Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kevin_Lowe]

Those are all plausible hypotheses. What is plausible about turnip juice or feces being on the bottom of their feet when there is no trace of how that juice or fecal matter was contacted by the bottom of their feet? That is what makes it unreasonable.

This is merely a lack of positive evidence, and a lack of positive evidence is not conclusive proof of absence.

Luminol does not prove there was blood there. It merely demonstrates that it is possible blood was there, and further tests should be conducted. No further test showed that there was blood there.

So show where that spill of turnip juice is, or the fecal matter they stepped in, or a trail leading from outside to where the prints are found. It is unreasonable to suspect that these two stepped in fecal matter and tracked it around the house (the footprints don't show this), it is unreasonable to suspect that there was a turnip juice spill on the floor that was stepped in and tracked around the house. This is even more true when it is revealed that of all the people who tracked dirt, mud, whatever through the house that morning, no one else left footprints. Thus, it is unreasonable to make the assumption that we cannot know what these footprints were made of. The only source of iron that could have been on their feet was Meredith's blood, especially given the bloody footprint on the bathmat that resembles Raffaele's foot.

One last time: That is not the only source of a possible positive luminol result. If it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

This is not a "basic question". This is a genuine "show me the study" request. As of yet, no one has proven that tertiary or quaternary transfer is detectable.

Historically, forensic science has been absolutely appallingly slack at testing the circumstances under which their tests can come up with false positives. It's only relatively recently that they finally got around to testing the faith-based belief that fingerprints could not generate false positives, for example, and of course they discovered that with partial or unclear fingerprints and a large enough database false positives were quite possible.

It's not contested that DNA tests can detect small quantities of DNA (on a good day), nor that shed skin cells can contain DNA, nor that a large percentage of household dust is made up of shed skin cells, nor that the clasp was sitting around for weeks on a dusty floor in a house where Raffaele had frequently been.

Given that there's a perfectly intuitive way for Raffaele's DNA to have been found on the clasp, the lack of a specific study to prove that this is possible does not disturb me. Show me a study that shows that this chain of events is impossible and I will take notice. Until then, I'm going to have reasonable doubt in the relevance of that piece of DNA evidence.

So if Raffaele's DNA is to be expected in the cottage, why out of all the swabs was it only found in Meredith's room? While I agree that absence of evidence doesn't mean absence, Raffaele's DNA is conspicuously missing for someone who was in the cottage - except in a room where he claims to have never set foot, and just so happens to have been found on the bra clasp the victim was wearing. That is terribly inconvenient for this young man if indeed it is contamination. Again, it is unreasonable to assume that contamination occurred simply because the Defense cries out that it has.
There is no reason for Raffaele's DNA to have been in Meredith's room.
They did test all kinds of other places on the floor of the cottage, nary a spec of Raffaele's DNA was found except on a cigarette butt in the kitchen.

How did Raffaele's DNA arrive in Meredith's room if he was never there, short of tertiary transfer? To believe this was a case of contamination, we must believe that Raffaele managed to leave his DNA only in those places in the cottage that not only weren't tested, but none of the places where he left his DNA were contacted in any way except for where the clasp lay (or the gloves that picked it up touched). That's unreasonable to assume.

Didn't it take multiple attempts to finally get a positive result on the bra clasp? If it was examined much more thoroughly than any other piece of evidence then it would of course be more likely that his DNA would be found there.

In any case, if we agree that a positive DNA test result from dust contamination is a low-probability event in any single test, then it's not in any way remarkable that the DNA showed up in one place but not another.

Once again this does not rise to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Corruption is extremely plausible. Faked lab results are common. I'm not saying it was contaminated by one of the previous DNA samples the lab already had. I'm saying Stefanoni or her pals took some test results from some of Raffaele's DNA, and said it was found on the bra clasp. Pretty simple, really.

Again...CT forum is thataway ---->


Any evidence of this, other than that you want to believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Again...CT forum is thataway ---->


Any evidence of this, other than that you want to believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent?

