Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

I'll be as careful with the appeals as I was with the Massei report before it was translated. thoughtful has a nice summary of Raffaele's appeal that I refer to quite often. In any event, the appeals in Italian are out there if anyone wants to claim a Google rendered version distorts the meaning of a quote. Here is one for instance (Amanda's appeal/Google translation):

With reference to the third profile I am not entirely sure what is being claimed here - both with regards to Stefanoni's testimony and the language of the appeals.

From the Massei Motivations, page 212, Stefanoni says:

With specific reference to the mixed genetic profiles regarding Knox, Dr. Stefanoni remarked, she could not exclude a third person because, in at least one case, it was a matter of "very equal profiles" (page 222).

Is there information on which reference swab Stefanoni is speaking of? And is the terminology used "could not exclude a third person" mean that there definitely is a profile of a third person present?

In other paragraphs (two of which I include here) Stefanoni explains about mixtures of equal amounts and compatibility and exclusion (page 212):

[222] In other words: a mixture Knox-victim is indicated as being compatible. Nonetheless, in the presence of a nearly equal mixture (and this occurred in one case) so that in quantity the two DNAs are very similar, in this case then in every gene locus rather than recognising the pair 11-12 and 13-14, one could find the [pair] 11-14 and 12-13, with the consequent singling out of other persons having this different biological profile.

Indeed, when the two mixtures are very similar in quantity, the peaks are very homogeneous in height, Dr. Stefanoni explained; in the said hypothesis it will not be possible to say with certainty: those two people present and no other is present. Therefore, in this case, when the mixtures are nearly equal amounts, a judgement of compatibility must be given: on the contrary, if they are very uneven there will be more certainty in the attribution of the biological profiles, since other pairs indentifying other persons would not be possible.

 

[Kestrel]

_____________-


In her trial testimony Amanda says explicitly that the drain pipe leaked while Raffaele was washing dishes, washing the dishes used for serving dinner the night of November 1st, 2007:

"LG [Ghirga, Amanda's attorney]: Yes. And did you eat dinner?

AK [Amanda]: Yes. But it was very late when we ate.

LG: Fish?

AK: Yes. Fish and a salad.

LG: And then something happened to the faucet of the sink?

AK: Yes. While Raffaele was washing the dishes, water was coming out from underneath. He looked down, turned off the water and then looked underneath
and the pipe underneath "got loose" [in English, the lawyer translates
"broke" (si e rotto), the interpreter translates "slowed down" (si e rallentato)]
and water was coming out.

GCM [Massei, Judge]: Can you say what time this was?

AK: Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes, well, ...."



///

What you have shown is that two people had different memories regarding the time they ate dinner. If you understand how human memory works, this is normal. Human memory is not like a video recorder, storing every detail our senses take in for later recall. Memory is associative and reconstructive. In this example, Amanda associates the leaking sink with washing dishes, she associates washing dishes with after a meal. When she recalls the leaking sink event, it happens after the meal because that is the normal association for washing dishes.

She may be correct, they ate somewhat earlier than Raffaele remembered. But it's not really evidence of scheming, or lies or homicidal intent. It's simply that people are not good at recalling such trivia.

 

[Mary_H]

It may not be on the planet you live on but it is on planet Earth. I don't see what you think sophistry has to contribute to the debate.

Exactly what is it that you believe sophistry is, Fulcanelli? I notice that you and your blog partner use the term liberally, but it never seems to fit what you're applying it to. How do you think I used sophistry when I wrote: This is not an effective argument for Amanda's guilt, nor for her arrest.

But in any case, Amanda was not arrested for 'lying', she was arrested because she told police she took the murderer to the cottage and was present when Meredith was raped and murdered.

Many people who think Amanda is guilty believe her so-called "lies" contributed to her arrest. They don't know that Amanda was not arrested for lying. Like Fuji, many people seem to believe that Amanda's "mendacity" is related to her character, and her character is related to whether she could have been involved in the murder.

The "multiple lies" and "multiple alibis" attributed to Amanda and Raffaele make it to the top of every colpevolisto's list, and after the few pieces of forensic and circumstantial evidence on their lists have been demolished, the "multiple lies" and "multiple alibis" remain, as if they have meaning even in the face of no other evidence. That is one reason this topic is being discussed.

