Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Although I dont agree necessarily about Loverofzion feeling that way, I see the points you are trying to make and respect them

Of course he could have just come out and said thats not what I meant. I've reposted before explaining I worded something poorly and explained what I actually meant.
After all , he is implying KNOX falsely accused a BLACK man of assault and murder because white woman have a long ugly history of doing that. Now one could claim he meant physical assault and not sexual assault in his comments, yet the only assault 3 people are accused of in this case is sexual. So his poorly worded comments imply that KNOX falsely accused Patrick of RAPE because thats what white women do.

 

[Dan O.]

If you have any more questions for Michael, let me know, Ill be glad to be the messenger...

Remind me what Michael's "other good points" were again? If only he himself could come and debate directly on here...................

You might want to consult the membership agreement to verify that the prohibition against third party posting has been lifted before carrying on with this conversation by proxy.

 

[Dan O.]

Well, between the putty and the tacks, there had to be a fairly decent degree of adhesion - otherwise the window glass would have fallen out of its own accord!

It would if it weren't for the quarter round.

 

[Chris C]

Anyone have any idea how long that dark color car was parked in the driveway? It had to have been there after the broke down car left, and there is reason to believe it was there before that car broke down. Which makes me wonder was it there when Meredith showed up at the apartment.

 

[Justinian2]

I'm going to have to differ with you on this one, Solange. I think what loverofzion blurted out reveals a lot more about him than about the facts. The cases you cite do involve false accusations by white women of black men (white men do it, too, as in the case of Charles Stuart of Boston, who murdered his wife and said a black man did it). But loverofzion wrote:

"There is sadly a long ugly history in the U.S. of white women falsely accusing black men of sexual, violent crimes."

There is most definitely a long, ugly history in the United States of black people of both genders being falsely accused, over-prosecuted and exorbitantly sentenced, for all kinds of alleged crimes. To my mind, though, what loverofzion proposed doesn't strike a chord, although if he were to provide citations, I might change my mind.

I get the feeling he is trying to conjure a stereotype from the characters in To Kill A Mockingbird, in which a black man is falsely accused of raping a white woman, although even in that case it was the woman's father who made the accusation.

As some of us have tried to explain, the fact that Rudy is black and Amanda is white is only incidental to this case, and doesn't represent racial bias or any given American pattern of behavior. On the other hand, the fact that Amanda is a woman at all seems to have led to an enormous wave of misogynistic posts about her, especially in the first two years or so of the case. I'm not sure I would agree with Chris that loverofzion hates only white women, but I would give some thought to the idea he might hate women like Amanda.

RS and Guede both got lighter sentences than Amanda. RS is Italian. Guede has lived in Italy (and perhaps some other country I don't remember).

New studies have shown that the bias is always towards the minority. Subtle tests of tests of the hidden mind have always shown that the "bad guy" is ALWAYS the minority. Amanda is the "bad guy" here. In fact, If you were to give the Italian people a test in which they were supposed to assign the terms good, nice, bad, and evil to a list of first names half of which were Italian and half of which were American, the Italians (if they are like others across the earth) would always show prejudice towards the Italian name and be horrifically shocked later to find what the results of the test showed.

There was bias here. Make NO mistake about that.
[Re: Chapter 9 of "The Hidden Brain" by Shankar Vedantam.]

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Although I dont agree with you, that assertion makes more sense than saying he/she hates white women. Maybe he/she just hates Amanda Knox. And if they do hate her, it's not because she is beautiful, its not because she is American, it is because she is a murderer (as far as we're concerned).

The whole point of the character assassination directed at Knox, at the time by police and currently by the subset of internet advocates who spread the meme that she is guilty, is to get you to reason in exactly the opposite direction. It's to get you to think she is guilty because you hate her, not vice versa.

If the goal was to get you to think she was guilty for good reasons, they would avoid those toxic tactics completely and focus on the hard evidence. That isn't their goal.

I have no clue, sorry. I dont know why they didnt open the knife up. I dont claim to know all the answers, far from it. My stance is that Amanda and Raffaele were found guilty in the first trial, and sentenced to prison time. Although I understand the process is different there, and the appeals still need to happen for the convictions to stick or whatever, I am not going to sit here and question the experts and professionals who came to the conclusion that they were guilty. You guys have not convinced me yet that I have any reason to doubt the verdict. If that changes, I will be the first to let you know.

I find this attitude baffling. You understand that we have appeals processes for a reason, don't you? That reason being that "experts and professionals" get it wrong sometimes?

If you aren't going to question anything that comes out of the mouths of "experts and professionals" (except of course when those experts and professionals say things that support the defence's case), there's nothing to talk about and I'm not even sure why you are here.

 

[Solange305]

I find this attitude baffling. You understand that we have appeals processes for a reason, don't you? That reason being that "experts and professionals" get it wrong sometimes?

