Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Supernaut]

Comments on a recent edict from another self-appointed "expert truth-seeker" and "voice of reason", Peter Quennell, on TJMK (direct quotes in bold italics):

"Although very under-reported by an American media that wants to give her every possible break, Amanda Knox was a KNOWN drug user back in Seattle. And around Perugia, the perception of people who encountered Knox and Sollecito is that she was close to becoming or was already a cocaine addict. The same with Sollecito. They are still both referred to as coke-heads."

Really? "Perception"? "KNOWN"? "Cocaine addict"? "coke-heads"?

First: in reference to Seattle, is this "expert truth-seeker" referring to Knox's known cannabis/hash use, but hiding that within references to cocaine in order to mislead the reader into inferring that Knox was a known cocaine user in Seattle? Surely that wouldn't be his motivation, would it.....?

Second: time to put up or shut up about Knox/Sollecito's cocaine use in Perugia, let alone this stuff about addiction or the "coke-head" appellation. Who are these people who "know" this information? Why wasn't it mentioned in the trial? Until there's decent, accredited evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito were habitual cocaine users, we can discount all this as bogus rumour-mongering. Nothing more or less than that.

"And this possible drug addict was already down to her last $5,000 or so, and she may have already lost the waitress job which she desperately needed."

Yeah, I can imagine that it's really really hard to get a casual waitressing or bar-flier-distribution job in a university town. It's not like Knox could have found another similar job if she'd really needed the money now, is it? And down to her last $5,000 - sounds like she was really desperate, doesn't it?

"This could have been making her desperate and dangerous. Prosecutor Mignini and Judge Micheli both seemed to think it was she that stole Meredith’s rent money which went missing on the night of the murder."

Strangely, this "expert truth-seeker" neglects to point out that even Miginini (the actual trial judge, the one that mattered) seemed not to agree with Mignini or Micheli on this issue. I can only imagine that this was an inadvertent omission, since I can't begin to imagine that this information was omitted deliberately, in order to further mislead....

LJ, you see this as “rumour mongering”? Actually, if it isn’t slander I don’t know what is. Yes, I know about the legal distinctions between slander, libel and defamation, but slander is how it would have been perceives and described throughout history before such “legal definitions” muddied everything.

What IS this individual’s problem? And how is he able to get away it? Suppose Amanda had never been been convicted or even arrested? This fool seems to believe her conviction gives him some kind of prerogative to say anything he likes about her (and RS) with impunity.

It’s about time action was taken to restrain him. Peter Quennell is a quintessential slanderer and as such is, in the estimation of many great figures throughout history, amongst “the worst kind of men”.

I dearly hope that if and when AK’s and RS’s convictions (to which he contributed in no small way) are reversed, they and their families sue the b*st*rd into penury.

Having said that, I still find the TJMK “blog’s” raison d’etre to be unfathomable, but otherwise remain unconvinced that “Peter Quennell” (assuming he isn’t simply deranged) is anything more than a shill (along with a few other notable shills and sock-puppets, such as the full-time troll “Harry Rag”) for somebody or something with a broader social and political agenda.

Actually, I’ll get something said now;

It seems as if the orchestrated demonisation of Amanda Knox could be seen as (part of?) an experiment to determine exactly how pliable “public opinion” has become.

The fashioning in the “public mind” of bogus heroes and villains has always been a fundamental means of ‘social engineering’.

It is, for instance, difficult (if not impossible) to inculcate sufficient hostility between entire nations to mobilise them into war unless cartoon-like figureheads of “good” or “evil” are created (along with the actions of provocateurs) via the use of propaganda to herd them into it (just learn some “history”).

If Amanda Knox can be transformed by the media (i.e. by propaganda) into a “personification of evil” in so many people’s minds, then anyone can – roll on the next “Hitler of the Month”, eh?. In other words, her plight might be of more fundamental importance than most realise.

Personally, I feel that its success would indicate that we’re FUBAR, and if so I would be grateful if somebody would stop the world so I can get off.