I don't think it's necessary to invoke corrupt forensics to establish the claim that Amanda and Raffaele cannot be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty.

Nor can the claim that the forensics were dodgy be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

It's not an implausible fairy story, though. The police have a pet theory, they have some suspects in the frame, and they have a frustrating lack of any direct evidence at all to put their suspects in the murder room. Forty-seven days into the investigation they go back to the murder scene, grab a piece of evidence that was lying around for all that time, and it just so happens that the one spot in the room where the suspect's DNA can be found is on that one piece of evidence. It's exactly the kind of luck a not-quite-honest police forensics lab could make for themselves if they were so inclined.

Police have falsified evidence to convict people they thought were guilty but likely to get away with it in the past, and they will do so again. It's anyone's guess whether they did so in this case, but given the high-profile nature of the case, the unusual timing and the fortuitousness of the discovery for the prosecution it's not unreasonable to wonder whether that particular piece of evidence was dodgy.

 

[Fine]

I think you misunderstand the intent (if not always the application) of reasonable doubt. If a reasonable person can believe that the "contrived" explanation is possible, there's reasonable doubt.

Hmmm. Speaking of philosophical errors, you've just provided us one. There are so many instances in life where we believe "beyond a reasonable doubt," while knowing that it's possible that we are wrong.

A case in point. The conviction, for murder, of Amanda Marie Knox. The judges/ jurors believed "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she committed the crime, knowing full well that it was possible that she did not. If, for instance, there had been a giant conspiracy on the part of the cops, forensic investigators, and the prosecutors to fabricate evidence. (Sound familiar?) Under those conditions, clearly Amanda would have been an innocent person. But the judges/jurors did not find it reasonable to accept such a conspiracy theory, if it had even entered their minds. Likewise it is possible that God had intervened, ...planting evidence, tinkering with lab machinery, creating false memories to make it look like Amanda was guilty. Under those conditions, too, Amanda would have been innocent but the judges/jurors were certainly not disturbed by that possibility either.

The judges/jurors can never completely exclude certain "possibilities." Only God can do that. The possibilities remain...whether they find them reasonable or unreasonable... while they proceed to their fallible verdict. This isn't the LAST JUDGMENT, which won't be subject to appeal.

 

[Mary_H]

Again...CT forum is thataway ---->

Any evidence of this, other than that you want to believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent?

If you're in the mood for another conspiracy theory, Bob, I’ve got a new one for you.

Remember a few days ago when Fulcanelli was trying to convince us that the police did not know who Patrick Lumumba was, nor that he was black? I found an interesting article to the contrary from the early days of the case:

"We couldn't understand why Amanda Knox would accuse her boss. We don't know why she pulled out Patrick’s name," says Nathan Abraham, an American and a former student who now works in Perugia.

”Abraham says Amanda's lie about Lumumba shocked everyone. ’He has a beautiful wife and baby. He’s the most famous guy in Perugia, and everybody loves him…everybody from the mayor down.’"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/10/48hours/main4005725_page4.shtml

The funny thing is, if you go to Google today and enter “the most famous guy in Perugia,” you do get a couple of hits for Patrick, but you actually get more hits for a guy named Pisco (Pasquale) Alessi, who now calls HIMSELF “the most famous guy in Perugia,” on a Facebook page he has built promoting his business, the Merlin Pub.

Coincidentally, the Merlin was where Meredith attended the Halloween Party on October 31st. Here are some early media mentions of Pisco Alessi:

“Italian police investigating her murder are looking at photographs which were posted on the Facebook website, according to one of her acquaintances who says he has helped the police with their inquiries. Ms Kercher was pictured with friends in pubs and clubs in the medieval Italian city where she was studying Italian.

"Police have been scrutinising the photographs to identify people, said Pasquale Alessi, co-owner of the Merlin pub, which was frequented by the foreign language student. Mr Alessi has been asked to name men pictured with Ms Kercher, including a male American student, a Libyan computer student and part-time nightclub bouncer, as well as a friend of Mr Alessi's, Pietro Campolungo, who was pictured next to her at a Halloween party at the Merlin earlier that week.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/05/italy.ukcrime

“A local barman confirmed seeing Guede walking in Perugia on October 31, the night before her death. Police have been showing a photograph of Guede around Perugia bars in recent days.

