like an "organized" behavior.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

RWVBWL writes:

Since this is probably the first murder Guede was involved in, and a bloody one at that also, it is much easier to visualize Guede panicking after he/his unknown aquaintance stabbed Meredith, and they split FAST. Hours later, if/when Guede came back, after breaking Filomena's window, and then entering with the apartment keys, he might have then creepily removed her pants, placed a pillow under her buttocks, digitally assaulted her, and with her scent on his hands, masturbated to climax. I believe I have seen, I think it was on Perugia Shock, photo's of what appears to be a dried semen stain on a pillow in the room. If I recall correctly, for some reason, this stain was never tested.


Guede did not return to the crime scene. He went out to a disco.

Judge Micheli tried to say that the evidence shows that Meredith's bra was removed several hours after her murder. His argument is that the bra was found in a place where there was no blood on the floor, and yet one of the straps was soaked through with blood. This would have taken a long time to occur, according to Micheli. But why would it take more than a few seconds for a piece of porous fabric to soak up blood?

The truth is crystal-clear, despite strenuous efforts to submerge it in a swamp of rhetoric and speculation. Here is what happened:

Guede smashed Filomena's window with a rock and crawled through it, using a planter next to the window and the bars on the lower window for footholds. He was using the toilet when Meredith arrived home. He surprised her and chased her into a corner of her room, in front of her wardrobe, where he grabbed her from behind. He clapped his left hand over her face to silence her screams, hard enough so he left bruises on her jaw that show where his fingertips were. He pushed her to the floor, and he stabbed her in the right side of her neck with a small knife held in his right hand. At some point, she twisted around so she was on her back facing him. That is when he inflicted a large cutting wound in the left side of her neck.

It was a blitz attack that lasted just a few minutes. When the struggle was over, he moved her a few feet, put a pillow under her buttocks, removed her pants and underwear and sexually assaulted her in some manner. Then he went in the bathroom where he cleaned up. He removed his right shoe and rinsed it under the bidet, leaving a streak of blood around the drain of the bidet and drops of blood on the side of the basin. While his shoe was off, he made a footprint on the bathmat with diluted blood or bloody water.

He put his shoe back on and returned to Meredith's room, where he removed the quilt from her bed and threw it over her body. Then he sat on the bed with the bloody knife at his side while he went through her purse. He tossed a receipt from a movie theater on top of the quilt. He took her money and her cell phones. Then he exited the room, stepping in blood just before he did so, and thus leaving a trail of bloody shoe prints that starts in her room, extends into the corridor, shows where he stood when he locked the door behind him, and then runs down the corridor toward the exit, with each successive shoe print becoming fainter.

That's it. The rest is fantasy. There was no sex game, no staging, no cleanup except Guede cleaning himself in the bathroom. This was a sexual homicide which, like the overwhelming majority of similar crimes, was committed by a disturbed young man acting alone.

 

[Mary_H]

BobTheDonkey wrote: "The prevalence of fallacious arguments and not much else from the Pro-Amanda camp, along with the evidence presented, leads me to believe that she's guilty. I continue to post in this thread only to point out problems with logic (even if mine's not always right)."

Are you sure, Bob? How about having a go at the arguments presented by the prosecution?

What is logical about accusing people of sexually attacking another person when you have no evidence of sexual activity? What is logical about accusing people of physically attacking another person when you have no evidence of physical activity? What is logical about interrogating two people against whom you have no evidence? Of imprisoning a person against whom you have no evidence?

Is it logical to hang the photo of a suspect in your criminals' "hall of shame" before she has been indicted? Is it logical to say you don't need evidence against a suspect when your intuition tells you she is guilty?

When it comes to evidence, there is an abundance showing that the Perugian police and prosecution are some VERY emotional, not logical, people.

Exactly which pro-Amanda arguments do you find illogical? The ones nobody replies to, but just runs off and changes the subject? How about this one:

Anti-Amanda: She and Raffaele cleaned up the crime scene.

