Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Hows that

Well, it's okay...for a start.

I'd disagree with the part regarding Filomena's room being already a mess though

 

[Amazer]

And apparently, I'll never know!

I'd put myself in the 'Amanda is guilty' camp for now... at least such a time that the Amanda defenders starts providing evidence for the things they claim. So far their CT-like musings have failed to convince me.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'd put myself in the 'Amanda is guilty' camp for now... at least such a time that the Amanda defenders starts providing evidence for the things they claim. So far their CT-like musings have failed to convince me.

I'm in the same camp as well, but if it wasn't for that darn locked door I'ld be around 50 / 50. There is just too much evidence pointing to Rudy not locking it, and that leaves only Amanda to lock it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well, it's okay...for a start.

I'd disagree with the part regarding Filomena's room being already a mess though

Once I saw the pictures of the room, it looked just like my sons (minus the make-up stuff) but the real kicker is that little white 2 drawer thing beside her bed, the drawers would have been opened and gone thru, thats probally the first thing in the room a thief would have looked in.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA and other forensics

And apparently, I'll never know!

Belz...,

I became interested in the case when I saw an open letter from nine DNA forensic scientists who pointed to serious weaknesses in the DNA evidence. After I learned some of them had helped to convict people, I knew it was not knee-jerk criticism of any prosecution or any DNA evidence (BobTheDonkey's strawman to the contrary notwithstanding). The more I looked into the DNA evidence, the better I understood the arguments of he open letter. Then I looked into the luminol footprints, and I saw the same kind of confirmation bias in this aspect of the forensics. Given the highly speculative nature of the prosecution's narrative, this case lives or dies with the forensics.

halides1

 

[Mary_H]

Yesterday it was the Straw Man, today it is begging the question (well, actually, everyday it's begging the question):

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

The concept applies to Fulcanelli's questions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.

Just some questions:

1. Why do you think Knox and Sollecito repeatedly told the police a pack of lies and gave multiple conflicting alibis?

No one here has been able to substantiate the claim that Amanda and Raffaele lied or had conflicting alibis until after they were influenced by the police.

2. Who do you think staged the break-in in Filomena’s room?

Rudy either caused or staged the break-in.

3. Who do you think tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom that Knox and Meredith shared?

Rudy or Amanda.

4. Why did Amanda Knox voluntarily admit that she was involved in Meredith's murder on 6 November 2007?

Nothing said while being interrogated alone by a group of police officers in a place you are not allowed to leave can be considered voluntary in the usual sense of the word.

5. Why did Amanda Knox accuse Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith despite knowing full well that he was completely innocent and why didn't she recant her false and malicious allegation when he was in prison?

We've gone over this a million times. She didn't know he was innocent. She accused him because the police suggested it. She did recant her allegation within hours of making it.

6. Why won't Sollecito corroborate Amanda Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder?


He did, in his prison diary.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Belz...,

I became interested in the case when I saw an open letter from nine DNA forensic scientists who pointed to serious weaknesses in the DNA evidence. After I learned some of them had helped to convict people, I knew it was not knee-jerk criticism of any prosecution or any DNA evidence (BobTheDonkey's strawman to the contrary notwithstanding). The more I looked into the DNA evidence, the better I understood the arguments of he open letter. Then I looked into the luminol footprints, and I saw the same kind of confirmation bias in this aspect of the forensics. Given the highly speculative nature of the prosecution's narrative, this case lives or dies with the forensics.

halides1

My "strawman" is as generalized an argument as yours regarding contamination. You have yet to prove that contamination happened in this case, merely that it can happen. As such, it is no strawman to call out your arguments for the generalizations they are.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yesterday it was the Straw Man, today it is begging the question (well, actually, everyday it's begging the question):

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Interesting that you would post this without regard to your own position concerning the evidence tampering/conspiracy claims you tout, all in order to promote your faith in Amanda's innocence.

 

[Mary_H]

Interesting that you would post this without regard to your own position concerning the evidence tampering/conspiracy claims you tout, all in order to promote your faith in Amanda's innocence.

I know I don't have any evidence that the lab deliberately tampered with evidence; my claims are based on suspicion. I make those suggestions in order to show that there are alternate scenarios -- possible ways of looking at what might have happened other than just by looking at what is most apparent.

For me to do what Fulcanelli did, I would have to ask, "Why did Mignini tell Stefanoni to fake the knife evidence?"

 

[Amazer]

Maybe she wanted to keep her job.

Then you should first establish that her job was in danger to begin with.

From what I have gathered, not a lot of public questioning of the prosecution's case is done in general. It is an authoritarian system in which the magistrates hold the most power.

It is certainly questioned in the courts... I don't think you are making a very convincing case here.

I found an interesting article from earlier this week that may explain some of the hesitation on the part of the United States to intervene in Amanda's case:

I don't see how these two (Amanda and eves-dropping on Organized crime) are connected. Care to explain?