"Pasquale Alessi, the co-owner of the city's Merlin pub, said Guede was a frequent visitor to the Domus nightclub in Perugia, where Kercher danced the night before she was killed.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/19/italy.internationalcrime

Okay, now here’s the basis for the conspiracy, from a Guardian article one year after the murder:

"Perugia may boast stunning views across the Umbrian hills and a world-class jazz festival held in frescoed palazzi, but it also has the highest number of overdose deaths per capita in Italy, as addicts move to be where the wholesalers are. North African dealers lurk on corners in the city centre and Nigerians control the suburbs, all under the watchful eye of the Calabrian 'Ndrangheta mafia."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/01/meredith-kercher-italy-perugia-students

From the same article:

"’The foreign student numbers this autumn have boomed,’" said [Merlin] co-owner Pasquale Alessi, after politely telling two plastered American students to head home.”

Aha! So you see? In 2007, the African Patrick Lumumba of Le Chic was the most famous guy in Perugia, but the controversy around his arrest caused his business to fail. In 2008, the Italian Pisco Alessi of the Merlin is now the most famous guy in Perugia, and his business is booming.

The Perugian police want the Africans out and the Italians in. Yet another motive for arresting Patrick.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hmmm. Speaking of philosophical errors, you've just provided us one. There are so many instances in life where we believe "beyond a reasonable doubt," while knowing that it's possible that we are wrong.

A case in point. The conviction, for murder, of Amanda Marie Knox. The judges/ jurors believed "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she committed the crime, knowing full well that it was possible that she did not. If, for instance, there had been a giant conspiracy on the part of the cops, forensic investigators, and the prosecutors to fabricate evidence. (Sound familiar?) Under those conditions, clearly Amanda would have been an innocent person. But the judges/jurors did not find it reasonable to accept such a conspiracy theory, if it had even entered their minds. Likewise it is possible that God had intervened, ...planting evidence, tinkering with lab machinery, creating false memories to make it look like Amanda was guilty. Under those conditions, too, Amanda would have been innocent but the judges/jurors were certainly not disturbed by that possibility either.

The judges/jurors can never completely exclude certain "possibilities." Only God can do that. The possibilities remain...whether they find them reasonable or unreasonable... while they proceed to their fallible verdict.

Philosophers have pointed out in the past that with competent defence and strict adherence to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, almost nobody should ever be convicted, because you could always come up with some story about how the accused was either framed or the victim of ridiculous bad luck. It's not a new observation.

(The idea that a reasonable person would consider divine intervention a possibility is somewhat odd though, and incompatible with my personal definition of rationality).

As I hinted at in the post you quoted, of course, in reality jurors often do not understand and apply the doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Often they just convict if they think the accused did it. Possibly our criminal system couldn't work if they didn't.

Getting back to the Knox case, I think a massive conspiracy could have done a much better job of framing Knox if it existed and was inclined to do so.

 

[Amazer]

I agree, there is no reason for Raffaele's DNA to be in Meredith's room. There is an infinitesimal likelihood that the investigators could go to Meredith's room six weeks after the crime, remove three items, and find that one of the items holds the only other speck of Raffaele to be found in the cottage.

The odds that the DNA came from another source in the lab are considerably higher.

The odds are even higher that Raffaele himself put that DNA there... you know by virtue of being involved in Meredith's murder.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The odds are even higher that Raffaele himself put that DNA there... you know by virtue of being involved in Meredith's murder.

Given the absence of any other evidence of his presence, and the absence of any remotely plausible motive, I don't agree with that assessment of the relevant odds.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Given the absence of any other evidence of his presence, and the absence of any remotely plausible motive, I don't agree with that assessment of the relevant odds.

