Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mrs.Columbo]

ermmm??

What some of us (including myself) are alleging is that either:

a) the judicial panel may have incorrectly convicted Knox and Sollecito based on the evidence presented to them.

b) the judicial panel decision was correct based on the evidence presented in trial, but some of the evidence may have been given incorrect weight and levels of certainly by the prosecution.

c) The judicial panel decision was correct, but some of the evidence may not have been properly or sufficiently challenged in court by the defence attorneys (this point is of course potentially linked with point (b) ).

d) there may be other exculpatory evidence, or new challenges to existing evidence, which was not presented in the original trial.

That is why I have my problems. Are those all possibilities or straight facts.??

a) you can confidently wait for the appeal to set things strait. The defense lawyers have to point out where according to §§§... the conviction is uncorrect.

b) again - this particular facts - if so - will be corrected with the appeal

c) I assume this goes together with b)

d) is there other exculpatory evidence - not speculated, but real facts?
(besides those notorious witnesses)

 

[LondonJohn]

That is why I have my problems. Are those all possibilities or straight facts.??

a) you can confidently wait for the appeal to set things strait. The defense lawyers have to point out where according to §§§... the conviction is uncorrect.

b) again - this particular facts - if so - will be corrected with the appeal

c) I assume this goes together with b)

d) is there other exculpatory evidence - not speculated, but real facts?
(besides those notorious witnesses)

As somebody pointed out elsewhere, why is it inappropriate to use qualifiers such as "may be" or "possibly"? I am far from certain that the AK/RS convictions are unsafe. However, I believe that there's a reasonable possibility that they are. Hence my equivocation.

It's up to AK/RS's defence lawyers and the prosecutors to argue the safety of the convictions - not me. And it's up to the appeal judges to decide on the safety of the convictions - not me. I have a pretty high degree of confidence that the Italian criminal justice system will (ultimately) come to the correct decision - one way or the other. And that's just fine for me.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, my personal experience is what leads me to believe AK & RS are probably guilty.

I have no experience with murder, other than what I read and see on TV. As such, I am inclined to give the prosecution some leeway in establishing a narrative that provides a motive for the murder.

However, I have considerable personal experience (from 20 years ago) of arrests, interrogations, witness statements, illegal drugs, and burglaries. As such, I am much more inclined to spot what I believe to be inconsistencies and unlikelihoods of the AK & RS defense as it touches on these domains than I am with regard to the prosecution narrative for the murder itself.

And this is a good illustration of why jurors are usually specifically told to set aside all their personal experiences of the law and any prior prejudices, and to assess the case only on the evidence presented in the trial.

Obviously, jurors (and/or judges) are expected to use their general understanding of the human condition (and any logic which flows from that knowledge) in assessing the validity/importance of evidence, but that's as much as they should bring into the arena.

 

[Fuji]

And this is a good illustration of why jurors are usually specifically told to set aside all their personal experiences of the law and any prior prejudices, and to assess the case only on the evidence presented in the trial.

Obviously, jurors (and/or judges) are expected to use their general understanding of the human condition (and any logic which flows from that knowledge) in assessing the validity/importance of evidence, but that's as much as they should bring into the arena.

Perhaps that is the case. However, I am not a member of an empaneled jury. I am merely one person debating with others on the internet. There is no way that I can not look at the details of this case as filtered through my own experience. This is true for all of us, yourself included.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps that is the case. However, I am not a member of an empaneled jury. I am merely one person debating with others on the internet. There is no way that I can not look at the details of this case as filtered through my own experience. This is true for all of us, yourself included.

I can absolutely look at the evidence in isolation. And that's what I try to do at all times. It's only when people say things like "how is it possible for Knox to name an innocent man and place herself at the house during the murder if she wasn't involved in some way?" that I feel it necessary to invoke previous things like proven false confessions/accusations - but purely in order to refute these sorts of intellectually weak arguments.

 

[Fuji]

I can absolutely look at the evidence in isolation. And that's what I try to do at all times. It's only when people say things like "how is it possible for Knox to name an innocent man and place herself at the house during the murder if she wasn't involved in some way?" that I feel it necessary to invoke previous things like proven false confessions/accusations - but purely in order to refute these sorts of intellectually weak arguments.

