Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Supernaut]

So enough about poor Amanda being coerced.
She wasn't.

Was too.

 

[Chris C]

"Relentless questioning" blah blah blah...it was actually for less than 3 hours that first night.
And yes she was given food and drink and allowed breaks.
By all accounts she was very well treated.

So enough about poor Amanda being coerced.
She wasn't.

If she was so well treated where is the recordings? I can't believe Italian speaking interrogators wouldn't tape someone they where questioning that was responding in a different language. How would they even know if the translator was translating correctly. Those interrogators should be fired for not recording the interrogation. The translator should be fired also for not insuring the conversation was being recorded. Instead they where given medals for doing such a good job at getting the interrogation thrown out of court. Why wouldn't Mignini fire them for not recording the interrogation, yet fire the coronor for telling the truth on the witness stand. Yet you claim the statements she gave wasn't coerced.

 

[Matthew Best]

"Relentless questioning" blah blah blah...it was actually for less than 3 hours that first night.
And yes she was given food and drink and allowed breaks.
By all accounts she was very well treated.

Well, not exactly all accounts, eh?

Anyway, how are you coming along with your much vaunted sourcing of all claims? For example, I think we're still waiting for your source for the definitive statement "There was a possible semen stain which ... was not Rudy's."

As a very wise man* once said: "You are picking things out of the air unless you footnote and prove sources."


*Hint - the very wise man was, er, you.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Question - Has Vanessa (Rafaelle's sister, the sub-lieutenant within the Carabinieri) ever made any public statements regarding her brother's situation? I am just wondering why she isn't all over the place proclaiming his innocence. Of course if she were, I don't suppose I would realize it since it would be in Italian. But maybe you guys know?

 

[JREF2010]

Seems many believe if you speak out, your just asking for trouble.

Looking at the slander trials and extra attention from the tabloids, this appears true for this case. But then some believe silence in the face of injustice is cowardliness.

What do you think?

Should they speak out or be silent?

 

[Fuji]

I think the main problem with giving credibility to this particular analysis is the fact that it does not come from a Statement Analysis "expert". This guy read a book and took an 8 hour on-line class.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2ZJEWZLP14MHR

Of course the FBI uses statement analysis, and speech analysts use speech analysis. There's a lot of validity to psycholinguistics, rhetoric, etc. But the guy on the site is not doing any of those things.

First and foremost, he's not even analyzing statements in the way they are described in the FBI article. He's just analyzing anything anybody said or wrote, regardless of the circumstances.

Second, he approaches every analysis completely prejudiced by what he already knows about the person he is "analyzing."

Third, he is using symbolism, which is not part of the FBI's approach to statement analysis at all. So far, he has failed to offer support for his arguments or admit his biases. The site is nothing more than yet another outlet for guilters to trash other people.

As previously stipulated, I have taken no position regarding the validity of Statement Analysis as an investigative tool in general terms; at most I have recognized the FBI's continued public adherence to this investigative method as pragmatic evidence in favor of SA's validity. Given my non-committal to it in general terms, why is it insinuated by you both that I necessarily agree with "Seamus O'Riley"'s assessment?

Of course, the really important question is - why is this matter even worthy of discussion in a thread ostensibly devoted to a discussion of the Meredith Kercher case? The appeals courts in Italy will not be considering the opinion of a bystanding blogger in making their judgments on the convicted.

 

[Fuji]

Hi Fuji, you happened to wrote elsewhere


Could you provide some info about that evidence of a clean-up?
It is quite interesting.

Thanks in advance

I am in agreement with Massei's judgment (p. 384):

"Further confirmation is constituted by the fact that, after Meredith's murder, it is clear that some traces were definitely eliminated, a cleaning activity was certainly carried out."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Please indicate the lies

I can speak for no one's actions but my own. That said, I would say it depends on the JREF member. I have personally had disparaging things to say at PMF about at least one JREF member, but you are not one of them. Even though I've disagreed with many of your conclusions, you conduct yourself with decorum and respect for your debating opponents.



My personal judgment is that Amanda Knox is someone who lies with ease and familiarity. I would not take anything she said at face value.

Fuji,

Thank you for a civil and kind reply. Perhaps you could clarify two things for me. In judging her state of mind prior to her interrogation we have more than Amanda's own words, we have Laura's and Amanda's teacher's impressions, among others. Your reply to my question seems to ignore this additiona evidence. Why?