I would imagine the U.S. and Italy have similar other shared interests, as well.

Will wonders never cease?

They didn't even have to test the bra calsp -- they could just SAY they tested it, and show the results of another DNA test instead. Or, they could just wipe some of Raffaele's DNA on it from his clothing or a napkin.

Sure, they could done it that way... where's the evidence though?

They already had the evidence from Amanda -- the knife. They probably thought everybody would believe that was enough. Like I said, they weren't terribly brilliant about all this.

I think I'll stick to my currently held beliefs till you start providing some evidence for your assertions.

All of the other judges don't have to know what's going on behind the scenes. They only have to believe what Mignini and Comodi tell them.

Right... those judges are so damn gullible.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Just posting this for someone I know:


1. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito lied before 5 November 2007 when they were questioned as witnesses. In stark contrast, all the other people who were questioned told the truth and had one credible alibi that could be verified. Knox lied to Filomena on 2 November. She told Filomena that she had already phoned the police. Knox's mobile phone records proved that this was untrue. Knox told the postal police that Meredith always kept her door locked. Filomena strongly disagreed with her, and told the postal police the opposite was true. In her email to friends in Seattle on 4 November, Knox claimed that she called Meredith’s phones after speaking to Filomena. Knox’s mobile phone records prove that this was untrue. Knox also claimed that when she called Meredith’s Italian phone it “just kept ringing, no answer”. Her mobile phone records show this call lasted just three seconds. Sollecito claimed on two separate occasions that he had accidentally pricked Meredith's hand. These claims are demonstrably false because Meredith had never been to Sollecito's apartment. 2. There was no physical evidence of Rudy Guede in Filomena’s room. He left the cottage almost immediately after Meredith screamed. However, someone tracked Meredith’s blood into Filomena’s room after she had been stabbed. The scientific police found Amanda Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor. The criminal biologists involved in the case are in no doubt that Amanda Knox was in Filomena’s room after Meredith had been stabbed. 3. Rudy’s Guede visible bloody footprints lead straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. They became progressively weaker and fainter. There is absolutely no evidence that he went into the blood-spattered bathroom. Amanda Knox’s DNA was found mingled with Meredith’s blood in three places in the bathroom: on the ledge of the basin, on the bidet, and on a box of Q Tips cotton swabs. The Kerchers’ lawyer, Francesco Maresca, called the mixed blood evidence “the most damning piece” of evidence against Knox. And Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani paid particular attention to the mixed samples of blood in their sentencing report. The reason why the mixed blood evidence is so damning is that Amanda Knox’s DNA wasn’t outlier DNA that had been left some time earlier.


Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani don't claim it's Knox's blood mixed with Meredith's blood. I believe that Dr. Stefanoni stated in her report Knox's DNA was blood DNA in her report and this is why Andrea and Barbie have claimed it was Knox's blood in newspaper and magazine articles.


From what I understand from the judges' report Knox's and Meredith's biological traces had united into one single trace on the basin and bidet. In other words, they were deposited at the same time. The judges’ report has detailed analysis on why the bare bloody footprint on the blue bathmat belonged to Raffaele Sollecito and was incompatible with Rudy Guede’s foot 4. Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November. She wasn't being interrogated when she wrote this note and nobody was shouting her. She even asked for a pen and paper to write this confession and told the police officer it was a "gift". 5. On 5 November, Amanda Knox was informed that Sollecito had admitted they had both lied to the police and that he was no longer providing her with an alibi. She readily admitted that she was at the cottage and accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith. Knox didn't retract her allegation against Diya Lumumba the whole time he was in prison despite the fact that she knew he was completely innocent. This speaks volumes about her character. 6. Sollecito made several spontaneous declarations during his trial. Why didn't he corroborate Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment on the night of the murder? He could have done this in writing or made a spontaneous declaration.

 

[Mary_H]

Then you should first establish that her job was in danger to begin with.

That's why I said "maybe."

It is certainly questioned in the courts... I don't think you are making a very convincing case here.

The evidence is questioned in court, but the lawyers are not free to make all the objections we have made in the blogs. If they did, they could be sued.

I don't see how these two (Amanda and eves-dropping on Organized crime) are connected. Care to explain?

The Italian system of criminal investigation seems to be working in general in the best interests of the United States Department of Justice. If it ain't broke (in 99% of cases), they are not going to fix it.

"Sure, they could done it that way... where's the evidence though?

No evidence, just a hunch, based on my observations of this trial over the past year.

I think I'll stick to my currently held beliefs till you start providing some evidence for your assertions.

Fine with me.

Right... those judges are so damn gullible.

Do you think it's any different in any other country?