Well, okay then. But since you bring up the subject of police interrogations, I have actually undergone one. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. As a result, it certainly informs how I evaluate the interrogations in this case.

Now, you are of course correct that false confessions/accusations certainly do occur. I am a history buff and am well acquainted with the workings of men like Torquemada or Lavrenty Beria. However, I don't think that that is what happened in this case. And part of that reasoning is undoubtedly based upon my own idiosyncratic experiences in similar circumstances.

 

[tsig]

Are you and Symbol and Fine working towards some kind of merit badge for wilful denial of established scientific fact?

I didn't know Amanda was innocent was an established scientific fact.

 

[tsig]

That's pretty much the way it's been done throughout history -- the beating, that is, not the boss-accusing. As I understand it, that's how it's done to get suspects in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo to admit they're terrorists. Suspects and prisoners all over the world are routinely beaten in order to get information out of them; it's nothing new. Many former prisoners of war have written about it.

You might think it's a joke to say the cops didn't have to do any work in order to get their suspects, but the fact is, it pretty much was a failure to work hard that led them to the wrong suspects. If they hadn't been in such a big hurry, if they had followed the law and protocols more precisely, and if they had relied on evidence instead of intuition, they would have gotten the job done right, instead of wrong. They were lazy, lazy, lazy.

They did follow the law and protocols the fact that you don't like them and think they should be changed doesn't change that.

 

[LondonJohn]

I didn't know Amanda was innocent was an established scientific fact.

Oooh: going for the special award in straw man arguments too!

 

[Amazer]

I think you're assuming levels of individual psychiatric/psychological analysis that are beyond the realms of those disciplines.

All that the defence would need to show (if this formed part of any "alternative hypothesis" element to the appeal) is that a) there is a proven psychological-physiological link between heightened fear and bowel motion; b) it's reasonable to suggest that Guede was in such a heightened state as he made his entrance through the broken window into Filomena's room; c) this could reasonably have manifested itself in Guede needing to defecate very shortly after climbing into Filomena's bedroom. Nothing more than that would be necessary.

For me that just doesn't do the trick of instilling reasonable doubt. While I agree that it's a a plausible scenario and something that shouldn't be discounted; it's also not something that I would accept without some evidence that it actually applies to Rudy.

This reminds me a little of the discussion regarding the DNA contamination, where we have similar problem. Those that believe Amanda is innocent feel that is sufficient to point to other case where contamination was an issue and basically ask us to accept the fact that contamination is a factor in this case simply because it did happen in other cases. That line of reasoning didn't work for me there either.

Again, I think you might be confusing the very high burden of proof placed upon the prosecution with the far lesser burden of "reasonable possibility" placed upon the defence.

I guess you are correct in a way. But for me that's okay, i'm not on the jury.

 

[tsig]

Oooh: going for the special award in straw man arguments too!

How was it a strawman?

ETA:
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Are you and Symbol and Fine working towards some kind of merit badge for wilful denial of established scientific fact?

 

[LondonJohn]

How was it a strawman?

ETA:
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Are you and Symbol and Fine working towards some kind of merit badge for wilful denial of established scientific fact?

Let's walk through the discussion again:

Tsig: "I'm amazed that the cops even have to do any work to solve a crime when all thy have to do is pick up someone, beat them and get them to accuse their boss."

Kevin_Lowe: "Are you and Symbol and Fine working towards some kind of merit badge for wilful denial of established scientific fact?"

Tsig: "I didn't know Amanda was innocent was an established scientific fact."

That last statement would be a very good example of attacking a straw man, in relation to the previous statements. This would be because Kevin_Lowe is clearly arguing that the named posters (including you) are denying the scientific fact of coerced false confessions/accusations. He's clearly not arguing that you are denying "Amanda's innocence" based on "an established scientific fact". And nor was he arguing that "Amanda's innocence" was in any way "a scientifically established fact".