You said that Amanda lies with ease and familiarity. I suggest not discussing what she said during her interrogation because it took place under circumstances that are disputed by the two primary parties. Can you give undisputed examples of Amanda lying, as opposed to being incorrect?

 

[Fuji]

The simple fact is every single observation or argument originally made by the "Innocentisti" has been appropriated by these people over the past 2 years, including (with monumental irony) that of attributing "projection" and "transference" to their opponents, which was first used by Mark Waterbury (IIRC) to explain the "evil" perceived in Amanda Knox by her persecutors (with which I completely concur).

This is a clearly unsupportable assertion.

BTW Mary, as someone observed on that blog - no regard seems to be made in this (b*llsh*t) "statement analysis" to the circumtances under which AK wrote it, which was immediately after relentless questioning over at least 40 hours in 3 days, during which she was asked over and over to describe her exact movements on the 1st and 2nd of Nov, which incuded, of course, the shower on the morning of the 2nd.

Could you please provide a detailed description of Ms. Knox's activities over the proposed three-day period of 40+ hour interrogations? 40 hours over 3 days averages out to more than 13 hours per day of interrogations - are you sure of this?

Was too.

This is hardly an adequate refutation for this forum.

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

Thank you for a civil and kind reply. Perhaps you could clarify two things for me. In judging her state of mind prior to her interrogation we have more than Amanda's own words, we have Laura's and Amanda's teacher's impressions, among others. Your reply to my question seems to ignore this additiona evidence. Why?

I had considered neither of the individuals' opinions which you have presently introduced - as such, there was obviously no intentional disregard of this evidence.

You said that Amanda lies with ease and familiarity. I suggest not discussing what she said during her interrogation because it took place under circumstances that are disputed by the two primary parties. Can you give undisputed examples of Amanda lying, as opposed to being incorrect?

For the second time, you have made reference to Amanda's "interrogation" (as though there were only one?) as to insinuate that I hold this as necessary evidence for judgment of her poor character.

Again a larger question is suggested - how do you propose that a disinterested observer is to determine whether any given individual is unable to accurately recall pertinent events, or is instead simply dissembling?

 

[Mary_H]

As previously stipulated, I have taken no position regarding the validity of Statement Analysis as an investigative tool in general terms; at most I have recognized the FBI's continued public adherence to this investigative method as pragmatic evidence in favor of SA's validity. Given my non-committal to it in general terms, why is it insinuated by you both that I necessarily agree with "Seamus O'Riley"'s assessment?

Of course, the really important question is - why is this matter even worthy of discussion in a thread ostensibly devoted to a discussion of the Meredith Kercher case? The appeals courts in Italy will not be considering the opinion of a bystanding blogger in making their judgments on the convicted.

I'm not sure that our posts do insinuate that you necessarily agree with seamusoriley. My intention was to clarify any impression that what seamusoriley is doing resembles the legitimate statement analysis you referred to in your post. My post doesn't say much about your beliefs one way or another.

The logic of your last sentence could be applied to anything we discuss in these threads, yet we continue to discuss. Interminably, it would seem.

That blog was an interesting topic to me because it is a good example of how some people use false information and illogic to come to incorrect conclusions about the case.

 

[Mary_H]

This is hardly an adequate refutation for this forum.

I'm pretty sure Supernaut was aware of that.

 

[Mary_H]

halides1 wrote: You said that Amanda lies with ease and familiarity. I suggest not discussing what she said during her interrogation because it took place under circumstances that are disputed by the two primary parties. Can you give undisputed examples of Amanda lying, as opposed to being incorrect?

For the second time, you have made reference to Amanda's "interrogation" (as though there were only one?) as to insinuate that I hold this as necessary evidence for judgment of her poor character.

Again a larger question is suggested - how do you propose that a disinterested observer is to determine whether any given individual is unable to accurately recall pertinent events, or is instead simply dissembling?

A disinterested observer can rely on his intellect, analytical ability, life experience and knowledge of the facts to determine whether any given individual is unable to recall pertinent events. Recollection of pertinent events is not really at issue here, though, is it? Amanda recalled what she did the night of the murder. She did not recall what the police told her to recall, because it didn't happen.

In addition to her allegedly lying, what is it that you do hold as evidence for judgment of Amanda's character? As halides1 implies, offering examples will increase your credibility.

