Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Alt+F4]

And didn't AK say something tragic may have happened to Filomena on the phone?

Do I remember this correctly?

Which call to Filomeana?

 

[katy_did]

I tend to think the argument about whether Rudy could've turned and locked the door is a bit of a red herring. Not that it couldn't have happened that way.

There are shoe prints from Rudy around Meredith's body, and there are some more which begin in the corridor and lead out the front door. There seems to be a gap in continuity in the shoe prints between Meredith's body and the corridor, and there are no shoe prints leading into the bathroom, though we know Rudy went in there several times. Then there's a bare footprint on the bath mat.

So someone wearing shoes walked around near the body and walked down the corridor, while someone in bare feet walked into the bathroom. And we know Rudy was in all those locations. Surely, then, the logical conclusion - given that there are no areas where bare footprints and shoe prints overlap - is that the same person, Rudy, made all these prints. He wasn't wearing shoes when he went into the bathroom (probably because he realized he was leaving shoe prints everywhere, and took them off), but put them back on in the corridor just before he left the house. I certainly can't see how the evidence rules that out. If there were two different sets of *shoe prints*, that would be an entirely different matter.

 

[43degreesNorth]

I tend to think the argument about whether Rudy could've turned and locked the door is a bit of a red herring. Not that it couldn't have happened that way.

There are shoe prints from Rudy around Meredith's body, and there are some more which begin in the corridor and lead out the front door. There seems to be a gap in continuity in the shoe prints between Meredith's body and the corridor, and there are no shoe prints leading into the bathroom, though we know Rudy went in there several times. Then there's a bare footprint on the bath mat.

So someone wearing shoes walked around near the body and walked down the corridor, while someone in bare feet walked into the bathroom. And we know Rudy was in all those locations. Surely, then, the logical conclusion - given that there are no areas where bare footprints and shoe prints overlap - is that the same person, Rudy, made all these prints. He wasn't wearing shoes when he went into the bathroom (probably because he realized he was leaving shoe prints everywhere, and took them off), but put them back on in the corridor just before he left the house. I certainly can't see how the evidence rules that out. If there were two different sets of *shoe prints*, that would be an entirely different matter.

The logical conclusion is the foot/shoe prints were messed with in some way

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I tend to think the argument about whether Rudy could've turned and locked the door is a bit of a red herring. Not that it couldn't have happened that way.

There are shoe prints from Rudy around Meredith's body, and there are some more which begin in the corridor and lead out the front door. There seems to be a gap in continuity in the shoe prints between Meredith's body and the corridor, and there are no shoe prints leading into the bathroom, though we know Rudy went in there several times. Then there's a bare footprint on the bath mat.

So someone wearing shoes walked around near the body and walked down the corridor, while someone in bare feet walked into the bathroom. And we know Rudy was in all those locations. Surely, then, the logical conclusion - given that there are no areas where bare footprints and shoe prints overlap - is that the same person, Rudy, made all these prints. He wasn't wearing shoes when he went into the bathroom (probably because he realized he was leaving shoe prints everywhere, and took them off), but put them back on in the corridor just before he left the house. I certainly can't see how the evidence rules that out. If there were two different sets of *shoe prints*, that would be an entirely different matter.

Why would he stop in the corridor to put on his shoes? And where are the shoeprints showing this? Rather, we have a set of shoeprints showing no pause, no side-by-side prints, etc.

It's more likely, given that there were more than one attacker, that Rudy left shoe prints and at least one of the other attackers cleaned the hallway, missing a few of the prints because they weren't left in blood.

 

[bucketoftea]

But Mark, Chris and Greggy are not arguing anything radically new. They're simply talking about the application of existing principles, arguing that existing protocols should be followed, and that where they are not, some supporting evidence needs to be provided to show that the new technique works. Stefanoni is the one who needs to submit her research for peer review, because it IS brand new. She didn't use LCN testing, she used her own brand new version of it. This is why I'm pretty certain the knife evidence will be thrown out at some stage during the appeals process.

As Greggy said, you can't use a research project to help convict someone of murder. That's what Stefanoni did.

It isn't a research project. It's not even "brand new" it's been *plenty* peer-reviewed (esp in the UK where there was a government commissioned review....guess what? it passed with flying colours) it's been used in the US, as well.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It isn't a research project. It's not even "brand new" it's been *plenty* peer-reviewed (esp in the UK where there was a government commissioned review....guess what? it passed with flying colours) it's been used in the US, as well.