 

[ForTruth]

Hi all,
My first post here. I've been curious if any of the people behind these sites that post seemingly unfounded slanderous material against Amanda are opening themselves up to slander in any jurisdictions (probably the UK or USA based on what I seem to know about the location of the various folks).
And if so, have they really protected themselves by using conditional tense?

 

[RoseMontague]

From the pdf file of selected DNA results, I would like to reiterate something that RoseMontague pointed out a couple of weeks ago.

Rep. 164
Blood from wall of bedroom
Not tested because of negative preliminary
(quantificaton) result.

This sample was blood, although the reason for this conclusion is not given. The quantification result is not specified, but it might be that the amount of DNA was too low. Notice how this contrasts with the knife, where the sample tested negative for blood, and the DNA quantification definitely read "too low." Why did Stefanoni proceed with the knife when she stopped before completing the work on the stain? Could it be because when the police hand a forensic scientist a knife, he or she knows that the police think it is the murder weapon and his or her job is to back them up?

Were other samples given the same attention as this particular piece of evidence? Here is a quote from the Massei report dealing with samples from the sponges, bucket, mop (yes it was tested), and gloves.

Dinanzi ad un risultato "troppo basso" quale quello trovato sulle tracce del reperto 36 il consulente dichiarava che si sarebbe anche potuta continuare l'analisi però, aggiungeva, "dovrebbe essere un risultato che non consente di andare avanti". Specificava che continuare l'analisi voleva dire: andare avanti con l'amplificazione (pag. 116); tuttavia, aggiungeva, "sarebbe comunque discutibile qualsiasi risultato".
Venivano inoltre richiamati i reperti 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 52, 55, 56, 57 che avevano dato come risultato "troppo basso" (spugnette, il secchio, lo strofinaccio, i guanti..) e veniva altresì fatto osservare che tutte queste tracce erano state poi amplificate e dalla relazione della Stefanoni del 12 giugno 2008 risultava che avevano dato tutte, come risultato, l'assenza di un qualche profilo genetico utile ed il consulente faceva al riguardo notare che trattavasi di un esito normale in presenza di un quantitativo "troppo basso".

That was from page 268. It is unclear to me via machine translations if this is the case (treatment of the knife differently from all other evidence). Unfortunately we did not get that expected PMF translation yesterday, so if anybody wants to take a shot at this one, please let me know.

 

[LondonJohn]

Which is why I had been rather assuming that these controls HAD been done. Otherwise, arguing that the existence of a person's DNA in their own home is incriminating smacks of incomptence or something even more malignant.

One thing strikes me as amazingly obvious about the so-called "mixed DNA" evidence in the small bathroom: if the prosecution is alleging that Knox's DNA in these "mixed" samples came from blood resulting from wounds obtained during some sort of struggle with Meredith, then why wasn't any of Knox's blood (or, for that matter, any of Knox's DNA whatsoever)found in the murder room itself?

I read a mildly amusing theory elsewhere that perhaps Knox's wound was a "slow bleeder", meaning that she had time to finish off the stabbing etc before going to the bathroom to clean up, and it was only once she got to the bathroom that the wound started bleeding sufficiently to deposit evidence. Interesting theory........

Since I think it's fairly obvious by this point that the mark on Knox's neck was not caused by a knife wound or scratch wound (and had therefore never drawn blood), we must focus on Knox's ear as the only other possible source of her blood DNA. If, as many allege, Knox's earring was torn out in a struggle with Meredith, then I contend that 1) there would have been a wound on her ear that would have still been very visible five days after the crime (let alone the following morning), and 2) the wound would have started dripping blood fairly soon after being caused. The available evidence does not match this proposition. Knox certainly had some redness around her ear, but nothing that's consistent with an earring being ripped out during a violent struggle. And (as I've pointed out before), where are the police photographs of Knox's ear, showing this alleged wound?

So, with all this in mind, where did Knox's DNA in the small bathroom come from? Because it looks to me right now as if it didn't come from any wounds inflicted between 9pm and midnight on 1st November 2007.