If you aren't going to question anything that comes out of the mouths of "experts and professionals" (except of course when those experts and professionals say things that support the defence's case), there's nothing to talk about and I'm not even sure why you are here.

Im sorry you find it so baffling, it must be hard to find a good majority of the country baffling as well, since as far as I can tell, the majority does not believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

You don't know why I'm here, yet I have discussed some specifics of the case and why I think they are guilty, your comment implies that I haven't. What I refuse to do is be like you, sit on my couch on my computer another country away and pretend that I know about DNA and scientific evidence more than an expert who, oh i don't know, trained in that field? It's presumptuous and laughable at times.

 

[Solange305]

So his poorly worded comments imply that KNOX falsely accused Patrick of RAPE because thats what white women do.

Or more likely he means, that is what white murdering women do. If you are cold enough to commit murder, why be bothered being politically correct? I appreciate you saying that it was a poorly worded comment and explaining yourself, I mean that sincerely

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague
This is amusing loverofzion. Maybe you missed my post about the prosecution footprint expert working from photographs without even looking at the actual evidence.

I thought it was the defense expert who worked from the police photographs.

Nope,
Page 178 RS appeal

The defense counsel, unlike the forensic experts, who although they had the availability of the exhibit, has personally viewed the pad, taking care to photograph it in detail, to analyze the "Crimescope" and to examine closely the plot.

 

[Malkmus]

My 2 cents on the whole Amanda accusing "a black man" is that it is fundamentally different than past cases where someone chose to pin the blame on a generic person of that same moniker. If Amanda's boss had been white she still would have received the text from him and things would have gone the same way. When people in the past have decided to say "a black man did it" it's an easy scapegoat (more or less) because it's so vague. But Amanda didn't say "some black guy did it", she (allegedly) said her boss did it. The problem there is that the police could immediately go out and verify that person's alibi, whereas in the other instances they weren't naming anyone in particular and by leaving it ambiguous the police would never have anyone definitive to follow. If people can't see these differences then I don't know what to say.

 

[Solange305]

You might want to consult the membership agreement to verify that the prohibition against third party posting has been lifted before carrying on with this conversation by proxy.

You;re right, I wont be doing that further. I mostly meant it as a joke since certain posters love to bring up posts on PMF over here on a regular basis.

 

[Solange305]

My 2 cents on the whole Amanda accusing "a black man" is that it is fundamentally different than past cases where someone chose to pin the blame on a generic person of that same moniker. If Amanda's boss had been white she still would have received the text from him and things would have gone the same way. When people in the past have decided to say "a black man did it" it's an easy scapegoat (more or less) because it's so vague. But Amanda didn't say "some black guy did it", she (allegedly) said her boss did it. The problem there is that the police could immediately go out and verify that person's alibi, whereas in the other instances they weren't naming anyone in particular and by leaving it ambiguous the police would never have anyone definitive to follow. If people can't see these differences then I don't know what to say.

I see the differences, you have a point there. I personally think she falsely accused him out of convenience, not race.

 

[Solange305]

Solange305,

Are you now willing to concede that the machine gun was not part of a holocaust exhibit? I don't think that bringing the holocaust or Goebbels into a discussion about Amanda and her supporters is either accurate or clever.

I don't know, I missed it, was it proven it wasn't? If so, then I concede. However, if anything it was Amanda herself who helped spread that misinformation with the whole "Nazi" comment.

 

[RoseMontague]

Also from the appeal:

These circumstances have forced the acquisition trail to be put to comparison using more complex methods, which are based also on medico-legal expertise and especially orthopedic, as evidenced by Prof. Win "a more modern approach, adopted by the scientific community,that would see the subject all.acquisizione footprints walking on a walkway where it is secured on a walking path card length of six meters "(p. 376 above).
In fact, during the preliminary investigations were also acquired footprints "in movement of Raffaele Sollecito, although there is no trace of these in Reports from the scientific (p. 30 Report Prof. Vinci).

Machiavelli,
I am not sure if this is what you were looking for elsewhere. Possibly?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA discovery redux

You don't know why I'm here, yet I have discussed some specifics of the case and why I think they are guilty, your comment implies that I haven't. What I refuse to do is be like you, sit on my couch on my computer another country away and pretend that I know about DNA and scientific evidence more than an expert who, oh i don't know, trained in that field? It's presumptuous and laughable at times.

Solange,

Internationally known DNA experts such as Greg Hampikian and Dan Krane coauthored or cosigned an open letter that pointed out some of the flaws in the DNA profiling in this case. If you have not read it, I suggest you do so. Do you think that Dr. Stefanoni, who has never published a paper in DNA profiling, is more knowledgeable than they are? If so, why?

