Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Danceme]

From the difference in the foliage, it is apparent the the Google street view was taken at a different time of year.

You are presenting a strawman. There is no need to scale that wall even once to gain entry through Filomena's window.

Only an idiot would choose to enter a potentially occupied cottage by way of the "exposed from all directions" balcony. When Rudy breaks the window and the occupant wakes and turns on the lights, where is Rudy going to hide on that balcony?

The balcony isn't exposed from all directions. Are you forgetting the smaller building blocking most of the view from that angle?
And why is there no need to scale the wall even once to enter Filomena's window? I simply don't understand what you're saying here. Don't you believe Rudy broke in through this window?

Let's go for yet another trip around the repetition merry-go-round. Raffaele's grammar is poor but he is clearly referring to touching Amanda's hand with the knife.

Nobody (not Raffaele, not Amanda, nobody) has ever claimed, before or since, that Meredith was ever at Raffaele's apartment. The idea that Raffaele is claiming that here is very silly.

This is not a mistake on the part of Raffaele, it's a mistake on the part of translators which we have already cleared up at least twice in this thread.

I don't think it's universally accepted on this board that Rafaelle was referring to Amanda's hand.

Your translation simply shows your bias in this case. You have no knowledge who Raffaele is talking about yet you inject that it must be Meredith. The important context is that this diary entry was written after several stressful days in prison so it's entirely possible that the memory being written about is a conflagration of other events in other locations with other people that have been melded into a memory of something that has been heavily on his mind for the last three days since he was told about knife and the DNA results.

You've got to be kidding right?

 

[Dan O.]

We don't know what relevant Italian Law is, what the Italian analogy to the AMA says about ethical behavior with regards to HIV test results, nor what the standard practices were in the Perugia system. So why should we expect any authority to investigate what a bunch of internet sleuths with incomplete information think might be an ethics violation?

You can't wear the badge of an internet sleuth while hiding under the "we don't know" cover. Every search can expose more questions than answers but there is little that cannot eventually be found out. Much of the relevant Italian law has already been discussed in these threads.

What ought to be investigated is all the media leaks period, but given that leaks to the media seem to be almost de rigueur in high-profile cases in the Western world, I don't hold out much hope that they will be, nor do I find the absence of such to be all that notable - (a rather depressing notion by the by)

Italy appears to be addressing this very issue, at least with regard to wiretaps in criminal prosecutions. Of course, it might be that the politicians only decided to act when they were the ones targeted by the recordings.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

corrections to you comment

Per Charlie, there were no unidentified profiles from the samples that were complete enough to produce a full profile.

We've been over there, Chris. Multiple times. (so, there's once that I've corrected you - or at least set the record straight).


TMB is less sensitive than Luminol. In fact, TMB needs a minimum of 5 cells to return a positive test. Regardless of which test was performed, there were, at most, 2 cells tested for blood. That you refuse to acknowledge that even if they were both red blood cells, Luminol and TMB would not necessarily have returned positive results because it would be at the range limit for either test. (so there's twice that I've corrected you on DNA matters)


Blood cells are not the only cells which contain DNA, therefore, the cells need not test positive for blood to retrieve accurate DNA results. Therefore, the argument that "if there are no blood cells due to bleaching, there can be no other cells" is not proven as we don't know if there were, in fact, blood cells. (that's 3 times, I believe)


You, yourself, have claimed that even in a lab environment where equipment is cleaned thoroughly, the strong bleach content doesn't necessarily remove all DNA containing cells from instruments such as pipettes. However, a more dilute bleach concentrate was able to remove all traces of DNA from a knife? These cells were not found on the surface, they were found in a crevice. Therefore, your argument in regards to the chances of them being found is contrary to your prior argument regarding the possibility of contamination in a laboratory. (so, does that make 4?)



Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

BobTheDonkey,

I have covered your errors with respect to partial profiles in a separate response. However, one additional point deserves to be mentioned. When the forensic team was collecting samples, they had no way of knowing how the results would turn out. Therefore, they should have collected reference samples from all reasonable contributors, and this surely would have included the flatmates.

With respect to the issue of cells, you are still failing to address my point. I believe that this is because you are mixing two issues. The first issue is what cell type might have given rise to the DNA profile from the knife. One could argue that the DNA from the knife profile came from solely from non (white) blood cells, but one would need to explain how blood cells (red and white) were removed but other cells were not. Neither you nor anyone else has given a convincing explanation, with or without citations from the literature. Is your argument that a crevice in the knife would be more likely to hold onto one type of cell than another? Can you offer a reason or a citation to back this argument up?