 

[Antony]

(msg #5607)

I am in agreement with Massei's judgment (p. 384):

"Further confirmation is constituted by the fact that, after Meredith's murder, it is clear that some traces were definitely eliminated, a cleaning activity was certainly carried out."

The Massei report and conduct of the trial is marked by spectacular lack of impartiality. This bland subjective claim is just one example.

Massei's reasoning (based here on the bathmat footprint) is faulty - the absence of a trail of footprints leading to the one on the bathmat simply means that the foot making the print became bloodied while the killer was rinsing blood from himself in the bathroom. In any case, why would someone cleaning away the trail of prints not also dispose of the bathmat or simply rinse out the footprint? It would not make sense to clean a trail of prints away and leave the last one for all to see.

Where is the evidence of this alleged clean-up? It's impossible to clean some traces so thoroughly that they cannot be detected, while leaving other traces untouched.

 

[Antony]

(msg #5610)

Again a larger question is suggested - how do you propose that a disinterested observer is to determine whether any given individual is unable to accurately recall pertinent events, or is instead simply dissembling?

That's a question for the pro-guilt faction. Why is every inaccuracy or minor discrepancy by Amanda or Raffaele taken as indication of "lies"?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Let's just pop this up again, because it seems to have slipped certain people's memories:

Guilters, a few questions:

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 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?
    
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 LCN 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 piece of evidence that could have confirmed Amanda and Raffaele's alibis (the Spotlight data for Stardust) was destroyed by police?

Thanks in advance. Take as long as you need to answer them, but answer them.

If you don't have answers to them, then you might need to rethink the issue of whether belief in Knox and Sollecito's guilt is rational.

Any number of inconclusive arguments for their guilt are utterly worthless if there is a single conclusive argument for their innocence. The time of death conclusively proves that the Massei narrative was completely wrong. If Meredith's duodenum was empty when the died, then she died long before 23:30. That's game over for Massei and game over for anyone who believes his story.

 

[loverofzion]

If she was so well treated where is the recordings? I can't believe Italian speaking interrogators wouldn't tape someone they where questioning that was responding in a different language. How would they even know if the translator was translating correctly. Those interrogators should be fired for not recording the interrogation. The translator should be fired also for not insuring the conversation was being recorded. Instead they where given medals for doing such a good job at getting the interrogation thrown out of court. Why wouldn't Mignini fire them for not recording the interrogation, yet fire the coronor for telling the truth on the witness stand. Yet you claim the statements she gave wasn't coerced.

ONCE SHE BECAME A SUSPECT AND NOT A WITNESS THERE WAS A LAWYER PRESENT.
WHERE DO YOU COME OFF ABOUT INTERROGATIONS BEING NECEASARILY RECORDED HERE OR IN ITALY?
As for the translator, she was a court appointed one; why would they fire someone who was accredited by the courts?

Your arguments are just palin silly, easily shot down I am afraid.

 

[loverofzion]

Well, not exactly all accounts, eh?

Anyway, how are you coming along with your much vaunted sourcing of all claims? For example, I think we're still waiting for your source for the definitive statement "There was a possible semen stain which ... was not Rudy's."

As a very wise man* once said: "You are picking things out of the air unless you footnote and prove sources."


*Hint - the very wise man was, er, you.

The semen stain MIGHT have been Rudy's; the point is semen stains cannot be dated, so waht would that prove for the case?
My sources are the Motivations Report.
You may want to try reading it.

 

[loverofzion]

Was too.

Now that's what is called a brilliant comeback.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

testing the stain

The semen stain MIGHT have been Rudy's; the point is semen stains cannot be dated, so waht would that prove for the case?
My sources are the Motivations Report.
You may want to try reading it.

loverofzion,

A facile response to your question is that DNA cannot be dated either, so what does DNA testing prove for this case? However, let's assume it is semen and look further. If the semen belongs to her boyfriend (Giacomo?), then it can be ignored because he has a strong alibi. If the semen belongs to Raffaele, it would be the strongest clue against him. If the semen belongs to Rudy, it changes what we know about the sexual contact that took place. Whether or not it would lead to a rape charge is a question for someone else.

Judge Massei's report failed to give adequate reasons for preferring to believe one expert witness over another with respect to the bra clasp DNA and with respect to one of the knife wounds, as discussed upthread.