 

[Mary_H]

No, you make them as accusations. Let's call a spade a spade. And you have your bar set to a different level for those you are accusing to those you are defending. It would seem that aside from Meredith, her family and truth...the greatest victim of this case has been fair play.

The difference is my accusations don't put anybody on trial or in jail. No matter what Amanda's supporters SAY, nobody gets hurt. The prosecution, police, judges and scientists are invulnerable to our remarks.

Mary, do you still beat your husband?

Excellent example of begging the question.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The evidence is questioned in court, but the lawyers are not free to make all the objections we have made in the blogs. If they did, they could be sued.

They can make any objection they wish. However, it's clear your term 'objection' in this context is a mere euphamism for 'accusation' and 'smear' and no, you can't go around accusing people of committing crimes with zero evidence to support it, especially in a court room. The prosecution have to provide evidence for their accusations and quite rightly, it's the same for the defence.

 

[Amazer]

I'm in the same camp as well, but if it wasn't for that darn locked door I'ld be around 50 / 50. There is just too much evidence pointing to Rudy not locking it, and that leaves only Amanda to lock it.

I can definitely identify areas where the investigation should/could have done better. The collecting of evidence in the cottage leaves room for improvement for example. I don't believe that it was sloppy enough to have that evidence thrown out though.

There are areas where I would have liked to see more evidence. For example the knife from Raffaele's apartment. It would obviously been better if more DNA material had been found and that more test could have been done. I have yet to see the Amanda supporters come up with a theory, backed by evidence, that would allow me to dismiss it though. As a result I'm inclined to believe the results that were provided by lab.

So yes, i have some doubts... they just don't rise to the level of reasonable doubt yet. And it will likely remain that way till the defenders start providing evidence to back up their claims/accusations/theories.

 

[LashL]

I've been trying to locate something on par with a police training manual but so far no luck.

...

It's tough without either a police manual or resorting to news stories and anecdotes to demonstrate that DNA swabbing is not ordinarily applicable to those not detained, already under arrest, or convicted. If anyone has a pdf from a police manual--regardless of jurisdiction--it would be helpful here.

I would be very surprised to find the P&Ps of any police force published online (for good reason). Perhaps you could, however, discuss the matter with homicide investigators in various forces (in your own city and others in your province) and see what they are willing to tell you.

I happen to know about the procedures of multiple Canadian police forces as a result of numerous years of involvement with police investigations, via my previous experience as a court reporter and as a case manager for the Crown (before law school, etc.) and in my several years of experience as a lawyer, as I act on behalf of a large police force, keep up with police practice, news and law, advise the police department on best practices, and regularly attend CLE conferences on police related subjects, etc.

And since I defend the police when they are sued (which is far too frequently, frankly, and often frivolously), I am very well versed indeed on best practices and I'm also fully cognizant of the fact that best practices are not always adhered to (sometimes with good reason, and sometimes for very, very bad reasons).

In my opinion, the investigation by the Perugia police into Ms. Kercher's murder left a lot to be desired and the failure to seek voluntary DNA samples from the tenants and known visitors to the cottage was just one failing among several.

 

[Amazer]

That's why I said "maybe."

And why should I, or anyone else, seriously consider this?

T

he evidence is questioned in court, but the lawyers are not free to make all the objections we have made in the blogs. If they did, they could be sued.

Usually in court you are expected to have evidence that supports your 'objections', especially the type of objections you are espousing.

The Italian system of criminal investigation seems to be working in general in the best interests of the United States Department of Justice. If it ain't broke (in 99% of cases), they are not going to fix it.

They do it in plenty of other cases where their citizens are involved, even those cases where the issue of guilt has been settled without a doubt. So why would the United States intervene in those cases and not in this one?

No evidence, just a hunch, based on my observations of this trial over the past year.

You of all people should realize how dangerous it is to work with hunches.

Fine with me.

Well, thank you.

Do you think it's any different in any other country?

That judges are gullible? Most judges I've had the pleasure of meeting were pretty smart people. And usually not easily deceived. That's not to say it doesn't happen, it does. But it's rare.

 

[Mary_H]

Just posting this for someone I know:

Same ol', same ol'. Take out everything that is false, irrelevant, has been effectively refuted or is subject to reasonable doubt, and what you are left with is that Amanda couldn't remember the order or the lengths of the phone calls she made the morning of the 2nd. Ergo, she killed Meredith.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Same ol', same ol'. Take out everything that is false, irrelevant, has been effectively refuted or is subject to reasonable doubt, and what you are left with is that Amanda couldn't remember the order or the lengths of the phone calls she made the morning of the 2nd. Ergo, she killed Meredith.

I know of nothing in that list that matches anything I've posted.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The difference is my accusations don't put anybody on trial or in jail. No matter what Amanda's supporters SAY, nobody gets hurt. The prosecution, police, judges and scientists are invulnerable to our remarks.

Oh, that's okay then...