The second issue revolves around which cell type has DNA and which does not. LJ correctly pointed out that red blood cells have hemoglobin (whose prosthetic group is heme iron), which reacts with TMB or luminol. Yet red cells have no DNA. White cells have DNA but very little heme iron. The problem with your argument starts with your claim, “there were, at most, 2 cells tested for blood.” Because it was DNA that is being quantitated, the value of ten cells has to refer to DNA-containing cells. I realize that you think it could be less than ten cells, but ten make for an easy calculation.

Let’s examine the math again, and perhaps you can explain where we differ. Suppose that we have a sample consisting of ten DNA-containing cells and that half are white blood cells and half are some other cell type that also has DNA. Suppose we take 20% of the original sample for a test that is sensitive for hemoglobin (TMB or luminol), and use the rest for DNA analysis. The 20% portion has two cells, one of which is a white blood cell. This portion, the one with the single white blood cell must also have about 700-1000 red blood cells with it, as LJ noted. Taking your threshold value of five cells for TMB as a given still means that this sample is well above the detection threshold.

On the subject of bleach and DNA, my point was that one does not use bleach to clean the inside of an adjustable volume pipette in the first place, owing to the possibility of corroding it. One certainly can use bleach to clean large glass pipettes, and we sometimes do so in my lab, in order to kill bacteria.

The citation I gave to a journal called BioTechniques last December indicated that a 10-fold dilution of bleach rapidly degrades DNA. Another source I cited from the technical literature of Promega indicated that a 33-fold dilution of bleach was effective. I do not know how Amanda or Raffaele cleaned the knife, whether with bleach or detergent (you think it is a murder weapon; I don’t). But we should not forget that the Johnson/Hampikian letter does not make a claim that only bleach would likely destroy all traces of DNA more quickly than all traces of blood. They simply say cleaning the knife, but do not specify that it must be by any one method.

You reformulated my argument, “if there are no blood cells due to bleaching, there can be no other cells.” I am not sure what you mean. Bleach will destroy the DNA of any cell, and it will also destroy other biomolecules.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Of course there are, unfortunately. But what I was addressing was the bolded part here: (but here I'll also address the "conditions" phrase. (I have not done any research on how false statements differ from true confessions)

True confessions are not typically accompanied by disclaimers as to whether the events described ever happened at all, however this fits with an internalised false confession. Also true confessions tend to be true, and not accuse people who were not involved but whom the police are pressuring you to finger. These are non-trivial considerations.

and most of the research I've turned up (and your cite) has to do specifically with juveniles and maturity. I freely admit that Knox is easily described as "young" and "immature," but I contest that a 20 year old college student living "by herself" in a country where she didn't speak the native language fluently fits the profile of an immature juvenile false confessor.

I don't think anyone ever said she fit the profile of a juvenile false confessor, merely an immature/innocent false statement-maker.

I do note that several of the elements commonly present in known false confession cases were present in Knox's case, specifically (but not limited to), confusion and ignorance of the law (exacerbated by the language barrier), violence (debated, but I'll list it as a given here), long interrogation without food/water/restroom breaks (but nowhere near as long as sometimes claimed), but this is insufficient to back the claim that Knox's accusation fits a "false confession" better than a lie.^*

What if you add in the disclaimers about whether it ever happened at all, and fingering Lumumba who the police were pressuring her to finger?

If Amanda faked it, she knew a lot more about the psychology of false confessions than most JREF forum posters.

Why? Simply put, many of those elements are also present during true confessions and false denials as well. Hard statistics seem to be difficult to come by, so I'll blatantly appeal to "common sense" and claim that if you took all cases which had the same elements at the same "strength" (IE, no waterboarding, no 36 hour interrogation etc) you'd find that "false confessions" were by far the minority of all "confessions" because if it weren't so, justice systems all over the western world would quickly fall apart.^**
With that kind of naivety and confidence in the justice system, you'd be at real danger of making false confessions yourself. I think the single most significant factor in false confessions being in the minority is that most people hauled in by the police did what they are accused of.

I must be missing something because it is relentlessly circular:

Defense Attorney (to jury) : "You must acquit my client because that confession was false, therefore he is innocent and you know that confession was false because innocence is a factor in false confessions."

You are indeed missing something.

