Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

I think we're heading to the same scenario.

Amanda was mad about being fired and got into a fight with Meridith about it.
The two guys sided with Amanda and death resulted.

This makes no sense since Amanda wasn't fired. Why on Earth would Patrick tell her not to come in that night because business was slow if she was no longer working for him? You should rethink your scenario.

 

[Malkmus]

Rudy motive which I’ve also never mentioned is protecting Amanda after she got into an argument or fight with Meredith, I’m thinking when Rudy stepped in, Meredith’s strength surprised him and he was forced to use his knife while Amanda sat in the kitchen with her hands over her ears, sound familiar.

So Rudy is at the house of three people he knows only by name, decides to get involved in a fight between roommates, then just goes into raping and stabbing one of the girls in front of the two others without worrying that Amanda or Raf might just call the cops? How does Rudy then rifling through Meredith's purse and stealing her money fit into this?

Curatolo story is true, after Amanda ran back to Raff’s to tell him what was happening with Rudy and Meredith, Raff grabbed the large kitchen knife and went with Amanda back to her place where he met Rudy while Amanda stayed outside, sound failure again, Raff is no hero, he ran with Amanda to the court across the street to decide what to do next, Curatolo see them there.

So you're saying Rafaelle grabs a knife to fight off Meredith's aggressor, but when he finally gets to the cottage his instinct goes from protection to anger towards Meredith and bloodlust?! If Amanda saw Meredith being attacked with a knife why on Earth would she decide to run across town to get her boyfriend instead of calling the police?

You also said in the first paragraph that Amanda sat in the corner covering her ears. So when we get down to it, Amanda saw a crime, reported it to a boyfriend so he could stop the crime, then the boyfriend participated in the crime while she cowered in a corner? You realize that makes her completely innocent of any wrongdoing, right? I have to agree with kevin. This makes very little sense.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

I could use some clarification Sherlock, your theory seems anything but elementary.

 

[LondonJohn]

Since they were convicted unanimously then maybe your understanding of the nature and the quality of the evidence is faulty.

Yeah maybe, and I won't rule that possibility out. But maybe I'm right. And there have been plenty of unanimous convictions in the past which turned out to be wrongful.

 

[Chris C]

Since they were convicted unanimously then maybe your understanding of the nature and the quality of the evidence is faulty.

Well the quality of the evidence wasn't allowed to be questioned. So how do you determine its quality?

 

[Fuji]

That's the opposite of how a proper investigation goes, where the prosecution's job is to prove that they could not conceivably be innocent.

No, the prosecution's job is to establish the accused's guilt to the satisfaction of a jury and/or judge(s) such that they have no reasonable doubt regarding said guilt.

If not being able to prove beyond all doubt you are innocent is enough to find you guilty, half of Perugia belongs behind bars. After all, can they prove that they couldn't have done it?

This is another example of the fallacious reasoning you also demonstrated in the previous passage. This is commonly known as an argument from ignorance.

 

[Chris C]

No, the prosecution's job is to establish the accused's guilt to the satisfaction of a jury and/or judge(s) such that they have no reasonable doubt regarding said guilt.



This is another example of the fallacious reasoning you also demonstrated in the previous passage. This is commonly known as an argument from ignorance.

Its also the judges job to insure a fair trial. When the prosecution withholds evidence, ignores supreme courts ruling on evidence, lies in court, refuses to allow evidence to be examined or allow testing to be observed, allow witnesses to be heard that have changed their testimony multiple times, refuse to prove evidence was even tested, refused to test evidence..... Im sure you get the point. These are the things that where done to the defense and the JUDGE allowed it. So how can the defense honestly defend itself. Im sorry but when a prosecutor has the power that Italy gives its prosecutors then you are going to get wrongful convictions. Im not saying America's system is perfect but atleast the defense is allowed to examine the evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mignini's closing remarks

Shame all the defense attorneys didn't notice this.

tsig,

I previously (about one week ago) found a citation saying that Mignini moves the TOD back one hour in his closing statements. Personally, I find changing the TOD in one's closing remarks to be a pretty underhanded tactic in that Mignini had two years to figure it out, but the authors of Darkness Descending think it is just fine (pp. 417-417). And he also conjured up words to put into Amanda's mouth out of thin air during his close. Astounding.

As others have noted and as I commented yesterday, Patrick did not fire Amanda.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is another example of the fallacious reasoning you also demonstrated in the previous passage. This is commonly known as an argument from ignorance.

If you had gotten the context before jumping in, you would understand the irrelevance of this remark.

I'm criticising SL's hobby of playing Mad Libs with the evidence to find a story where Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. If that's your standard for guilt, it follows that half the people in Perugia murdered Meredith. Anyone can make up a story where someone is guilty if they proceed that way.

So anyway, if you're still a believer in the Massei story, would you care to address the issue of Meredith's time of death?

