Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Do you really think that? Would you believe such pictures if you were to see some?

Would that be proof for you?

It'd be a whole lot better than an unsubstantiated and nebulous statement that "no glass was found", that's for sure.....

 

[quadraginta]

Or, even more preferably, a police report stating unequivocally that the area below the window was sealed as a crime scene, and that a fingertip search of the ground, including a sifting of the leaves for very small glass shards, had taken place. If there was a report stating that these things were done and no traces of glass were found, then I'd be confident in believing that there was in fact no glass on the ground underneath the window. Until then though, it's fallacious to infer that there was no glass there.

No you wouldn't, LJ. You'd just raise the bar a notch.

They said they looked for glass, and didn't find any. So you say, "Well, that ain't good enough. If they had a report detailing how much they looked and how hard ... then I'd believe them."

If you had that in hand then you'd say,"Well, we can't believe this without a video showing them in the process of doing it."

... and on and on and on.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

confirmation bias

No. Some people here have concluded all accusations and against Guede are right and all accusations and evidence against the other two defendants are wrong.

The same investigation that put Guede in jail was used to put the two other defendants in jail.

Somehow if it all points to Guede, there is no problem.

If there is no trace of Guede in Filomena's room, that's ok. He WAS in that room and left no traces.

Knox/Sollecito left no traces in Meredith's room, so, they WERE NOT there.

There are traces of Knox mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomena's room but Knox WAS NOT there.

There are no traces of Guede in the small bathroom and the bloody foot print on the bathmat is too small for his foot size but IT IS his, although measurements describe Sollecito's foot but it IS NOT Sollecito's. And on and on.

Piktor,

There are a number of problems with your assertions, but I have time for just one. The forensic evidence made Guede a suspect. But Knox and Sollecito were already in custody before the forensics were finished, or in some cases, even started. Therefore, there is an opportunity for confirmation bias with the latter two that simply does not exist for Guede, and I have offered at least one potential example of this upthread.

 

[Chris C]

No you wouldn't, LJ. You'd just raise the bar a notch.

They said they looked for glass, and didn't find any. So you say, "Well, that ain't good enough. If they had a report detailing how much they looked and how hard ... then I'd believe them."

If you had that in hand then you'd say,"Well, we can't believe this without a video showing them in the process of doing it."

... and on and on and on.

Its funny you would mention raising the bar a notch. Isn't that the exact opposite of what the prosecution did in this case. When they couldn't find the evidence they wanted, they lowered the bar a notch.

 

[quadraginta]

Yeah, showing that they actually performed an investigation into their claim of a false break in would be proof that they tried to perform their job.

Explain to me what kind of pictures of leaves with no glass would convince you than they had looked under that window and found no glass there.

 

[RoseMontague]

Probably missed something.

Start here to catch up.

Been there, done that, bought the Beatles T-shirt.

 

[quadraginta]

It'd be a whole lot better than an unsubstantiated and nebulous statement that "no glass was found", that's for sure.....

Why? They take some pictures of leaves and say, "Look, no glass there."?

That wouldn't even prove anything to me, much less any single-minded Knox defenders.

 

[RoseMontague]

No. Some people here have concluded all accusations and against Guede are right and all accusations and evidence against the other two defendants are wrong.

The same investigation that put Guede in jail was used to put the two other defendants in jail.

Somehow if it all points to Guede, there is no problem.

If there is no trace of Guede in Filomena's room, that's ok. He WAS in that room and left no traces.

Knox/Sollecito left no traces in Meredith's room, so, they WERE NOT there.

There are traces of Knox mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomena's room but Knox WAS NOT there.

There are no traces of Guede in the small bathroom and the bloody foot print on the bathmat is too small for his foot size but IT IS his, although measurements describe Sollecito's foot but it IS NOT Sollecito's. And on and on.

What does any of this have to do with Rudy being black?

 

[LondonJohn]

No. Some people here have concluded all accusations and against Guede are right and all accusations and evidence against the other two defendants are wrong.

The same investigation that put Guede in jail was used to put the two other defendants in jail.

Somehow if it all points to Guede, there is no problem.

If there is no trace of Guede in Filomena's room, that's ok. He WAS in that room and left no traces.

Knox/Sollecito left no traces in Meredith's room, so, they WERE NOT there.

There are traces of Knox mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomena's room but Knox WAS NOT there.

There are no traces of Guede in the small bathroom and the bloody foot print on the bathmat is too small for his foot size but IT IS his, although measurements describe Sollecito's foot but it IS NOT Sollecito's. And on and on.