Prosecutor: "You must convict the accused, because they confessed (well, sort of, they didn't actually confess at all, but they put themselves near the scene of the crime and that's good enough for me) and only guilty people confess".

Defense Attorney: "Actually it's a matter of known fact that non-guilty people will sometimes confess or make compliant statements after lengthy interrogation. So that syllogism falls apart. Also the kind of statement Amanda made fits better with an internalised false statement than a true statement, and some aspects of her personality and situation make her more vulnerable than average to being pressured into making such false statements".

Prosecutor: "That's circular! You are assuming that your client might be innocent in order to argue that they might be innocent! Ha ha! Gotcha! The only non-circular form of argument is to assume they are guilty, and then argue that they might be innocent. I insist you do it that way".

 

[Mr.D]

See LJ's related comments above, particularly the point that it is unlikely a request for such a list would be made until after a follow-up test.

I agree with London John's point about what ought to be done, but this is what I was responding to:

I guess you also missed that Amanda wrote in her diary that she was told to think about who she had contact with.

ie: IF (and we are all speculating here) it was standard practice to tell prisoners of a positive screening test AND that they were running a longer but more accurate test, it would be entirely consistent to tell the prisoner to start thinking about their sexual partners or to be prepared to come up with a list.

Confidentiality of medical records is pretty much the rule in industrialized nations. By granting Amanda a victory in her anti-defamation suit against Fiorenza Sarzanini in March, the court essentially agreed with her attorney, Carlo Dalla Vedova:

"Amanda Knox's lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told ABC News that in the proceedings against Sarzanini and Rizzoli, he had argued a violation of Knox's privacy as far as her sexual activity and medical history were concerned, both of which are protected by privacy laws in Italy."

Well, I think we can probably all agree that the Italian courts got this one right then (albeit after the fact).

Leaks appear to be the bread and butter of Italian media. It's quite a cozy system the journalists and police/prosecutors have developed, one that is mutually rewarding for both sides. Not much chance of that going away anytime soon.

But still not evidence of a plan.

 

[Mr.D]

You can't wear the badge of an internet sleuth while hiding under the "we don't know" cover. Every search can expose more questions than answers but there is little that cannot eventually be found out. Much of the relevant Italian law has already been discussed in these threads.

Your questions were these:

What have the Italian authorities done about this apparent ethics violation?

My answer a bit more bluntly: Why would any authority anywhere do anything about something that's apparent to you and may not be factually true?

Have they investigated to determine if there was a specific motivation or do we just have an incompetent prison doctor acting on her own and the confiscation of Amanda's writings and immediate publication of the juicy bits was an unrelated coincident?!

My answer: Motivation for what? As far as anyone here knows it's still only an "apparent ethics violation."

 

[Mr.D]

True confessions are not typically accompanied by disclaimers as to whether the events described ever happened at all, however this fits with an internalised false confession.

This I agree with.

Also true confessions tend to be true, and not accuse people who were not involved

I really ought to have been more careful. Nobody thinks Knox's accusation of Lumumba is true. The question at hand isn't one of false confession vs. true confession, it's "false accusation" vs. false accusation.

In other words: Was Knox's accusation that Lumumba murdered Kercher in her presence

a) A form of coerced false confession in which the interrogated person falsely confesses to being part of the crime, but also accuses a third party - I've been lumping this into the "false confession" category

or

b) A false accusation - a lie.

but whom the police are pressuring you to finger.

I'm unconvinced that the police were pressuring Knox to finger Lumumba.



I'll get to the rest of your post later.

 

[LondonJohn]

More questions about the DNA test on the knife. I am sure you have heard the experiment with copies. You make a copy, take that copy and make a copy of it then make another copy of that copy. Eventually, depending on the quality of your copier, you have an unreadable blur.
Now try that with a blank paper. Make a copy of the blank piece of paper and then make a copy of the copy and so on as in the first test. Depending on the quality of your paper, eventually you will have an unreadable (but not blank) series of spots, steaks, and blurs.

My question revolves around this tiny sample of DNA that was tested. Then tested again and again, about 10 times if I remember correctly, going lower and more sensitive with each test on the same sample. Baked multiple times. I just wonder if there has been a study on this. What effect does doing the same test over and over again have on the sample? I suppose if you start with a good sample and go lower and lower and more sensitive then compare results of the last test with the very first test, I wonder if you would see a difference? Perhaps some of you science types can find an answer for me?

Well, for me, the overriding problem here is that Stefanoni was essentially taking LCN testing to extremes which had never been properly ratified before.