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems to be taken as read in certain quarters that when the Postal Police were going through the house at lunchtime on the 2nd (before the discovery of the body), Knox stated that Meredith always kept her door locked. This is often held up as evidence of Knox's lying and evasiveness.

However, am I right in thinking that only one person says that he heard Knox saying such a thing? And am I right that it's neither of the policemen, but instead Filomena's boyfriend's friend, Luca Altieri? Why has nobody else said that they heard Knox say it? Surely everyone was fairly close together in what was essentially a pretty small cottage? The two policemen didn't hear this? Even though it was they who were clearly asking the questions about the door being locked?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Hi all,
My first post here. I've been curious if any of the people behind these sites that post seemingly unfounded slanderous material against Amanda are opening themselves up to slander in any jurisdictions (probably the UK or USA based on what I seem to know about the location of the various folks).
And if so, have they really protected themselves by using conditional tense?

These people are very small. They feel empowered online. The keyboard gives them strength. In my opinion, a lawsuit now, would give them the attention they desire and would be another distraction from the truth. When the day comes that Amanda and Raffaele are fully exonerated and home with their families, I would not be surprised if legal action is taken against the people that print these egregious lies.

 

[Kestrel]

The "Amanda said Meredith always locked her door" claim may simply be a case of mistranslation or misremembering.

Anyone who has studied how human memory worked should understand that our memory is associative and reconstructive. We associate memories with a context and reconstruct them later. Add to this the fact that Amanda's first language was not Italian and the opportunities for confusion multiply.

The assumption that witness recollections are perfect is built into many of the arguments in this case.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I'm getting the definite feeling that some people may not be liking what they're seeing in the translated Messiah (oh, I mean Massei) Report. Could that be what's driving the current outbreak of exceptionally "benevolent", "courteous" and "welcoming" behaviour on other forums...? I wonder when the translated report is going to be released for public consumption. Oh, and I assume that no attempt is being made to "interpret" any of the translation towards any particular stance - since that would obviously be intellectually dishonest, wouldn't it?

The appeals filed by Amanda and Raffaele do a good job of taking apart the Massei report. The report is the court's interpretation of the evidence. Many people believe that Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly convicted, so those people will obviously disagree with the report.

Some simply assume that every single piece of information in the report is correct and cannot be argued. If this belief was true, there would be no need for appeals. This line of thinking is ridiculous.

As far as I know, Massei is not the expert of all things. Many credible experts disagree with his interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Kestrel]

Hi all,
My first post here. I've been curious if any of the people behind these sites that post seemingly unfounded slanderous material against Amanda are opening themselves up to slander in any jurisdictions (probably the UK or USA based on what I seem to know about the location of the various folks).
And if so, have they really protected themselves by using conditional tense?

To some extent they are protected by the choice of words. But the conditional statements often have the intended effect. Studies have shown that a fairly large segment of the adult population parses conditional sentences by simply discarding the conditional part. A sentence such as "If he had been born in Kenya then Obama would not be a citizen of the United States" is interpreted as "Obama is not a citizen of the United States".

BTW - Welcome to JREF.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ, you see this as “rumour mongering”? Actually, if it isn’t slander I don’t know what is. Yes, I know about the legal distinctions between slander, libel and defamation, but slander is how it would have been perceives and described throughout history before such “legal definitions” muddied everything.

What IS this individual’s problem? And how is he able to get away it? Suppose Amanda had never been been convicted or even arrested? This fool seems to believe her conviction gives him some kind of prerogative to say anything he likes about her (and RS) with impunity.

It’s about time action was taken to restrain him. Peter Quennell is a quintessential slanderer and as such is, in the estimation of many great figures throughout history, amongst “the worst kind of men”.

I dearly hope that if and when AK’s and RS’s convictions (to which he contributed in no small way) are reversed, they and their families sue the b*st*rd into penury.

Having said that, I still find the TJMK “blog’s” raison d’etre to be unfathomable, but otherwise remain unconvinced that “Peter Quennell” (assuming he isn’t simply deranged) is anything more than a shill (along with a few other notable shills and sock-puppets, such as the full-time troll “Harry Rag”) for somebody or something with a broader social and political agenda.