 

[RoseMontague]

And in fact, my current thinking is that it's very possible that Guede committed this crime by himself, and that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with it. However, I am not nailing my colours to the mast on that. The only thing I am prepared to argue with conviction (no pun intended...) is that it's likely that neither Knox nor Sollecito should have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of Meredith Kercher, based on the nature and quality of the evidence gathered by the police/prosecutors and presented in court.

I'll lend you a hammer if you need one LJ. Don't you think it's past time at this point?

 

[LondonJohn]

I'll lend you a hammer if you need one LJ. Don't you think it's past time at this point?

I'll need a pneumatic nail gun before long

 

[Fuji]

If you had gotten the context before jumping in, you would understand the irrelevance of this remark.

No, what is irrelevant is your assertion that context would change your errors into truths. Your two statements that I responded to were both errors, the first an error of fact, the second an error of logic.

So anyway, if you're still a believer in the Massei story, would you care to address the issue of Meredith's time of death?

I haven't finished reading the Massei Report yet. From the first hundred pages or so that I have read, I am in general agreement with Massei's conclusions - he even anticipated one of my arguments that I placed here at JREF many months ago (regarding the unlikelihood of Rudy attempting entry at a residence where he was known to several of the residents, see Massei p.47) and that I have not seen mentioned elsewhere.

 

[Fuji]

Its also the judges job to insure a fair trial. When the prosecution withholds evidence, ignores supreme courts ruling on evidence, lies in court, refuses to allow evidence to be examined or allow testing to be observed, allow witnesses to be heard that have changed their testimony multiple times, refuse to prove evidence was even tested, refused to test evidence..... Im sure you get the point. These are the things that where done to the defense and the JUDGE allowed it. So how can the defense honestly defend itself.

AK and RS each have two more appeals upcoming, RG one. If you are correct, surely that will come out in the appeals.

Im not saying America's system is perfect but atleast the defense is allowed to examine the evidence.

The prosecution is also allowed to cross-examine defendants who take the witness stand, such as Ms. Knox did. Also, American juries have no obligation to provide any written record of exactly what deliberations through which they arrived at their verdict, which can then form the basis for subsequent appeals.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, what is irrelevant is your assertion that context would change your errors into truths. Your two statements that I responded to were both errors, the first an error of fact, the second an error of logic.

The First Rule of Holes applies here Fuji, this isn't PMF and most of the people around here can spot an incorrect appeal to a canonical fallacy.

I haven't finished reading the Massei Report yet. From the first hundred pages or so that I have read, I am in general agreement with Massei's conclusions - he even anticipated one of my arguments that I placed here at JREF many months ago (regarding the unlikelihood of Rudy attempting entry at a residence where he was known to several of the residents, see Massei p.47) and that I have not seen mentioned elsewhere.

Actually we talked about that a little earlier. Since he'd been busted on his last criminal attempt to rustle up some rent money, he was probably broke and desperate at the time. That might also explain why he graduated from burglary and threatening people with knives to murder and sexual assault.

Actually it's not just the time of death, there are several questions we'd like to see answered, now that a PMFer is gracing us with their delightful presence again:

1. How do you explain the fact that all of Meredith's last meal was still in her stomach, and none of it was in her bowel, if she was undisturbed until 10pm and died after 10pm? This is completely inconsistent with everything we know about human digestion. Estimating time of death by stomach contents is imprecise to a degree, but not to anything like the degree needed to explain this.
   
2. How do you explain the fact that Meredith's mobile phone pinged a tower in between her house and the final resting place of her phones at 22:13, if she was not murdered until 23:30 or similar? Meredith's phone had never pinged that tower before so while it was physically possible for her phone to reach that tower from her room, it would never actually do so in the normal course of things. This is nigh incontrovertible evidence that at 22:13 the killer had left her house and was en route to the place where they dumped her phones.
   
3. How do you explain the fact that the characteristics of Amanda's "confession" (vagueness, doubts about its authenticity, obvious errors of fact, conformity with police theories at the time, later retraction) match with those of an internalised false confession, a well-recognised and objectively documented psychological phenomenon? There is no evidence Amanda knew enough about such false confessions to fake one so convincingly, and indeed if she knew enough to fake one she would almost certainly know that such confessions often lead to the confessor being convicted. If it is highly implausible that she faked an internalised false confession, the only alternative was that this was a real internalised false confession.
   
4. Do you acknowledge that since Meredith died long before 23:30, the witnesses who claim to have heard a scream at about that time cannot have been hearing Meredith scream, and that this destroys the claim that these witnesses confirm Amanda's internalised false confession because they heard the scream Amanda described? If not, why not?
   
5. If you believe Curatolo's testimony, how do you explain the fact that the computer records provided by the police show that an episode of Naruto was opened on Raffaele's computer at 21:26, which would have lasted for at least twenty minutes, covering the time period when Curatolo very specifically claims to have seen them out of the house?
   
6. If you still believe Curatolo's testimony, and cannot present scientific evidence to dispute the time of death based on Meredith's stomach contents, doesn't Curatolo give Amanda and Raffaele an alibi?
   
7. If you do not believe Curatolo's highly specific testimony, what alternative do you suggest to the obvious hypothesis that Curatolo was a police stooge who committed perjury, and that his whole statement was false?
   