Pro-Amanda: It is impossible to clean up the DNA of two suspects and leave the DNA of one. Also, when the postal police arrived, Amanda took one of them into the bathroom and showed him the drops of blood on the sink.

Please -- describe the fallacy.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey wrote: "The prevalence of fallacious arguments and not much else from the Pro-Amanda camp, along with the evidence presented, leads me to believe that she's guilty. I continue to post in this thread only to point out problems with logic (even if mine's not always right)."

Are you sure, Bob? How about having a go at the arguments presented by the prosecution?

What is logical about accusing people of sexually attacking another person when you have no evidence of sexual activity? What is logical about accusing people of physically attacking another person when you have no evidence of physical activity? What is logical about interrogating two people against whom you have no evidence? Of imprisoning a person against whom you have no evidence?

Is it logical to hang the photo of a suspect in your criminals' "hall of shame" before she has been indicted? Is it logical to say you don't need evidence against a suspect when your intuition tells you she is guilty?

When it comes to evidence, there is an abundance showing that the Perugian police and prosecution are some VERY emotional, not logical, people.

Exactly which pro-Amanda arguments do you find illogical? The ones nobody replies to, but just runs off and changes the subject? How about this one:

Anti-Amanda: She and Raffaele cleaned up the crime scene.

Pro-Amanda: It is impossible to clean up the DNA of two suspects and leave the DNA of one. Also, when the postal police arrived, Amanda took one of them into the bathroom and showed him the drops of blood on the sink.

Please -- describe the fallacy.

*sigh* Read the thread. All of these arguments have been discussed to death (multiple times).

Correction, the photograph argument hasn't been discussed multiple times. However, I see no real problem with the photograph being hung on the wall - it's not uncommon to see wanted posters in Police offices *shrug* Can you provide evidence that the photograph caused the lab team to fudge their work to provide a guilty verdict?

 

[stilicho]

I posted this before but will again: Here is what Mignini said about it in closing arguments: "It is Amanda who later covers the cadaver with a blanket -- a form of pietas, of respect for the victim. An unknown male would not have any need to cover the body. As a woman, and friend, she couldn't stand to see that nude, battered cadaver that she was responsible for."

Regardless, this was not a part of the evidence presented at the trial. It was an aside to explain why the duvet was used to cover the body.

Just as a matter of speculation, why do you think she covered the body?

 

[stilicho]

The first group want Amanda to be innocent, so they look for data that support her innocence. The second group want her to be guilty, so they look for data that support her guilt.

There's a third group--one much larger than either of those two groups--who merely wants those responsible to pay for their crimes. If the evidence pointed to someone else then they ought to be charged and prosecuted.

 

[stilicho]

That's it. The rest is fantasy. There was no sex game, no staging, no cleanup except Guede cleaning himself in the bathroom. This was a sexual homicide which, like the overwhelming majority of similar crimes, was committed by a disturbed young man acting alone.

Now all that's left to do is for you to supply the evidence that your scenario is true. Good luck!

 

[Mary_H]

"*sigh* Read the thread. All of these arguments have been discussed to death (multiple times)."

Tell me about it. They have been done to death on every blog about the case. And in a couple of days we will have someone come along here and again claim there was a clean-up.

The bizarre aspect is the number of people who continue to believe Amanda is guilty no matter how many times you offer them scientific proof that she is not. That is precisely why I boiled my comment down to this truth:

The colpevolisti want her to be guilty, so they look for data that support her guilt.

As shuttlt said, they have not seen all the information, hence, they are not basing their beliefs on evidence. You can make the argument that the situation is the same for the innocentisti, only in reverse. The difference is, indeed, one of malice.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Regardless, this was not a part of the evidence presented at the trial. It was an aside to explain why the duvet was used to cover the body.

Just as a matter of speculation, why do you think she covered the body?

Excuse me, this was not an "aside". Where do you get that? You can't take every stupid thing Mignini says and call it an "aside" because it's in closing arguments and not part of "expert testimony". Stilicho, even you must admit that is pretty lame. If you don't want to discuss it, fine, but you have a habit of calling anything you don't have an answer for irrelevant.