I'm still unsure as to why you can't see the distinction between events which took place in Filomena's room and events which took place in Meredith's room, and the different likelihood of evidential transfer in each case:

Filomena's room: break-in wearing gloves (very possibly smooth leather-style), shoes dry and relatively clean, not much time spent inside room before going for drink and to use toilet = no fingerprints, no palm prints, extremely low possibility of DNA transfer, extremely low possibility of shoeprint evidence.

Meredith's room: violent struggle, sexual assault, bare hands, large amount of victim's blood on floor with spatter on floor and walls, probably 5-10 mins minimum spent in room = high possibility of fingerprint/palmprint evidence, high possibility of DNA transfer to and from the victim, possibility of shoeprint evidence resulting in stepping in victim's blood, almost certainly blood/DNA transfer from victim to assailants' clothing, footwear and hands/arms.

And are you quite sure that the bathmat footprint is too small to have been Guede's? What was the difference in the actual foot size of Guede and Sollecito again? Not the stated shoe sizes, but the actual foot sizes measured in mm?

 

[piktor]

Piktor,

I happen to think that the defense was basically right in this case (not perfect), and I am not sure what you mean when you say that they were wrong.

In the Duke lacrosse case the prosecution was wrong, the police were wrong, the judges were wrong, but the defense was right. I would go further and say that the prosecutor and police were demonstrably corrupt. "Until Proven Innocent" can be consulted to verify these statements (or PM me). I think Charlie or any number of other people here could give us examples of miscarriages of justice that involve something other than a single bad apple.

I also think the defense was right in allowing their clients to be put in jail. The defense could not prove they did not commit the crimes for which they have been sentenced. Shaky evidence and all, you would think the prosecution had no case.

The defense had less of a case.

In my view the defendants themselves are the main evidence for conviction.

With defendants like these three, with their credibility totally shot, the defense was right to lose.

It will take a stunner new argument, not the declarations of two convicted crooks, one of them a child murderer, to overturn the verdict.

 

[quadraginta]

Been there, done that, bought the Beatles T-shirt.

Then why did you ask?

 

[Malkmus]

No. Some people here have concluded all accusations and against Guede are right and all accusations and evidence against the other two defendants are wrong.

That is the fundamental problem with the case, and we have argued very specific and valid reasons for why this is believed. Do you think there's never been a case where multiple people were charged with a crime, where it later turned out that not all were guilty?

The same investigation that put Guede in jail was used to put the two other defendants in jail.

Just because they got part of it right means they automatically got it all right? This is akin to believing the police just don't make mistakes, or if they do, then they can't get anything right. What's with this all or nothing logic?

Somehow if it all points to Guede, there is no problem.

Don't see how this points to any fallacy. We know for a fact that Rudy was there, and have little reason to doubt any of the evidence since his statements corroborate the evidence against him.

If there is no trace of Guede in Filomena's room, that's ok. He WAS in that room and left no traces.

If all he did was walk through the room and maybe touch some clothes his chances of leaving DNA or fingerprints is extremely low. Very different than what Amanda and Raf are purported to have done in Meredith's room.

Knox/Sollecito left no traces in Meredith's room, so, they WERE NOT there.

If one person found it unavoidable to leave traces of himself during an intense, blood-shedding struggle, then it is unlikely that two other people could have accomplished the same. Someone was in Filomena's room but no one left any traces, except the "dusting" on the clothes. How does that implicate Amanda and Raf?

There are traces of Knox mixed with Meredith's blood in Filomena's room but Knox WAS NOT there.

The night before she wasn't there. As we've discussed, DNA can not be dated. Do you doubt she was ever in that room?

There are no traces of Guede in the small bathroom and the bloody foot print on the bathmat is too small for his foot size but IT IS his, although measurements describe Sollecito's foot but it IS NOT Sollecito's. And on and on.

Sollecito pointed out this footprint to police, which makes absolutely no sense if it was his. I haven't followed the measurement arguments too closely but I believe there has been much discussion regarding the "inaccuracy" of the size of the print, so I'll leave that to someone else to explain. But if I'm right, isn't there a passage in the Massei report which states that none of Raf's reference footprints lacked the imprint of his second toe, but the bath mat print does have the imprint of the second toe?

 

[Solange305]

colonelhall,

If you think an argument is foolish, spell out why. Otherwise, it is just an argument from intellectual intimidation, and I don't think those are very convincing.