8. Do you acknowledge that Amanda's DNA on the "double DNA" knife proves absolutely nothing regarding her guilt or innocence, because it could have been deposited on the handle by completely innocent means? If not, why not?
   
9. Do you acknowledge that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood found in the house proves absolutely nothing, because it could have been deposited by completely innocent means before Meredith's death? If not, why not?
   
10. Do you acknowledge that without this DNA evidence, absolutely no forensic evidence links Amanda to Meredith's murder at all?
    
11. What hard evidence do you have that there was a staged break-in given that we have Filomena's statement that there was glass on the floor of her room as well as on top of her clothes? The fact that nothing was stolen from this room is not evidence of a staged break-in, the lack of fingerprints or DNA from Rudy in that room is in no way unusual even if he did search the room without gloves, and the unsupported word of police who did not document their observations is not hard evidence.
    
12. Do you acknowledge that the police destroyed the evidence, in the form of Amanda's hard drive and the Spotlight metadata for Stardust on Raffaele's computer, which could potentially have confirmed their alibi, that they were at home at the prosecution's alleged time of death? Do you acknowledge that they have refused the defence's request to have the damaged hard drives repaired by the manufacturer so this evidence can be examined? If not, why not?
    
13. Finally, doesn't it ever strike you as weird that Mignini "figured out" that this was a once-in-history three-way sex crime more or less on sight, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that theory? Isn't it just a bit convenient that when absolutely all the forensic evidence failed to confirm his theory, miraculous and unreproducible DNA evidence gathered at the eleventh hour popped up out of Stefanoni's lab to save his theory, but they refuse to show their raw data or their log files? Isn't it cause for concern that the best evidence for the prosecution can't be reproduced and they refuse to show their work, and that the vital pieces of evidence that could have confirmed Amanda and Raffaele's alibis (the hard drives and the Spotlight data for Stardust) were all destroyed by police?

Thanks in advance. Take as long as you need.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The prosecution did not release files relating to the DNA forensics

AK and RS each have two more appeals upcoming, RG one. If you are correct, surely that will come out in the appeals.

Fuji,

It is not a question of whether or not Chris_C is correct about the lack of release of key files. The lack of complete discovery has been documented on this forum previously. The prosecution's failure is discussed here. Raffaele's appeal indicates that such refusal to provide key documentation of the DNA forensics was something that was repeated on more than one occasion. Bob Graham also wrote an article about this last March or April.

The real question is why the prosecution would do so if they are so confident of their results. Maybe it is because they are not so sure.

 

[loverofzion]

No. I'll let your words stand for themselves, and anyone interested can judge whether or not my reading of them was fair.



No.



I'll let your words stand for themselves, and anyone interested can judge whether or not my reading of them was fair.

You are still ignoring the elephant in the room, tsig. If Meredith died at 22:00 or earlier the Massei report is a load of old pants. If Amanda and Raffaele weren't there when Meredith died, you can make up whatever stories you like but they still cannot possibly have done it.

But of course they were there.
Where else do you propose they were?
Remember there are phone and computer records that DISQUALIFY all their alibis, exept hers when she admitted to being at the crime scene.

 

[loverofzion]

This makes no sense since Amanda wasn't fired. Why on Earth would Patrick tell her not to come in that night because business was slow if she was no longer working for him? You should rethink your scenario.

She was demoted to distributing flyers for Patrick Lumumba's bar, and Meredith was offered the job of bartending.

I guess that would make an insecure narcissist like Amanda pretty steamed up and sore at her "superior" roommate.

 

[loverofzion]

How does Raffaele cutting off Meredith's bra fit into the picture?

It was part of the staging and moving of the body; AK and RS wanted it to look as if it were a random act of violence by an intruder.

 

[loverofzion]

I'll lend you a hammer if you need one LJ. Don't you think it's past time at this point?

That is just plain ridiculous at this point.
Two different knives were used and there were stabbing marks on both sides of her neck.
Is that the doing of one man?

 

[loverofzion]

Who are Rudy's friends? I hear about the skype conversation. Who was that converstion with and where did they live. What was their relationship with Rudy.

We hear alot about Meredith's friends. We have heard how all 4 roommates had boyfriends. We have had heard that Sollecito had friends and was dating Amanda. We know Sollecito and Rudy where not friends. Amanda claims to only recall meeting him maybe twice. We keep hearing how Rudy met up with Knox/Sollecito and together killed Meredith.

Except who would Rudy normally hang out with?

Sollecito had never met the guy so obviously he would not be the person he normally hangs out with. Rudy was clearly infatuated with Knox, but even he admits there was no relationship between them. Heck according to Knox, she had a 1 night stand with a friend of Meredith's boyfriend. For someone that helped a guy commit rape and murder, it seems odd that they aren't even friends or have even had sex.

For someone who helped a guy commit rape and murder ....strange that they wren't even friends or have had sex ??
By that only killers kill who were friends with or have had sex with someone involved?