Now, it might be that her technique was truly groundbreaking and will subsequently be shown (through repeat experimentation, proper documentation and academic peer review) to be accurate and valid. But I wouldn't put any money on that being the case.

There are reasons why there are accepted limits on sensitivities/amplifications in these sorts of areas. Experimental research scientists spend all their time in laboratories pushing the boundaries of what is possible with current knowledge and current equipment. Their research - if new and illuminating - is published, peer-reviewed and replicated. And because research scientists know this process, they make pretty certain that their results are valid before they even consider publication (after all, who wants his/her "scientific breakthrough" to be subsequently shown to be wrong?).

I imagine that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of research scientists working in the field of LCN DNA analysis - both within academia and within the research departments of big & small pharma. My feeling is that one of the hottest topics in the LCN field is "how low can you go?". To me, it's extraordinarily unlikely that a jobbing DNA analyst in an operational laboratory stumbled upon a new standard in LCN sensitivity which not only had validity, accuracy and replicability, but which had never before been tested (let alone ratified) in a research laboratory.

Perhaps we'll learn more about Stefanoni's "pioneering" work in the appeal...

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

False confessions

Here is what one researcher wrote in a paper that is available on the Internet:

The third type of false confession is a coerced-internalized false confession. This occurs when a person falsely confesses to a crime and actually begins to believe that they are responsible for the criminal act. Some researchers have argued that coerced-internalized false confessions are related to “memory distrust syndrome,” a condition in which a person becomes so distrustful of their memory that they are willing to incorporate external suggestions (Gudjonsson, 2003).

http://works.bepress.com/christian_meissner/2/

Here is what Amanda wrote immediately after her interrogation of November 5-6:

In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

Here is what she testified in her trial:

While I was there, there was an interpreter who explained to me an experience of hers, where she had gone through a traumatic experience that she could not remember at all, and she suggested that I was traumatized, and that I couldn't remember the truth. This at first seemed ridiculous to me, because I remembered being at Raffaele's house. For sure. I remembered doing things at Raffaele's house. I checked my e-mails before, then we watched a movie. We had eaten dinner together, we had talked together, and during that time I hadn't left his apartment. But they were insisting upon putting everything into hourly segments, and since I never look at the clock, I wasn't able to tell them what time exactly I did everything. They insisted that I had left the apartment for a certain period of time to meet somebody, which for me I didn't remember, but the interpreter said I probably had forgotten.

So what ended up happening was, that they told me to try to remember what I apparently, according to them, had forgotten. Under the amount of pressure of everyone yelling at me, and having them tell me that they were going to put me in prison for protecting somebody, that I wasn't protecting, that I couldn't remember, I tried to imagine that in some way they must haveh ad...it was very difficult, because when I was there, at a certain point, I just...I couldn't understand why they were so sure that I was the one who knew everything. And so, in my confusion, I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized, like what they said. They continued to say that I had met somebody, and they continued to put so much emphasis on this message that I had received from Patrick, and so I almost was convinced that I had met him. But I was confused.

 

[LondonJohn]

Things must be reaching a pretty desperate stage when those people questioning the safety of Knox/Sollecito's convictions are being accused of doing so merely because they are driven by some sort of creepy lust towards Knox.

I made representations regarding the safety of Barry George's conviction a few years ago, and I don't recall ever being accused of being motivated by lust towards him. Strange, huh?*

I believe that most of us who are questioning the convictions are doing so for purely dispassionate reasons. In my case, my semi-informed view of the case is that there may not be sufficiently strong and incriminatory evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I might be wrong, and I have no zealous attachment to my position. But, as of right now, I think I'm right.

* George was a deeply maladjusted man who lived in a filthy council flat, and who had a history of following women and harrassing them. But he was wrongly convicted of murder, and was subsequently retried (after a successful appeal) and found not guilty.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Phantom of Heilbron and criminal profiling

The Phantom of Heilbron is a fascinating study of how the police built up a house of cards on the basis of flawed DNA forensics and criminal profiling.

 

[Dan O.]

The balcony isn't exposed from all directions. Are you forgetting the smaller building blocking most of the view from that angle?
And why is there no need to scale the wall even once to enter Filomena's window? I simply don't understand what you're saying here. Don't you believe Rudy broke in through this window?

You obviously don't have a very good picture of the scene. Place yourself on that balcony about to break into the house. Just as you smash the kitchen window the kitchen light comes on. Where are you going to hide to avoid being seen by the occupant? Do you take a header over the railing?