So, a reply from you should have been concerned purely with the scientifically-proven phenomenon of false confessions, and how this may or may not relate to this particular case. To reply as you did was to attack a straw man.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

magic cleaning fluid redux

This reminds me a little of the discussion regarding the DNA contamination, where we have similar problem. Those that believe Amanda is innocent feel that is sufficient to point to other case where contamination was an issue and basically ask us to accept the fact that contamination is a factor in this case simply because it did happen in other cases. That line of reasoning didn't work for me there either.

Amazer,

Your summary of the DNA contamination issue is innaccurate, and it has been pointed out to why it does not reflect the position of Johnson/Hampikian open letter many times before. There was no blood on the knife. Therefore any DNA found cannot have been from blood. If one argues that the DNA came from non-blood tissue, then one is relying upon the properties of magic cleaning fluid, that removes blood but not other cells.

The problems with the DNA evidence, however, extend beyond this. There is the lack of release of log files and data files. In not giving those to the defense, ILE is acting as if it has something to hide. And there is Stefanoni's claim of no contamination in seven years. Do the laboratory's own records back her up? Does the lab even have a contamination log? Some agencies recommend this. FInally, the poor handling technique of the investigators has been amply documented.

 

[LondonJohn]

Amazer,

Your summary of the DNA contamination issue is innaccurate, and it has been pointed out to why it does not reflect the position of Johnson/Hampikian open letter many times before. There was no blood on the knife. Therefore any DNA found cannot have been from blood. If one argues that the DNA came from non-blood tissue, then one is relying upon the properties of magic cleaning fluid, that removes blood but not other cells.

The problems with the DNA evidence, however, extend beyond this. There is the lack of release of log files and data files. In not giving those to the defense, ILE is acting as if it has something to hide. And there is Stefanoni's claim of no contamination in seven years. Do the laboratory's own records back her up? Does the lab even have a contamination log? Some agencies recommend this. FInally, the poor handling technique of the investigators has been amply documented.

Good points. I pointed out the knife DNA/blood issue on here recently as well. I suppose an additional option is that the magic cleaning fluid could have removed all the red blood cells (hence negative test for blood haemoglobin) but left some exclusively white blood cells (hence positive DNA test). However, this would make the cleaning fluid not only magic, but possibly also racist

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dubious DNA deductions deserve debunking

Kermit,

You wrote about DNA from fingerprints and from dust:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5799330#post5799330

You misunderstood the paper on fingerprints for a second time despite my efforts to point you in the right direction. They were enhancing the fingerprint with ninhydrin or one other chemical, DFO. Ninhydrin does not enhance the extraction or amplification of DNA; to understand how it can harm the DNA one needs to know that ninhydrin reacts with primary amines, and adenine has a primary amino group. In other words, the special treatment was for the fingerprints, and if anything, the possible reaction of ninhydrin with DNA could cause of the reduction in the amount of DNA that these authors observed. However, not every fingerprint needs visualization with ninhydrin.

Your argument that this technique is in its initial stages is wrong; people have been studying touch DNA for over ten years. The reference I supplied did indicate that not every paper surface worked equally well to yield DNA, but that is irrelevant to how Raffaele’s DNA might have been transferred from the door (try a Google Scholar search if you don’t like the references I provided). We suspect that Raffaele’s shoulder had contact with some portion of the door, and it is reasonable to suppose that his hands also had contact with the door (not necessarily the handle). All I suggested was that this contact is one of many ways his DNA might have ended up on the bra clasp by secondary or tertiary transfer.

With respect to DNA and dust, a little history is in order. I first brought up the DNA-in-dust paper to show that Stefanoni was wrong in her assertion that skin cells do not contain DNA. That Stefanoni was wrong was confirmed in the thread that Kestrel started on this topic. In this thread I showed an electropherogram (Figure 3) from the forensic DNA dust article:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5798634#post5798634

This is the figure to which my earlier comment alluded. You did not disappoint; you managed to muddy the waters here as well. There are two reasons why the study in question did not observe full profiles from any one individual. First, the authors used dust from classrooms and hallways; it is not a surprise that it showed contributions from many individuals. This makes the interpretation much more difficult. Second, the DNA was degraded from age and storage conditions. You can see evidence of this in the way the peak heights decline in the figure when one moves from smaller to larger DNA fragments (see Jason Gilder’s thesis, Chapter 3, for more information on how peak heights decline as the size of the DNA increases). It is not the technique of extracting DNA from dust, but the sample itself (mixed and degraded DNA) that prevented a full profile from being observed.