I don't think Katy_did is saying what you think she said.

 

[katy_did]

Why would he stop in the corridor to put on his shoes? And where are the shoeprints showing this? Rather, we have a set of shoeprints showing no pause, no side-by-side prints, etc.

It's more likely, given that there were more than one attacker, that Rudy left shoe prints and at least one of the other attackers cleaned the hallway, missing a few of the prints because they weren't left in blood.

And that's the problem: you have to introduce another scenario (a clean-up) for which there isn't any evidence, in order to explain the lack of evidence.

You say 'given that there was more than one attacker', and well, yes, if that were a given, that would change the situation. But I don't think it is a 'given', I think that's exactly what we're arguing about.

If we knew nothing about the crime, except that there were shoe prints in two locations, a bare bloody footprint in another location, no overlapping shoe/bare footprints, and that one person had been in all of these locations - the same person towards whom the evidence in the bedroom where the murder took place overwhelmingly points - what would be the most likely conclusion to draw from that? I think it's fairly clear that there's a distinct possibility the same person left all these prints, and certainly nothing to disprove it. It would be the *obvious* conclusion. To conclude anything else, we have to speculate about even more unproven scenarios.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And that's the problem: you have to introduce another scenario (a clean-up) for which there isn't any evidence, in order to explain the lack of evidence. You say 'given that there was more than one attacker', and well, yes, if that were a given, that would change the situation. But I don't think it is a 'given', I think that's exactly what we're arguing about.

If we knew nothing about the crime, except that there were shoe prints in two locations, a bare bloody footprint in another location, no overlapping shoe/bare footprints, and that one person had been in all of these locations - the same person towards whom the evidence in the bedroom where the murder took place overwhelmingly points - what would be the most likely conclusion to draw from that? I think it's fairly clear that there's a distinct possibility the same person left all these prints, and certainly nothing to disprove it. It would be the *obvious* conclusion. To conclude anything else, we have to speculate about even more unproven scenarios.

Except that this requires ignoring all evidence pointing to multiple attackers. The only way to not ignore this evidence is to accept that there were indeed multiple attackers.

You are basing your premise on the evidence you like, and ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit what you want to believe. Confirmation bias is an easy trap to fall into... Only by incorporating all evidence can we reach the truth.

 

[bucketoftea]

I don't think Katy_did is saying what you think she said.

Thank you, I realised that in the end. This is a reason I'm keen to inspect the judgment on this point. Other expert witnesses supported the validity but quite how, I don't know.

 

[stilicho]

Stefanoni is the one who needs to submit her research for peer review, because it IS brand new. She didn't use LCN testing, she used her own brand new version of it. This is why I'm pretty certain the knife evidence will be thrown out at some stage during the appeals process.

As Greggy said, you can't use a research project to help convict someone of murder. That's what Stefanoni did.

This will be interesting. The appeals court has the opportunity to either accept or reject a modified scientific procedure. I won't be as bold as you are in evaluating the certainty of the knife evidence.

Will you accept the decision of the appeals court regardless?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Except that this requires ignoring all evidence pointing to multiple attackers. The only way to not ignore this evidence is to accept that there were indeed multiple attackers.

You are basing your premise on the evidence you like, and ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit what you want to believe. Confirmation bias is an easy trap to fall into... Only by incorporating all evidence can we reach the truth.

Speaking of.....

 

[katy_did]

It isn't a research project. It's not even "brand new" it's been *plenty* peer-reviewed (esp in the UK where there was a government commissioned review....guess what? it passed with flying colours) it's been used in the US, as well.

HumanityBlues is right, you've missed the point here. I quoted posts from Greggy from PMF some pages back where he states that Stefanoni didn't use LCN; she used her own special technique which hasn't been objectively tested and verified. She didn't provide any evidence to show that the technique she used was valid. Hence he calls it a 'research project' (I was quoting him).

 

[katy_did]

This will be interesting. The appeals court has the opportunity to either accept or reject a modified scientific procedure. I won't be as bold as you are in evaluating the certainty of the knife evidence.

Will you accept the decision of the appeals court regardless?

I have quite a lot of faith in the appeals court rejecting the knife evidence at some stage; the only thing I'm not sure about is whether it will happen at the first or second appeal. If it does happen, much better for all concerned if it's the second stage.

If Stefanoni gets her work peer reviewed and brings in a bunch of research to show her work was valid, then the court might have valid reason to accept it. They shouldn't do so without any supporting evidence, however. As Greggy said, "You can't use a research project to help convict someone of murder".

