Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

That was a shoe print in Meredith's room. It was originally thought to belong to Raffaele. It was later proven to be Rudy's.

No, it was never 'proven' to be Rudy's. It simply could no longer be be used against Raffaele because Rudy turned round and said it might be his. That made it unsafe to continue to use it against Raffaele. In fact, one of the prosecution experts in the trial on the stand still assigned that print to Raffaele.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Maybe the semen on the pillow case belongs to an accomplice of Rudy's who is not Raffaele.

Prove it's semen first.

And an accomplice...after all this energy and effort you people have been putting in to argue to prove it was one man alone? So, if you are acknowledging that Rudy may have had an accomplice/s...why do they have to be a mystery person/people and Amanda and Raffaele?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Not so fast. Claudia Matteini's report from November 9th said the killers were in custody and Patrick Lumumba killed Meredith with Raffaele's flick knife. Case closed, or so certain officials told the press.

Lo and behold, forensics comes up with a whole new set of evidence around the 12th, and by the 13th or 14th the police not only have identified Rudy, but they also know where he is. Were they doing any tracking down or searching from the 9th-13th? No.

They weren't incompetent when they arrested the killer, but they were incompetent when they hurriedly arrested three non-killers just because they couldn't wait patiently for the actual evidence to be processed. Human beings are inconsistent and they make mistakes.

Matteini never declared the case closed. Nor did the police (rather it was an expression of belief that they'd solved it and they actually had at that point). The investigation continued, for many months. And by that point, ues, they were looking for Rudy...they'd already matched his prints.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your arguments take tiny bits and pieces of the defendants' writings and put together a scenario to use against them. Anyone else could take ten times as many bits and pieces of their writings and put together a different story to use in their favor.

It's called 'building a case'.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In the end, the footprints are irrelevant, because there are no footprints of Raffaele at the scene, and Amanda lives in the house.

The court didn't agree. Therefore it's tour assertions that are irrelevant.

To believe that the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is sufficient to find them guilty requires a deep and fervent devotion to a belief that is seemingly impervious to logic and reason.

I wouldn't know. YOU are the 'faith' expert around here.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I agree, if one piece (or even a small number of pieces) of evidence is in and of itself proof beyond reasonable doubt, then everything else becomes moot. But, in this instance, the relative weight of the evidence is crucial. You've provided a hypothetical example of a single piece of evidence that's overwhelming proof of culpability. But the same logic wouldn't apply to another single piece of evidence that was only marginal proof of culpability.

And, with regard to the relative weight of evidence, I'd go back again to the old "rope" analogy: Some pieces of evidence carry more weight of guilt than others. Therefore they constitute thicker "strands" of the "rope". Conversely, other pieces of evidence are less indicative of guilt, and therefore constitute thinner, weaker "strands".

If there's reasonable doubt over any one piece of evidence, then its "strand" is removed from the rope. When all the pieces of evidence are weighed up in this way (i.e. firstly for the "thickness" of the "strand", and then whether the "strand" can become part of the "rope"), there is a resultant rope - which now comprises strands of varying thickness representing pieces of evidence which remain proven beyond reasonable doubt. The jury then "pulls" on the "rope". If it holds firm, then they should vote to convict.

To apply the rope metaphor to your scenario: Any photo/video of AK stabbing Meredith would, on its own, supply a massively thick single strand to the rope. All the other strands would pale into insignificance alongside it. The jury could disregard all of the other strands of the rope - the single hugely thick strand representing the murder video/photo would ensure of its own accord that the rope would not break when tested.

But, as you say, that's purely a hypothetical in this case. There's no "smoking gun" here.

No piece of circumstantial evidence can be judged as 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. Nearly all criminal cases are circumstantial. The whole is judged together and on the basis of that context a judgement is made of the basis of innocent, or guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Has anyone accused the investigators of removing or covering up forensic evidence they already had? That is what they would have had to do in the case of Rudy. In the case of the other two suspects, previously non-existent evidence was fabricated.

Oh, I see, they were quite happy to fabricate evidence but drew the line at removing or covering up forensic evidence?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The laboratory workers don't have to know anything about it. Mignini and Stefanoni are friends who work for the same employer (the State of Italy), an employer that seems not to have a system of checks and balances in place for quality control. Is there anyone who supervises either of those two?

Do describe them as 'friends' is rather a leap...since Mignini was based in Perugia and Dr Stefanoni was based in Rome. Was Biondo in on the act too? Were the experts for for the victims that attended the testing also in on the act?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol overapplied

The 'other women' were completely different sizes.

Colonel Garofano (in Darkness Descending) said that the luminol was overapplied, leading to dilation of the print. Also, Laura's and Filomena's reference prints were not taken.

 

[LondonJohn]

No piece of circumstantial evidence can be judged as 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. Nearly all criminal cases are circumstantial. The whole is judged together and on the basis of that context a judgement is made of the basis of innocent, or guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

That's essentially what I wrote there. An authenticated video/photo of a murder in progress would be considered as direct evidence (rather than circumstantial).

Also, there's a very significant difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". The jury in a criminal trial is asked to return a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty" - not "guilty" or "innocent".

Many people mistakenly conflate the terms "not guilty" and "innocent". I actually think that the Scottish legal practice of adding a third verdict - "not proven" - would help to clarify the position immensely for juries and the general public alike. As things stand though, "not guilty" encompasses both "innocent" and "not proven" in most judicial systems.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Colonel Garofano (in Darkness Descending) said that the luminol was overapplied, leading to dilation of the print. Also, Laura's and Filomena's reference prints were not taken.