 

[Mary_H]

The dirt had come from the clasp.

How do you know?

 

[christianahannah]

NYT has an article today concerning confessions of the innocent in crimes. It is interesting and I believe has relevance in the Amanda/Raffaele discussion for both sides.

Confessing to Crime, but Innocent

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html?hp

 

[RoseMontague]

The "multiple lies" and "multiple alibis" attributed to Amanda and Raffaele make it to the top of every colpevolisto's list, and after the few pieces of forensic and circumstantial evidence on their lists have been demolished, the "multiple lies" and "multiple alibis" remain, as if they have meaning even in the face of no other evidence. That is one reason this topic is being discussed.

Gee,
I never noticed. Do they really do that?

 

[RoseMontague]

NYT has an article today concerning confessions of the innocent in crimes. It is interesting and I believe has relevance in the Amanda/Raffaele discussion for both sides.

Confessing to Crime, but Innocent

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html?hp

That is such a good link and very relevant. Thanks.

Experts have long known that some kinds of people — including the mentally impaired, the mentally ill, the young and the easily led — are the likeliest to be induced to confess. There are also people like Mr. Lowery, who says he was just pressed beyond endurance by persistent interrogators.

New research shows how people who were apparently uninvolved in a crime could provide such a detailed account of what occurred, allowing prosecutors to claim that only the defendant could have committed the crime.

An article by Professor Garrett draws on trial transcripts, recorded confessions and other background materials to show how incriminating facts got into those confessions — by police introducing important facts about the case, whether intentionally or unintentionally, during the interrogation.

 

[el buscador]

That is such a good link and very relevant. Thanks.

And this: "Some defendants’ confessions even include mistakes fed by the police. Earl Washington Jr., a mentally impaired man who spent 18 years in prison and came within hours of being executed for a murder he did not commit, stated in his confession that the victim had worn a halter top. In fact, she had worn a sundress, but an initial police report had stated that she wore a halter top."

 

[Dan O.]

It helps put the time into perspective; their alibi was that they wre having dinner at 10 or even later 11; if thid is disproved so is their alibib for where they were at the time of the murder.

I asked why were the investigators inquiring about the time two witnesses were having dinner. At what point did the investigators start treating them as suspects?

If you review Amanda's testimony (which was recorded), she is saying that it was the police that wanted exact times and she didn't know the times since she didn't have anything scheduled for that evening and wasn't paying attention to the clock. Her attempt to reconstruct the times to satisfy the police was simply wrong and not a lie.

All the details for what the pair were doing that evening are hazy and vague in their accounts...Raffaelo couldn't remember if they had made love or not; prety soon he capitulated and wasn't sure even if AK had been there all night at all!

I would think that if they actually conspired to create an alibi it wouldn't be vague at all. As for what Raffaele remembered about that night, it is clear that you haven't seen any of the actual source material and are only stating the PMF party line. I suggest actually reading the source material so you can make your own informed opinion.

And Amanda was not sure if she had been at the scene of the crime holding her ears when Meredith screamed (now how did she know about tht scream?) or was possibly in bed with loverboy all night!

There is no credible evidence that there ever was a scream. Try to find the sources.

So you see a fundamental recording of the facts of their activities at the time of the murder ARE indeed illuminating.

Speaking of recording, where are the recording of the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele?

Sorry if that is hard for you to understand.

Personal attacks may be the norm at PMF but they will earn you a suspension here.

 

[Supernaut]

No, it is not my job to "support" it [the claim that Amanda "lies with ease and familiarity"], given that I am using the same objective criteria that leads me to induce her guilt in this regard as you and others have used to promote her innocence; that is to say, none at all.

I do not demand that others modify their judgments of her veracity in deference to my opposite conclusions. I would bid you the same courtesy.

D)

 

[Supernaut]

Implicit, as I said. Amanda's Nov 6 statement was "an admission of facts we knew were correct", given after "she buckled" - i.o.w. gave in to police pressure. This is another way of saying that her statement was fed to her by police, and her agreement with it was coerced.