 

[katy_did]

Except that this requires ignoring all evidence pointing to multiple attackers. The only way to not ignore this evidence is to accept that there were indeed multiple attackers.

You are basing your premise on the evidence you like, and ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit what you want to believe. Confirmation bias is an easy trap to fall into... Only by incorporating all evidence can we reach the truth.

Can I take it from this that you agree with me that if we were to look simply at the evidence I listed above, there would be a very good case for assuming that the footprint and shoe prints were made by the same person?

If so, then I guess our disagreement is over the issue of single/multiple attackers, which is a separate one from the footprint evidence. That would probably be a new discussion.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Can I take it from this that you agree with me that if we were to look simply at the evidence I listed above, there would be a very good case for assuming that the footprint and shoe prints were made by the same person?

If so, then I guess our disagreement is over the issue of single/multiple attackers, which is a separate one from the footprint evidence. That would probably be a new discussion.

His argument was self defeating anyways. I don't think he'll ever realize why though. But it's pretty obvious.

 

[katy_did]

His argument was self defeating anyways. I don't think he'll ever realize why though. But it's pretty obvious.

LOL, indeed.

 

[stilicho]

HumanityBlues is right, you've missed the point here. I quoted posts from Greggy from PMF some pages back where he states that Stefanoni didn't use LCN; she used her own special technique which hasn't been objectively tested and verified. She didn't provide any evidence to show that the technique she used was valid. Hence he calls it a 'research project' (I was quoting him).

Of course you conveniently omit his restrictions on the validity of his own opinion. Unlike Mark and Chris, Greggy understands very well that forensic science may be validated by courts, and that it is impossible to make a scientific assessment from an ocean away:

"Every new form of scientific evidence has its first birthday in a courtroom if it can be shown to be valid. But in this case, what I perceive from a continent away is that Dr. Stefanoni pulled out all stops to get results."

And

"I totally agree with Nikki's comments on Dr. Stefanoni's scientific ingenuity- she pushed the boundaries of the PCR instrument outward and was successful in her final attempt to nail the murderess. She deserves praise and recognition by her scientific peers. Now Dr. Stefanoni needs to compare, validate, and publish her PCR protocol so others can confirm it and use it when there is still enough crime scene material left to do more than one analysis."

Not that Greggy is going to be produced as an expert by either side but he is clearly arguing not that Stefanoni's "research project" was invalid but that it should not have been used if there was a risk that the court would be deceived by the defence experts. He is not calling Stefanoni's work "her own special technique", which implies an unscientific approach performed outside of the scientific realm. She wasn't performing a magic trick.

I think it's important for you and your readers to understand that Greggy's objections are considerable different that those of Mark and Chris.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Can I take it from this that you agree with me that if we were to look simply at the evidence I listed above, there would be a very good case for assuming that the footprint and shoe prints were made by the same person?

I will not assist in this derail. The evidence needs to be addressed in it's entirety. What you're asking is akin to the creationist "look at the eyeball, without looking at any other pieces of evidence, and tell me if you agree that it is designed". That's a fallacious argument to begin with.

If so, then I guess our disagreement is over the issue of single/multiple attackers, which is a separate one from the footprint evidence. That would probably be a new discussion.

There are footprints from Amanda and Raffaele, are there not? There is evidence that more than one person attacked Meredith, is there not? There is evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were involved, is there not?


This is, again, pure sophistry coming from your side. Let's discuss what evidence we have - all of it - rather than limiting ourselves to just that which you feel could support your argument.

 

[katy_did]

On another topic, I asked a little while back if anyone knew whether Meredith's wallet was ever found (as opposed to her bag, which was on the bed). I've never read anything about her empty wallet being found in any of the reports, so I don't think it was.

The reason I was asking is that there was some discussion a while back as to why Rudy would've taken the credit cards, since they could be traced to Meredith. It's a fair point, although we probably shouldn't draw too many conclusions from what would have been a split-second decision anyway (if he did take it). But perhaps he didn't take her 'cards and cash' separately, as we've been assuming. Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense if he just swiped her wallet?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

His argument was self defeating anyways. I don't think he'll ever realize why though. But it's pretty obvious.

Really? So you have a cite where I've ignored evidence I didn't like to support my foregone conclusion?

Didn't think so. Please knock off the personal attacks.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I suffer from confirmation bias.