We're not talking about guilt or innocence here. Even if I were to assume the guilt of all three, which I'll give you the benefit of here regardless of what I actually believe, it would still be an absurd claim to pretend that this conclusion is somehow based on reason, logic, or examples from other cases or psychological studies of killers.

Mignini's explanation for why the duvet was used to cover the body is just lame. It has no basis in fact. None. Zilch.

And again, if I'm not mistaken, didn't the judges kind of buy this idiocy as an act of compassion showing remorse, which was seen as a mitigating factor against a life sentence? If that's true, it's not so irrelevant anymore is it? Not that I buy that it's an act of remorse at all anyways.

Just as a matter of speculation to you, what evidence at all is there that Amanda had to be the one to cover the body? That's ok, if you don't have any evidence to support that, which you don't, you can just do a little "aside" and give us an unqualified and unsubstantiated opinion based on pseudo psychology from one's own gut feeling.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

"*sigh* Read the thread. All of these arguments have been discussed to death (multiple times)."

Tell me about it. They have been done to death on every blog about the case. And in a couple of days we will have someone come along here and again claim there was a clean-up.

The bizarre aspect is the number of people who continue to believe Amanda is guilty no matter how many times you offer them scientific proof that she is not. That is precisely why I boiled my comment down to this truth:

The colpevolisti want her to be guilty, so they look for data that support her guilt.

As shuttlt said, they have not seen all the information, hence, they are not basing their beliefs on evidence. You can make the argument that the situation is the same for the innocentisti, only in reverse. The difference is, indeed, one of malice.

What scientific proof has been offered that Amanda is innocent?

 

[Mary_H]

I just told you. It is physically impossible, under the circumstances, to clean up the DNA of two people and leave the DNA of a third.

 

[shuttlt]

I just told you. It is physically impossible, under the circumstances, to clean up the DNA of two people and leave the DNA of a third.

Surely this has been done to death as well. How much Amanda and Raffaele "touch" DNA was found anywhere in the apartment? Assuming they were involved, how much DNA must they have left behind if they did it? We are all as certain as we can be that Rudy was there, but it isn't as if investigators were stepping over clumps of his torn out hair and pools of his blood. If he hadn't inserted part of himself into her and held her bra, how much DNA would we have from him?

 

[Mary_H]

Bob wrote: "Correction, the photograph argument hasn't been discussed multiple times. However, I see no real problem with the photograph being hung on the wall - it's not uncommon to see wanted posters in Police offices *shrug* Can you provide evidence that the photograph caused the lab team to fudge their work to provide a guilty verdict?"

Speaking of the photograph (have you seen it?) I got a very big kick out of this descriptive post by John Winters on one of the CBS 48 Hours blogs:

by johnwinters96 April 27, 2010 5:11 AM EDT

"John Harmeyer said:

'''There is hard evidence against her' and then goes on to outline the few rather skeletal, thin, and often inaccurate notions and whims the prosecution team stuck together with cocktail sticks and gum (as if it was actually robust), to then bring to bear as a case against an American girl who was actually going down from the moment the postal police arrived that morning at 7 Via della Pergola and realised what they had. [emphasis Mary H]

"Never mind about Amanda's ''body language'' outside the villa that morning. What about the distinct sense of glee one gets from the grouping of ''detectives'' that surrounded her, pregnant with vulgar and cruel anticipation? (Shudder of horror).

"The funny interviews, confessions, and Mad Hatter Tea party trial that followed were just due process that had to be tiresomely (quite literally as the guests at the tea party authentically fell asleep at odd intervals), gone through before the inevitable axe that all Italy by that time desired fell with a painful (for those of us where science isn't just something you copy the big boys doing by dressing up in funny and ungainly plastic overalls and slouch around the crime scene in for a while), clang......"

 

[shuttlt]

Mary,

If you're into CBS and 48 Hours, I have a request.... could you keep your eyes open for the clip, or even a direct quote, of Giobbi talking about the suspicious pizza, and if you see it, post it. I've been looking for this clip for some small while now.