With respect to a comment of yours about lying, I can offer the Cameron Todd Willingham case in Texas. He lied to the investigators about having entered his daughters' room to try to save them from a fire. He was executed for arson, yet every single indicator of arson used by the fire inspector either had been or later was discredited by advances in arson forensics. Perhaps he paid for his lie with his life, inasmuch as many now believe he was innocent.

Innocent people lie frequently. It is not a smart thing to do, but it does happen. Moreover, Raffaele's probable lie was not even intended for anyone else to see, IMHO. It was in his prison diary.

Do NOT even try to use that as if it's some sort of equivalent. The Willingham case is near and dear to my heart, so I take that pretty personally. The reason he lied was because he was ashamed that he did not go in and try to save them. Plus, in his eyes, it was not a murder investigation, it was an accident. Which it was. The lying that Amanda and Raffaele did are lies of someone trying to cover up the evidence that points them to the murder.

 

[LondonJohn]

I also think the defense was right in allowing their clients to be put in jail. The defense could not prove they did not commit the crimes for which they have been sentenced. Shaky evidence and all, you would think the prosecution had no case.

The defense had less of a case.

In my view the defendants themselves are the main evidence for conviction.

With defendants like these three, with their credibility totally shot, the defense was right to lose.

It will take a stunner new argument, not the declarations of two convicted crooks, one of them a child murderer, to overturn the verdict.

The defence had to prove that their clients did not commit the crimes for which they were sentenced?

That's an interesting new turn in modern jurisprudence theory......

 

[Solange305]

Yeah, showing that they actually performed an investigation into their claim of a false break in would be proof that they tried to perform their job.

They did a well enough job catching Rudy, did they not?

 

[colonelhall]

"If you think an argument is foolish, spell out why."

I guess that we can agree that he didn't prick Meredith. Then you are saying that because he said that he did, he must have been mistaken. He may have confused Meredith with Amanda and so on.

It's just one more example of you expecting everyone to accept the least likely explanation for something. You can get away with it once, but not on every single point.
Reasonable people are not going to buy it.

I see that they are still discussing the staged break-in that was supposed to have been completely discredited.

 

[Chris C]

Explain to me what kind of pictures of leaves with no glass would convince you than they had looked under that window and found no glass there.

Lets see! They video recorded just about everything they did inside that apartment. Took pictures all over the house. They did alot of evidence collecting while Knox/Sollecito where already in custody and believed it to be a fake break in. Yet what they didn't do. They believed it was a fake break in, so they took 2 dna swaps on the window sill and a couple pictures in the room. None of the pictures even support their theory of a fake break in. Actually they support the exact opposite. They took no pictures that I'm aware of or any close up camera shots from underneath the window or the wall.

Ever have an insurance adjuster come out to your house to inspect a break in or damage done to a house or actually had to take a witness statement for a break in? Its fairly easy. You take a statement and then you take pictures. They went back to that apartment how many days later because they couldn't find any evidence to hold Sollecito on. Why not just walk over to the ground outside the window and take pictures showing there isn't any glass on the ground. Why not dna swab the glass? Why not dna swab the clothes. How about the window. 2 swabs? Wouldn't finding Sollecito's dna on the window help prove that he was there. Sorry, they clearly wanted nothing to do with the "faked break in room".

 

[RoseMontague]

Then why did you ask?

My memory's pretty good but not perfect. I don't remember you actually coming out with your own theories but maybe I just don't remember. I have read the entire topic but it has been a few months and that is a lot of posts by a lot of posters. I asked you because I wanted to know your opinion. If you don't want to tell me just say so.

 

[Solange305]

If one person found it unavoidable to leave traces of himself during an intense, blood-shedding struggle, then it is unlikely that two other people could have accomplished the same.

It's not much of a struggle when its three against one, I dont see this as proof that they werent involved. And again, there WAS DNA left by Raffaele, according to the experts. Pretending like there isnt wont make it go away.

 

[Chris C]

I also think the defense was right in allowing their clients to be put in jail. The defense could not prove they did not commit the crimes for which they have been sentenced. Shaky evidence and all, you would think the prosecution had no case.

The defense had less of a case.

In my view the defendants themselves are the main evidence for conviction.

With defendants like these three, with their credibility totally shot, the defense was right to lose.

It will take a stunner new argument, not the declarations of two convicted crooks, one of them a child murderer, to overturn the verdict.

Dont forget they where prosecuted by a crook also.