Ahh, but what about the footprint on the bathmat? The multiple attackers (Rudy held Meredith while Amanda attacked? Or Raffaele and Amanda held Meredith while Rudy attacked?)

Just because you don't agree with the motive(s) presented doesn't mean those motives are implausible . It is quite plausible that Amanda and Raffaele set off to merely scare/play a "joke" on Meredith. At some point, it went too far/someone got mad at her/etc, and Meredith was stabbed in the throat. That's not exactly an implausible scenario - unless you simply choose to believe that such things cannot or do not happen. However, other than personal opinion, you have no reason to believe that these things don't happen.

 

[Fine]

Well Kevin_Lowe, I'd like to hear from you a non-contrived explanation of the missing bloody heelprint in the bathroom.

The only plausible explanation I'm aware of is that the bloody bare footprint was originally complete, and that the part of the footprint on the tile floor was later cleaned up, leaving behind just the part on the bathmat.

I said earlier that I've seen only contrived explanations---other than the clean up scenario--- but I welcome any thoughts you have on this topic.

///

 

[Mary_H]

Getting back to the Knox case, I think a massive conspiracy could have done a much better job of framing Knox if it existed and was inclined to do so.

Yes, a massive conspiracy definitely could have done a much better job of framing Knox, especially if it had been planned. This framing, however, was done by the seat of its pants, on the spur of the moment, by dull minds not used to being questioned or challenged.

No conspiracy is necessary when the prosecutors and judges are all magistrates-of-a-feather. No conspiracy is necessary when it is verboten to blow the whistle. No conspiracy is necessary when a traditional system is in place that educates legal personnel and jurors to think in terms of three trials per case instead of one. Trying defendants in the press? That's not a conspiracy -- in Italy, it's business as usual.

All of these conditions are no more a conspiracy than everyone in the United States standing up and singing the national anthem at the beginning of a sporting event. It's just how things are done.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Well Kevin_Lowe, I'd like to hear from you a non-contrived explanation of the missing bloody heelprint in the bathroom.

The only plausible explanation I'm aware of is that the bloody bare footprint was originally complete, and that the part of the footprint on the tile floor was later cleaned up, leaving behind just the part on the bathmat.

I said earlier that I've seen only contrived explanations---other than the clean up scenario--- but I welcome any thoughts you have on this topic.

///

If it was cleaned, why didn't blood right by the print show up with luminol?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes, a massive conspiracy definitely could have done a much better job of framing Knox, especially if it had been planned. This framing, however, was done by the seat of its pants, on the spur of the moment, by dull minds not used to being questioned or challenged.

No conspiracy is necessary when the prosecutors and judges are all magistrates-of-a-feather. No conspiracy is necessary when it is verboten to blow the whistle. No conspiracy is necessary when a traditional system is in place that educates legal personnel and jurors to think in terms of three trials per case instead of one. Trying defendants in the press? That's not a conspiracy -- in Italy, it's business as usual.

All of these conditions are no more a conspiracy than everyone in the United States standing up and singing the national anthem at the beginning of a sporting event. It's just how things are done.

Evidence that this is "just how things are done" in Italy?

 

[Mary_H]

Evidence that this is "just how things are done" in Italy?

Think in terms of how little evidence Mignini had to provide to Matteini to get Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick locked up. How few voices -- even of lawyers for the defense -- have spoken out publicly against the prosection. Surely you can't argue against my claim about the three-trial legal system. And if you don't think Italians try their cases in the press, then you would have to wonder for what other reason jurors are allowed to have access to the media while they serve.

 

[Fine]

If it was cleaned, why didn't blood right by the print show up with luminol?

Yes, that would have been ideal, from the prosecutors' perspective. But we know that footprints in blood can be completely cleaned... it may take more time or more elbowgrease. I suppose some soap may help too. We know, for example, that Rudy's bloody shoeprints were so cleaned from the hallway by the police.

///

 

[HumanityBlues]

Yes, that would have been ideal, from the prosecutors' perspective. But we know that footprints in blood can be completely cleaned... it may take more time or more elbowgrease. I suppose some soap may help too. We know, for example, that Rudy's bloody shoeprints were so cleaned from the hallway by the police.