If you know for a fact that the premisses are vacant such as when the entrance is sealed with crime tape then the kitchen window would be a safe entry. But when there is a possibility of someone inside it's exposed.

The evidence is all consistent with an entry through Fillomina's window without climbing up from below including scuffing where he would have slid across the edge of the porch and abrasion on the rock where the ball of his right foot would pivot. It's just a quick swing out holding onto the the planter to open the shutter, and back to fetch the rock. With no climbing, the left hand is free to hold the rock while smashing the window although a toss from the opposite bank is equally viable. There is even abrasion visible on top of the lower window casing where the left foot would have found support. Even if entry wasn't gained through that window, someone certainly tried.

You've got to be kidding right?

You are revealing your lack of knowledge of how memory works.

 

[Kestrel]

A suspect signs a statement during and investigation that makes four claims (A, B, C and D).

For example, these four claims from Amanda's statements:

A. Lumumba murdered Meredith.
B. Amanda let Lumumba into the cottage on the night of the murder.
C. Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder.
D. Amanda heard Meredith scream.

Later investigation proves that claim A and claim B are false.

By what rule of logic do you presume that claims C and D must be true?

 

[LondonJohn]

This I agree with.



I really ought to have been more careful. Nobody thinks Knox's accusation of Lumumba is true. The question at hand isn't one of false confession vs. true confession, it's "false accusation" vs. false accusation.

In other words: Was Knox's accusation that Lumumba murdered Kercher in her presence

a) A form of coerced false confession in which the interrogated person falsely confesses to being part of the crime, but also accuses a third party - I've been lumping this into the "false confession" category

or

b) A false accusation - a lie.



I'm unconvinced that the police were pressuring Knox to finger Lumumba.



I'll get to the rest of your post later.

I think that there most definitely was a confessional element to Knox's statements of the 6th November, in addition to a false accusation. Whether one believes that the confessional part of the statements was true or false (owing to coercion etc) is a finer point.

How one can say that Knox's statements contained no element of confession is bemusing to me. After all, in these statements she confesses to a number of serious criminal offences, including assisting a murderer, failing to aid a victim, and giving false statements to police during their earlier investigations. While I'm not certain of Italian statute regarding these sorts of offences, I'd be astonished if these sorts of acts didn't in some way constitute criminal offences on the statute books. Certainly, in the UK and the US, these sorts of offences typically carry substantial custodial sentences upon conviction.

So, can we agree that Knox's statements do constitute both a confession and an accusation? The fact that the confessional part is not a confession to the act of murder itself is irrelevant. And we know for sure that the accusational element was false. I strongly suspect that the whole of the statement was false, and that it was made in reaction to suggestion and coercion from the police.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh... and also:

There seems to have been a serious breach of protocol in Knox's interview, in that the interpreter appears to have become part of the interrogation process. According to Knox*, the interpreter suggested the "forgotten memory" syndrome to Knox, and suggested that she would remember "the truth" if she tried harder. If this is true, then clearly the interpreter was way overstepping the mark. I imagine that Knox would have been regarding the interpreter as neutral at worst, and as a "friend" at best. I suspect therefore that she might have been especially susceptible to the suggestions posed by the interpreter, at a time of maximum pressure and stress. I hope that this factor is brought up in the appeal, and that it is properly dealt with.

* Yes, I realise that to some people Knox is an inveterate liar whose word cannot be trusted under any circumstances. But she seems to be quite detailed in her recall over the interpreter's role in the interview, and I believe it would be an odd element for her to either invent or lie about.

 

[stilicho]

A suspect signs a statement during and investigation that makes four claims (A, B, C and D).

For example, these four claims from Amanda's statements:

A. Lumumba murdered Meredith.
B. Amanda let Lumumba into the cottage on the night of the murder.
C. Amanda was at the cottage at the time of the murder.
D. Amanda heard Meredith scream.

Later investigation proves that claim A and claim B are false.

By what rule of logic do you presume that claims C and D must be true?

These are actually good questions involving logic and reasoning. The answer is: in statements "A" and "B" one only has to modify the pronoun to "an African man" and the truth is there, supported by available evidence, verified by standard scientific protocol, and finally accepted by a thorough examination in the courtroom.

Nobody has yet been able to refute "C". "D" is an additional detail added by Amanda to clarify "C".

We believe that all four statements contain an element of truthfulness to them and both the science and the courts agreed.