No it isn't. You are reading a lot more into the statement then what it actually says.

Oh yeh? If you liked that, you'll love this;

"We knew that someone of African descent was involved in the murder

We also knew that the American had met with Patrik Lumumba on the evening of the 1st of November because we had discovered a text message on her mobile phone explicitly arranging to do so.

She had maintained that she did not leave her boyfriend's flat or meet with anyone, but when we confronted her with the text message she finally buckled and admitted that they had met up with Lumumba, and the three of them had gone to the cottage together that night.

Under further questioning, she went on to give us a detailed account of the scene at the cottage (which we had already deduced), and we immediately arrested all three of them. "

The case is clo-zed. The sons and daughters of the wealthy who come here to study can sleep peacefully in their beds, once again" [I could go on, but I'll spare you].​

 

[quadraginta]

That is such a good link and very relevant. Thanks.

And this: "Some defendants’ confessions even include mistakes fed by the police. Earl Washington Jr., a mentally impaired man who spent 18 years in prison and came within hours of being executed for a murder he did not commit, stated in his confession that the victim had worn a halter top. In fact, she had worn a sundress, but an initial police report had stated that she wore a halter top."

More of the same. Argument by anecdote.

The practice of offering examples of other instances to support the argument that something could have happened in this particular instance is no more persuasive now than it has been in the past. This does not address at all the likelihood that such a thing actually did happen this time. Efforts to do so that I have seen here to date depend largely on insinuation and prejudice.

Has anyone here followed the Casey Anthony case? This sort of dialogue could easily be (and has been) used to argue for her innocence. Anyone want to present the argument that she is an innocent victim of overzealous prosecution? The tools to employ are identical.

This is why I have said, and will continue to say that using the sorts of defenses presented here it should be, for any practical purposes, impossible to convict anyone anywhere of anything at all. The 'might haves' and 'this happened that time' examples are clearly overwhelming ... um ... evidence?

 

[Supernaut]

All readers on this board should be requiured to read and ponder Fulcanelli's true refutations of all the claims published on this thread.
If you are honest well meaning enquirers into the truth about this case, then you will certainly have your eyes opened by this master poster.

I couldn't have said it better.

Face it innocentisti, what have you got? Just the support of some high-profile legal pros, an international best-selling author, a Pulitzer-prize winning journo (and some others of zero consequence writing for the likes of The Independent), a veteren FBI investigator, a multi-billionaire property magnate, a bunch of published PHd signitories to an open letter denouncing Stefanoni's forensics, forum contributors such as Kevin_Lowe, Halides, Dan.O, Mary_H, Malkmus et al who are manifestly dumb or delusional to a man or woman, etc'.

I mean, come on - what credibility do these lightweights have in the face of the daunting intellectual phalanx bringin' it for the guilters - the likes of Margaret 'Peggy' Ganong (modestly holding forth under a message-board pseudonym), Peter Quennell (waddaya mean you never heard of him?), Barbie Nadeau (surely up for a Pulitzer or three?), some of the most brilliant minds of our time at the incomparably benevolent and democratic PMF and TJMK and ..... er ...... yeh!

Just give it up FOAKers - Amanda (may she rot in jail 'til the day she dies, which can't come soon enough) and Raff are guilty! guilty! guilty!

 

[LondonJohn]

And this: "Some defendants’ confessions even include mistakes fed by the police. Earl Washington Jr., a mentally impaired man who spent 18 years in prison and came within hours of being executed for a murder he did not commit, stated in his confession that the victim had worn a halter top. In fact, she had worn a sundress, but an initial police report had stated that she wore a halter top."

Sounds a bit like: "Knox stated in her confession that the killer was Patrick Lumumba, a man of African ethnicity. In fact, Lumumba had nothing to do with the murder, but early police suspicion focussed on him owing to their erroneous interpretation of a text message between Knox and Lumumba, and also possibly because it had been reported that hairs of African ethnicity were allegedly found at the murder scene."

 

[Amazer]

Oh yeh? If you liked that, you'll love this;

"We knew that someone of African descent was involved in the murder

We also knew that the American had met with Patrik Lumumba on the evening of the 1st of November because we had discovered a text message on her mobile phone explicitly arranging to do so.