Actually, I’ll get something said now;

It seems as if the orchestrated demonisation of Amanda Knox could be seen as (part of?) an experiment to determine exactly how pliable “public opinion” has become.

The fashioning in the “public mind” of bogus heroes and villains has always been a fundamental means of ‘social engineering’.

It is, for instance, difficult (if not impossible) to inculcate sufficient hostility between entire nations to mobilise them into war unless cartoon-like figureheads of “good” or “evil” are created (along with the actions of provocateurs) via the use of propaganda to herd them into it (just learn some “history”).

If Amanda Knox can be transformed by the media (i.e. by propaganda) into a “personification of evil” in so many people’s minds, then anyone can – roll on the next “Hitler of the Month”, eh?. In other words, her plight might be of more fundamental importance than most realise.

Personally, I feel that its success would indicate that we’re FUBAR, and if so I would be grateful if somebody would stop the world so I can get off.

I don't think any case for slander could be made as of right now, since Knox and Soillecito currently stand convicted in the court of first instance of murder (with sexual elements). Don't forget that in order to prove slander or libel, a plaintiff must show not only that the information was factually incorrect, but also that it was injurious to the plaintiff's good standing and reputation.

This is why the media have a "carte blanche" against most people convicted of serious crimes, since it's judged that they have no "reputation" to protect. And it's why there are currently few holds barred on what anyone can say in public about Knox, Sollecito or Guede. Of course, the appeal court could change that situation dramatically, but we'll have to wait and see.

What's also interesting is what might be said about Sr Mignini if his conviction for abuse of office is upheld through all the appeals process. After all, if the conviction stands, then he won't have much of a professional reputation to protect.....

 

[Malkmus]

The language used in the tjmk posts has been a hallmark of how they have been able to use the power of suggestion to control people's beliefs about the case. As you pointed out, Quennell writes:

The "perception" of people was that Amanda was "close to becoming" a coke addict. She and Raffaele are "still referred to" as coke-heads.

The reader has to be careful and analytical to realize that none of these statements actually says Amanda ever used cocaine, and that the "people" he is referring to may be none other than himself and his friends.

According to PQ, Amanda is a "possible" drug addict and she "may have" lost her waitress job, which "could have been" making her desperate.... Mignini and Judge Micheli both "seemed" to think so....

It's as if PQ trained at the British School of How to be a Tabloid Journalist Without Getting Sued. He uses non-committal language that is pure rumor, but that sounds like facts. I read one contribution by The Machine once in which almost every sentence started with the phrase, "It seems....," until the whole essay was just one long piece of unfounded innuendo. The stuff he claimed still shows up in people's blog posts as "fact" from time to time.

It's reminiscent to me of the documentary "Outfoxed" (I think it's that one anyway) where it was pointed out via montage that when Fox News anchors/pundits wanted to present something as fact without sourcing it they would simply say "some say" instead. Is TJMK the Fox News of the Meredith Kercher case blogosphere?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

character versus caricature

Actually, I’ll get something said now;

It seems as if the orchestrated demonisation of Amanda Knox could be seen as (part of?) an experiment to determine exactly how pliable “public opinion” has become.

The fashioning in the “public mind” of bogus heroes and villains has always been a fundamental means of ‘social engineering’.

It is, for instance, difficult (if not impossible) to inculcate sufficient hostility between entire nations to mobilise them into war unless cartoon-like figureheads of “good” or “evil” are created (along with the actions of provocateurs) via the use of propaganda to herd them into it (just learn some “history”).

If Amanda Knox can be transformed by the media (i.e. by propaganda) into a “personification of evil” in so many people’s minds, then anyone can – roll on the next “Hitler of the Month”, eh?. In other words, her plight might be of more fundamental importance than most realise.

Personally, I feel that its success would indicate that we’re FUBAR, and if so I would be grateful if somebody would stop the world so I can get off.