I did not bother to pursue the issues surrounding dust before, because I think that there are more likely means of transferring Raffaele’s DNA onto the clasp than through household dust. For example, Katy_did offered a plausible suggestion involving towels about a month ago. However, your dubious deductions from this article and the ones on fingerprints deserve debunking.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

The past few pages of the conversation once again try to complicate a situation that was rather simple. Complicating the situation, of course, leaves questions unanswered. These unanswered questions then somehow are supposed to lead to the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele.

It simply does not work that way. We will never know exactly what Rudy did on the night of the murder. pinpointing his exact motions do nothing to prove the innocence or guilt of Amanda or Raffaele.

With the evidence that we have, it is physically impossible that Amanda or Raffaele were in Meredith's room at the time of the murder. Every single shoe print in the murder room belongs to Rudy. There was absolutely no proof of any clean up done in the murder room. If Amanda and/or Raffaele were in Merdith's room at the time of her murder, they were both airborne. As we know, that is not possible.

So in order to work two innocent people into the equation, you have to complicate the story.

When you eliminate the fabricated complication, Rudy entered the cottage through Filomena's window. He began going through Filomena's room most likely looking for cash. Rudy decided he needed to use the bathroom. His bathroom visit was interrupted. He attacked and murdered Meredith and he fled the country.

Merdith's murder was horrible but it was not complicated.

 

[Fuji]

The past few pages of the conversation once again try to complicate a situation that was rather simple.

Sorry to have disturbed you.

We will never know exactly what Rudy did on the night of the murder. pinpointing his exact motions do nothing to prove the innocence or guilt of Amanda or Raffaele.

An inability to know with certainty what exactly his actions may have been that night does not necessarily preclude one from judging the relative likelihoods of Rudy's courses of action.

With the evidence that we have, it is physically impossible that Amanda or Raffaele were in Meredith's room at the time of the murder

You speak with metaphysical certainty here. That's very refreshing on a skeptics' forum.

His bathroom visit was interrupted.

That seems most likely. However, to my way of thinking, that further points to the likelihood of the burglary being staged, which clearly implicates AK.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Merdith's murder was horrible but it was not complicated.

No it was not complicated at all - Amanda and RS are equally as guilty as Rudi, this is a well know and established fact, and no one can dispute this.
It starts getting complicated when you go the lone wolfe route, and try to explaine things like

a) how Rudi locked Meredith's door, someone posted a video on here a while ago that will just crack you up when you watch it.

b) How Rudi came in through the window and didn't ransack the place

c) How everyone other than Amanda and RS are liars, con artists, crooked and stupid

d) how everyone has it in for Amanda and RS, Judges, prosecutors, jury, witnesses, police, Media (except a few American ones), and basically, everyone

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

I may be going out on a limb here, but I'll give the lone wolf theory two and a half non-opposable thumbs up.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Amazer,

Your summary of the DNA contamination issue is innaccurate, and it has been pointed out to why it does not reflect the position of Johnson/Hampikian open letter many times before. There was no blood on the knife. Therefore any DNA found cannot have been from blood. If one argues that the DNA came from non-blood tissue, then one is relying upon the properties of magic cleaning fluid, that removes blood but not other cells.

The problems with the DNA evidence, however, extend beyond this. There is the lack of release of log files and data files. In not giving those to the defense, ILE is acting as if it has something to hide. And there is Stefanoni's claim of no contamination in seven years. Do the laboratory's own records back her up? Does the lab even have a contamination log? Some agencies recommend this. FInally, the poor handling technique of the investigators has been amply documented.

Do we need a lesson in anatomy?

A knife that was used to stab someone would have cells that are not blood cells. Therefore, your argument regarding the knife is invalid.

Also, while the tests for blood are sensitive, there were less than 20 cells found and Stephanoni could only spare a few for testing for blood - it was much more imperative to determine to whom the cells belong.

That you continually choose to ignore these points is yet more evidence of your disingenuous nature in regards to this case.