Laura and Filomena were completely different shoe sizes to the prints. The police knew their sizes.

 

[Fulcanelli]

That's essentially what I wrote there. An authenticated video/photo of a murder in progress would be considered as direct evidence (rather than circumstantial).

Also, there's a very significant difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". The jury in a criminal trial is asked to return a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty" - not "guilty" or "innocent".

Many people mistakenly conflate the terms "not guilty" and "innocent". I actually think that the Scottish legal practice of adding a third verdict - "not proven" - would help to clarify the position immensely for juries and the general public alike. As things stand though, "not guilty" encompasses both "innocent" and "not proven" in most judicial systems.

I made the point because in an earlier post you expressed a view that each individual piece of evidence needs to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that's not so.


Italy, until relatively recently, also had a 'Not Proven' verdict option. And in effect, they still do since the 'Not Proven' element can be (and is often) expressed in the Judges' Motivations Reports.

 

[RWVBWL]

Prove it's semen first.

And an accomplice...after all this energy and effort you people have been putting in to argue to prove it was one man alone? So, if you are acknowledging that Rudy may have had an accomplice/s...why do they have to be a mystery person/people and Amanda and Raffaele?

Hi Fulcanelli,
Gosh, I do HOPE that they indeed test that stain, and if it is semen,
you owe me a case of cold Corona's! Haha...

And though you need the accomplices to be Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox,
I do not, instead I believe that if there is an accomplice, it is the person whom Miss Allesandra Formica saw that night leaving the scene near the murder, who did not want to be seen...

RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

I made the point because in an earlier post you expressed a view that each individual piece of evidence needs to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that's not so.


Italy, until relatively recently, also had a 'Not Proven' verdict option. And in effect, they still do since the 'Not Proven' element can be (and is often) expressed in the Judges' Motivations Reports.

No, I don't think I ever said that each individual piece of evidence needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. I said that each individual piece of evidence can be judged as to whether it in itself is provable as true (to a standard that excludes doubt). This doesn't then imply that this one piece of evidence can prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.

For example: say, in a murder case, the prosecution introduce as evidence a witness identification of the defendant at the murder scene. In court, the witness will likely be cross-examined by the defence. The jury must then decide whether they accept the witness's testimony as proven evidence of the defendant's presence at the crime scene.

If the jury decide that this evidence is indeed proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it's added as a strand to the metaphorical "rope" linking the defendant to the crime. But it doesn't necessarily imply the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - instead, it would simply add to the corpus of evidence implicating the defendant. However, if instead the jury decide that there is doubt surrounding the witness's accuracy, recall, honesty or motivation, they might choose to reject this identification evidence. The "identification" strand is removed from the "rope", and it then remains to be seen whether enough other proven evidence can form a strong enough "rope" to convict the defendant.

It's only at the end of the presentation of all the evidence, and the arguments based on the evidence, that the jury can consider the guilt of the defendant. And that decision is based upon which pieces of evidence (and argument based on that evidence) the jury choose to accept, and which pieces they choose to reject.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I can't imagine the need for any other accomplices to stage a break-in, except for someone who actually lived in the cottage.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, I said that each individual piece of evidence can be judged as to whether it in itself is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But no individual piece of circumstantial evidence 'can' be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...that's why it's called circumstantial. Take the evidence of a witness for example...you can't prove a witness testimony to be beyond reasonable doubt, it must all come down to whether you find them credible or not, whether you 'believe' them.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can't imagine the need for any other accomplices to stage a break-in, except for someone who actually lived in the cottage.

Me neither. Assuming the break-in was staged, of course.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

No, it was never 'proven' to be Rudy's. It simply could no longer be be used against Raffaele because Rudy turned round and said it might be his. That made it unsafe to continue to use it against Raffaele. In fact, one of the prosecution experts in the trial on the stand still assigned that print to Raffaele.

Here is the photographic evidence that proves the print belongs to Rudy.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Laura and Filomena were completely different shoe sizes to the prints. The police knew their sizes.

This was the scene of a horrific crime. Nothing should have been assumed. Everything should have been tested. Bare foot print samples from Laura and Filomena should have been analyzed for size and shape.

 

[LondonJohn]

But no individual piece of circumstantial evidence 'can' be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...that's why it's called circumstantial. Take the evidence of a witness for example...you can't prove a witness testimony to be beyond reasonable doubt, it must all come down to whether you find them credible or not, whether you 'believe' them.

Ummmm yes it can. If, for example, a copious amount of a murder victim's blood is found on a suspect's t-shirt, it's circumstantial evidence of the suspect's guilt. The "evidence" in this instance is the blood and the identification of the blood as the victim's through DNA analysis. If there is lots of blood to test, and proper, well-documented and repeated STR analysis is carried out, then it's absolutely possible to prove the validity of this evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence can be proven to be the blood of the victim. In fact, it can arguably be proven beyond all doubt to be the blood of the victim.

I would agree that there may often times be some element of doubt - however small - regarding witness identification, owing to human fallibilities and failings. But not always. And, in any case, a jury must ultimately decide whether or not to accept such identification evidence - there's no half-way house. Regardless, I probably chose a bad example originally.....