Supernaut,

As a student of the Duke lacrosse case, I can tell you that the demonization of Amanda Knox is disturbingly familiar. Law enforcement of Durham, with the assistance of some elements of the media and some elements of Duke's faculty, turned a chronic overachiever (David Evans), the jolly green giant (Collin Finnerty), and an eagle scout-equivalent (Reade Seligmann) into rapists and thugs. The evidence them was even weaker than the evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The image of Amanda Knox that I receive from her friends' statements is of a person who is averse to conflict, far, far distant from the "she-devil" or black widow portrayals from the usual suspects. I am no longer surprised that this can happen, however.

To a certain degree I share your pessimism, and I don't have any easy answers.

 

[Malkmus]

I'm getting the definite feeling that some people may not be liking what they're seeing in the translated Messiah (oh, I mean Massei) Report. Could that be what's driving the current outbreak of exceptionally "benevolent", "courteous" and "welcoming" behaviour on other forums...? I wonder when the translated report is going to be released for public consumption. Oh, and I assume that no attempt is being made to "interpret" any of the translation towards any particular stance - since that would obviously be intellectually dishonest, wouldn't it?

Yes, I've noticed the tactic over there being used with new members who don't share the beehive mentality. They're immediately given The Machine's infinitely long list of loaded (and intentionally vague) questions about the case and when they don't answer them or decide to instead ask relevant questions that shed any doubt on the prosecution's theories they are told very courteously to "**** off". Literally. By the mods. Wow.

Yes, I think it's quite obvious that not all is well with the report and that the upcoming appeals conflict with what is actually written in Massei's opus.

 

[quadraginta]

The backtracking should be noted.

First the idea that no one could climb in through that window was discredited. Undeterred, the revisionist argument appears to be that, well, ok, so it's easy enough to climb through. But you can't do it without leaving some traces. Well, apart from the fact that there were obvious traces, even if there hadn't been, that would be simply another example of something that happens everyday: a burglar entering a building without being detected afterwards.

What backtracking?

Could you point out the areas of discussion in this thread where the idea that "no one could climb in through that window" was proposed as a serious argument? Discrediting an argument which has not been offered is not evidence of anything in particular.

One problem with the so-called burglary is not that there was not "an abundance of trace evidence" (another argument no one has offered). It was that there was no evidence outside the confines of the house. This isn't something which "happens everyday", and early on in this discussion clear statistics to that effect were presented. One argument which was disproven was that throwing a rock through a window wouldn't leave glass fragments outside the structure.

 

[christianahannah]

Quadraginta,

I am not saying or implying anything about perjury. I am pointing to the problem of cognitive bias in forensics, which is a problem for well-intentioned forensics workers.

"Mask the evidence. A 2006 U.K. study by researchers at the University of Southampton found that the error rate of fingerprint analysts doubled when they were first told the circumstances of the case they were working on. Crime lab technicians and medical examiners should never be permitted to consult with police or prosecutors before performing their analysis. A dramatic child murder case, for example, may induce a greater subconscious bias to find a match than a burglary case."

One of the authors of this article, Roger Koppl, also has a longer discussion of these kinds of problems in an article called, "CSI for Real."

Chris,

Do you know how many cases Stefanoni had worked on with Mignini before Meredith's case?

Koppl also has a smaller article in Slate I believe. Both articles are very interesting.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's a lot of "mental gymnastics" going on elsewhere to try to figure out whether a key would have been needed to exit the front door. The current option under review is whether this particular lockset might have had additional bolts at the top and the bottom of the door, and whether these additional bolts could be operated using the lever handle on the inside of the door (pulling the handle upwards by 45 degrees to engage the extra bolts, then depressing the handle to disengage).

However, I don't recall hearing any of the residents of the house (Laura, Filomena or Amanda, of course tragically excluding Meredith) saying anything at any point along the lines of "The door wouldn't stay shut by itself, but we used the supplementary bolts to secure it by pulling up on the inside lever". Rather, they specifically said that they used the key to secure the door shut - presumably by simply engaging the main deadbolt.