///

I think you've been smoking too much PMF. I don't see any point discussing this further with you.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Think in terms of how little evidence Mignini had to provide to Matteini to get Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick locked up. How few voices -- even of lawyers for the defense -- have spoken out publicly against the prosection. Surely you can't argue against my claim about the three-trial legal system. And if you don't think Italians try their cases in the press, then you would have to wonder for what other reason jurors are allowed to have access to the media while they serve.

Mignini had statements from Amanda that placed herself and Patrick at the murder. That together with the text message was surely enough to arrest them. As Raffaele's alibi depended on Amanda, who admitted that she was at the cottage while Meredith was being murdered, it was prudent to lock Raffaele up for, at the very least, obstruction of justice.

There was no conspiracy involved in the arrests.

Why would the Defense Attorneys feel the need to speak out against the Prosecution Attorneys - unless you feel that ad-hominem attacks should have a place in the courtroom? And then you turn around and claim that the trial was held in the media. Well, which is it - should the trial be held in the courtroom or in the media? Should public opinion matter or not? If it shouldn't matter, then why would we expect the Attorneys to attack each other in public/the media? If it should matter, then why do you continue to use the high media profile of this case to conclude that the outcome of the case is wrong? You can't have it both ways Mary.

There is no conspiracy involved in the Italian media coverage.

Last I heard, the case had been tried in a Court of Law, in front of Judges, who based their ruling on the evidence presented and included a very thorough explanation of why they accepted/rejected particular arguments. Simply because you disagree for personal reasons (you just don't want to believe that Amanda is guilty) does not mean the ruling, and it's supporting reasons, are wrong/invalid.

There is no conspiracy involved in the trial, Mary.


ETA: The trial lasted 11 months. This was after 1yr of waiting for the trial to begin. You would have the Judges sequestered for 2 years, with no access to the media? You do realize that the current global economic recession began, and has lasted, between when Meredith was murdered and when the trial concluded, right? But, that's ok, the Judges don't need to know what's going on in the world around them... *insert eyeroll here*

There was no conspiracy involving the media coverage, nor the lack of sequestering.

 

[Mary_H]

Last I heard, the case had been tried in a Court of Law, in front of Judges, who based their ruling on the evidence presented and included a very thorough explanation of why they accepted/rejected particular arguments. Simply because you disagree for personal reasons (you just don't want to believe that Amanda is guilty) does not mean the ruling, and it's supporting reasons, are wrong/invalid.

There is no conspiracy involved in the trial, Mary.

That's what I said, Bob. No conspiracy was necessary -- everything that happened fell within the cultural ethos of the Perugian legal system.

Sigh. All of these points have been argued a million times before. You are right -- I do disagree for the personal reason that I want to believe that Amanda is innocent. And you agree with the judges' findings for the personal reason that you want to believe Amanda is guilty.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That's what I said, Bob. No conspiracy was necessary -- everything that happened fell within the cultural ethos of the Perugian legal system.

Sigh. All of these points have been argued a million times before. You are right -- I do disagree for the personal reason that I want to believe that Amanda is innocent. And you agree with the judges' findings for the personal reason that you want to believe Amanda is guilty.

I've stated before, I don't want to believe Amanda is guilty. This is not merely personal opinion: I find that the evidence cannot be so easily handwaved away as you and others would try, and as such, I am left with the conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder of Meredith.

I find it a travesty that the life of an innocent, young woman was ended so brutally in a fit of emotion. I also find it a travesty that three young people will spend many years in prison due to that same fit of emotion - such a waste of life.

Those feelings, however, do not excuse the guilty parties. I am not interested in retribution - but if Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy are unable to function in "our" (really Italian) society without raping/murdering an innocent person, then they should be removed from our society in a manner that allows them to rehabilitate and later reenter as functioning members.

 

[Agatha]

I don't want to believe Amanda is guilty. I think that the evidence points to her guilt.