 

[katy_did]

Sophie said that she parted company with Meredith at 8:55 PM. Since we know that location (the corner of Via Lupo and Via Roscetto) and have a good idea of the route Meredith took to get home, it's rather easy to figure out where she was about one minute later.

Meredith was also seen crossing to the cottage driveway by the parking lot camera. Presuming the camera clock was 10 to 12 minutes slow, she was camera saw her a couple minutes after 9 PM. Just about right for someone walking to the cottage from Via Lupo.

I think Sophie later clarified her statements (at least according to Micheli; not sure what she said during the trial) to say she arrived home around 20.55, meaning she must've left Meredith some minutes before that. She wanted to be home in time to watch a show which started at 21.00, so knew she was home before then.

One thing I still haven't been able to find out is what the actual time stamp on the CCTV footage which is supposed to show Meredith is. The time reported - very early on - was 20.43, which makes it either 20.55 or 21.05, depending on whether 20.43 is the actual or adjusted time.

If the footage does show Meredith, you'd think it would be quite a critical bit of evidence, especially from the defence perspective. I'm surprised it doesn't really seem to have been discussed.

 

[katy_did]

Absolutely. If it can be established that it was extremely out of character for Meredith not to call her family at some point that evening, then this puts the time of confrontation (if not specifically the time of death) into sharper relief. Is it known whether she had called home earlier that day at all? And even if she had done so, was she in the definite habit of calling again at some point in the evening? If so, then the absence of a completed call that evening is most certainly interesting.

This certainly seems to be what the defence is trying to suggest, pointing out that Meredith usually sent a lot of text messages in the evenings and sometimes spoke to her family several times a day, yet other than the odd interrupted phone calls she made no calls and sent no texts that night. If they can also recover the hard drive of her computer and show that there was no activity on that either (especially if she usually did use her computer in the evening) that would be pretty compelling evidence for an earlier time for the attack.

I can see why the defence are putting so much focus on this earlier time. It's very difficult to believe that Knox and Sollecito left the flat at 21.26 (when a media file was opened on RS's computer) or 21.46 (if they watched the 20 minute media file first), grabbed the knife and ran over to the cottage, somehow picking up RG on the way, killed Meredith, grabbed the phones (making the 21.58/22.00 calls) and left the cottage again before 22.30. If Massei's scenario is to be at all plausible, there has to be a fair few hours of drinking and drug use beforehand, and an attack time of between 20.56 and 21.58 just doesn't allow for that.

 

[RWVBWL]

I have thought that it was strange that Amanda Knox,
who "said" she was there when Patrick Lumumba murdered her housemate Meredith Kercher, did not suffer the fate as her.
What a nice guy Mr. Lumumba was by not killing Amanda also!
What did the police think these 2 were gonna do afterwards, go and open the popular bar that he owned and she worked at, as if nothing had happened?

Wouldn't the police have thought that not killing Amanda Knox was strange too?
And so why couldn't they have just pulled Mr. Lumumba in for questioning,
without the theatrical early morning arrest that they did that surely must have embarrassed him and his family too?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

Terminology explanation of the day: circumstantial evidence.

There are two types of evidence in an investigation and trial: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is any evidence which (if unimpeached) definitively links the accused to the crime. Direct evidence therefore includes the following: confessions made by the accused (if shown to be true and accurate, and made of free will); accusations made by other criminal parties in a joint enterprise (if shown to be true and accurate, and made of free will); evidence given by witnesses to the crime actually being committed; photographic or video (or sometimes audio) evidence of the crime actually being committed. And that's about it.

EVERYTHING ELSE is circumstantial evidence. Everything else.

Therefore: all blood evidence is circumstantial; all semen evidence is circumstantial; all DNA evidence is circumstantial; all weapon-related evidence is circumstantial; all witness evidence (outside of witnesses to the actual crime being committed) is circumstantial; all alibi evidence is circumstantial; all clothing-related evidence is circumstantial; all character evidence is circumstantial; all autopsy evidence is circumstantial; all injury evidence (victim or accused) is circumstantial.

"Circumstantial" doesn't mean "not very strong". Indeed most cases that make it to the trial stage are exclusively prosecuted on circumstantial evidence (since unimpeachable direct evidence usually signifies guilt, and therefore a pre-trial guilty plea for sentencing leniency). And most circumstantial court cases are strong and robust, and result in justified convictions. But perhaps not in this particular case..........