The other factor in all this is whether the extra bolts (top and bottom) could even be activated by the key at all (that is, in addition to using the lever handle). This is obviously important since if the lever handle was the only mechanism to engage or disengage the two extra bolts, nobody would be able to enter the house from the outside once these bolts had been engaged.

However, I think that the single most telling factor in all this is that all the girls spoke specifically about the need to use a key to secure the door, from the inside or the outside. There was never any mention at all (as far as I can see) of using these extra bolts - so regardless of whether this facility actually existed in this particular door, it seems highly unlikely that the tenants used it (or even knew about it). They appearently used a key - and only a key - to secure the door.

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,

I am not saying or implying anything about perjury. I am pointing to the problem of cognitive bias in forensics, which is a problem for well-intentioned forensics workers.

"Mask the evidence. A 2006 U.K. study by researchers at the University of Southampton found that the error rate of fingerprint analysts doubled when they were first told the circumstances of the case they were working on. Crime lab technicians and medical examiners should never be permitted to consult with police or prosecutors before performing their analysis. A dramatic child murder case, for example, may induce a greater subconscious bias to find a match than a burglary case."

One of the authors of this article, Roger Koppl, also has a longer discussion of these kinds of problems in an article called, "CSI for Real."

Okay. Thank you for the clarification

It may lead to a more perplexing and even more ominous issue, though.

Your earlier contributions have already led us near to the conclusion that most if not all DNA evidence must be considered dangerously suspect. Now you seem to be suggesting that any forensic science at all which is not performed under double-blind conditions should be viewed with equal suspicion.

Is this standard practice in Italy? How about the U.S.?

Anywhere?

The ramifications could be profound.

I understand that defendants should begin their trial with the presumption of innocence. I am less sanguine about the idea that everyone else involved should be presumed to be either duplicitous or incompetent.

I may have missed a post or two, but so far, to the best of my knowledge, every actor in this tragic story has been intimated or accused of one or the other, or both. Even those supporting Knox and Sollecito ... even the defendants themselves ... whenever their statements or actions are inconvenient to a determination of innocence.

One might be left wondering exactly what elements of any trial remain that can be deemed dependable. Perhaps the entire practice should just be abandoned.

 

[Kestrel]

What backtracking?

Could you point out the areas of discussion in this thread where the idea that "no one could climb in through that window" was proposed as a serious argument? Discrediting an argument which has not been offered is not evidence of anything in particular.

One problem with the so-called burglary is not that there was not "an abundance of trace evidence" (another argument no one has offered). It was that there was no evidence outside the confines of the house. This isn't something which "happens everyday", and early on in this discussion clear statistics to that effect were presented. One argument which was disproven was that throwing a rock through a window wouldn't leave glass fragments outside the structure.

A rock is thrown into a window from the outside. What is the source of the energy that propels glass fragments in the direction from where the rock was thrown?

Anyone who took a high school physics course should understand why I asked the question.

Also in regards to the broken window, the judge dismissed the defense expert because he only had experience with ballistics, and hadn't studied rocks.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If Amanda Knox can be transformed by the media (i.e. by propaganda) into a “personification of evil” in so many people’s minds, then anyone can – roll on the next “Hitler of the Month”, eh?. In other words, her plight might be of more fundamental importance than most realise.

It is important. This discussion is the heart of democracy. It is why Western Civ, after many bloody centuries, has arrived at the consensus that the public must be free to act of its own accord. No civil service exam can prevent the rise of people like Mignini, and no force except public action can bring them down.

Personally, I feel that its success would indicate that we’re FUBAR, and if so I would be grateful if somebody would stop the world so I can get off.

We're not FUBAR. We're going to succeed in the end.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Hi all,
My first post here. I've been curious if any of the people behind these sites that post seemingly unfounded slanderous material against Amanda are opening themselves up to slander in any jurisdictions (probably the UK or USA based on what I seem to know about the location of the various folks).
And if so, have they really protected themselves by using conditional tense?

They are protected by the fact that nobody wants to deal with them. The families of Amanda and Raffaele are going through hell on earth. They have far more urgent matters to address than the ravings of petty hatemongers.