She had maintained that she did not leave her boyfriend's flat or meet with anyone, but when we confronted her with the text message she finally buckled and admitted that they had met up with Lumumba, and the three of them had gone to the cottage together that night.

Under further questioning, she went on to give us a detailed account of the scene at the cottage (which we had already deduced), and we immediately arrested all three of them. "

The case is clo-zed. The sons and daughters of the wealthy who come here to study can sleep peacefully in their beds, once again" [I could go on, but I'll spare you].​

And how is this evidence that the investigators fed Amanda the story? How is it evidence that they coerced her? It can most certainly not be deduced from the above text.

 

[LondonJohn]

Face it innocentisti, what have you got? Just the support of some high-profile legal pros, an international best-selling author, a Pulitzer-prize winning journo (and some others of zero consequence writing for the likes of The Independent), a veteren FBI investigator, a multi-billionaire property magnate, a bunch of published PHd signitories to an open letter denouncing Stefanoni's forensics, forum contributors such as Kevin_Lowe, Halides, Dan.O, Mary_H, Malkmus et al who are manifestly dumb or delusional to a man or woman, etc'.

I mean, come on - what credibility do these lightweights have in the face of the daunting intellectual phalanx bringin' it for the guilters - the likes of Margaret 'Peggy' Ganong (modestly holding forth under a message-board pseudonym), Peter Quennell (waddaya mean you never heard of him?), Barbie Nadeau (surely up for a Pulitzer or three?), some of the most brilliant minds of our time at the incomparably benevolent and democratic PMF and TJMK and ..... er ...... yeh!

Just give it up FOAKers - Amanda (may she rot in jail 'til the day she dies, which can't come soon enough) and Raff are guilty! guilty! guilty!

"What have the Romans EVER done for us???"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

 

[Supernaut]

Aside from the fact that, as far as I know, there is no objective, scientific way for a disinterested observer to determine whether a given subject is lying or telling the truth in regards to the contents of their memory in any given situation, you are still drawing an unwarranted equivalence between witness and suspect misstatements.



You seemingly fail to grasp that there is an as yet unsolved problem in regards to objectively determining the contents of another's subjective experience. Perhaps in the future, neuroscience will be able to achieve this; however, in 2010, there is no one on Earth who can do this.

I can honestly say I can hardly believe what I'm reading. I don't recall EVER reading such blatant ....... sophistry.

I guess a few naive souls might be taken in, which is the intention, I guess.

 

[el buscador]

More of the same. Argument by anecdote.

The practice of offering examples of other instances to support the argument that something could have happened in this particular instance is no more persuasive now than it has been in the past. This does not address at all the likelihood that such a thing actually did happen this time. Efforts to do so that I have seen here to date depend largely on insinuation and prejudice.

Has anyone here followed the Casey Anthony case? This sort of dialogue could easily be (and has been) used to argue for her innocence. Anyone want to present the argument that she is an innocent victim of overzealous prosecution? The tools to employ are identical.

This is why I have said, and will continue to say that using the sorts of defenses presented here it should be, for any practical purposes, impossible to convict anyone anywhere of anything at all. The 'might haves' and 'this happened that time' examples are clearly overwhelming ... um ... evidence?

Of course, we can watch the interrogation tapes and decide for ourselves in the Casey Anthony case as they were played over and over on such shows as Nancy Grace.

 

[Supernaut]

And how is this evidence that the investigators fed Amanda the story? How is it evidence that they coerced her? It can most certainly not be deduced from the above text.

Er, I suppose not.

Ahem.

 

[Supernaut]

Aside from the fact that, as far as I know, there is no objective, scientific way for a disinterested observer to determine whether a given subject is lying or telling the truth in regards to the contents of their memory in any given situation, you are still drawing an unwarranted equivalence between witness and suspect misstatements.

OK, READ THIS CAREFULLY;

Quite simply, what Malkmus is asking is that YOU provide a source for a statement or testimony from ANYONE prior to Amanda's arrest in which she is described as dishonest or a liar.

I'll save you the hassle of answering with more of your cynical obfuscation - you can't because there are NONE, ZERO, NADA. Bye bye.