They also noted at that time and since then, that they have not been given complete access to the forensic information that they have repeatedly sought (I have documented this extensively). The purpose of discovery is to give the defense adequate information to challenge the evidence. It should be complete enough to put the defense's expert witnesses on an even footing with the prosecution's expert witnesses. Do you think that it is fair that they have not been given access to those files?

When people are denied access to the evidence being used against them, it is no laughing matter.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

It is a better description of the situation to say that one wound is incompatible with the larger knife, and the second wound is disputed

.

No, moment.
Chris said two wounds were incompatible. Chris was wrong. Only one wound is incompatible.

And it is not a good description to say the other wound instead is “disputed”. The other wound is not disputed, whereas the meaning of disputed would be there is at least one expert who says “it is incompatible”.

But there no expert is saying such thing.

Walter Patumi and Carlo Torre indeed bring arguments against the kitchen knife, but while those arguments are logical, they never state the knife is incompatible with the wound. And also they never dismiss the Lalli’s general principle by which virtually any knife could have produced the wounds on the left side.

Walter Patumi and Carlo Torre - in the cited chapters - bring arguments that are logical inferences, of dynamic and psycho-dynamic nature, against the possibility that the 17,5 cm bladed knife produced the wound.

Before considering all those arguments, concerning the dynamic and psycho-dynamic logical levels, the assessments expressed on sheer size of the wounds dos not differ from Lalli's and does not define them as “incompatible” with the kitchen knife.
They do not belive the kitchen knife was used. The larger wound is anyway physically compatible with the kitchen knife.

You state that the court rejected Torre's and Patumi's expert opinion; therefore, the matter is closed.

I didn’t put “therefore” in that sentence. Personally I think the matter is closed because I found Torre and Patumi’s arguments not convincing, and because I found the court’s opposing arguments convincing.

The first non convincing defensive argument is that the blows were all intended to kill and “very violent” , and that a killer would have used his whole strength and plunged the whole length of the blade.

This argument is in plain contradiction with the evidence, and with the other defensive claims. The physical data of these wounds show exactly the opposite: it is proven that the killer did not use his/her whole strength and did not use the whole blade lenght. This is obvious since the alleged weapon is claimed to be 8,5 long, while there is one wound only 4 cm deep, and another on the other side only 1,5 cm deep. It is obvious that the killer did not intend to assoult with full might and full violence on all these blows, and that the blade did not penetrate entirely in the victim’s body. So the logic assumption of this psycho-dynamic argument – that the blade would be plunging to its full depth - is contradicted by facts. A knife was used multiple times with its blade plunging only partially and not with full force. Moreover (a secondary observation) the blows show an uncertain intent to kill also in their orientation, they are not using the cutting edge of the blade and are not directioned to slash the throught, they are also disomogeneous and on two different sides.

The second unconvincing point is due to another grave contradiction of the defense theory. It is Introna’s and Torre explanation of how the large wound was produced by plunging a 8,5 long blade three times going back and forth. Which means, a 8,5 cm long blade should have been used with a motion back and forth three times and with full force. This dynamic is contradicted by the analysis of the internal section of the wound, the tri-dimensional path of the wound through tissues: there is only one point of arrival of the blade, whereas there are no “second” and “third” paths for a second or third penetration of the blade from a different angle. This back and forth movement of the blade to produce the cut is therefore impossible.

However, I still see no reason to discard the hypothesis that one knife was used to make all three of the wounds, whereas the hypothesis that the kitchen knife was used demands a second knife even in your scenario.

However, I see one reason more. On the bed sheet there is a print left by a knife showing a blade about 12-13 cm long. This print shows a blade not entirely compatible with the right wound (1,8 mm at 4 centmetres) and anyway too long to fit with Torre and Patumi’s theories of an 8,5 cm blade.

 

[Malkmus]

Solange,

Internationally known DNA experts such as Greg Hampikian and Dan Krane coauthored or cosigned an open letter that pointed out some of the flaws in the DNA profiling in this case. If you have not read it, I suggest you do so. Do you think that Dr. Stefanoni, who has never published a paper in DNA profiling, is more knowledgeable than they are? If so, why?

They also noted at that time and since then, that they have not been given complete access to the forensic information that they have repeatedly sought (I have documented this extensively). The purpose of discovery is to give the defense adequate information to challenge the evidence. It should be complete enough to put the defense's expert witnesses on an even footing with the prosecution's expert witnesses. Do you think that it is fair that they have not been given access to those files?

When people are denied access to the evidence being used against them, it is no laughing matter.

Unfortunately, this always gets hand-waved away as "FOA", without any real reason except that it is unfathomable to some that anyone in the professional sector would criticize the evidence unless they were paid puppets who will compromise their integrity/profession for a quick buck.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Im sorry you find it so baffling, it must be hard to find a good majority of the country baffling as well, since as far as I can tell, the majority does not believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

This is what we call an Appeal to Popularity, one of the canonical fallacies. A million people can say a stupid thing, and it is still a stupid thing. You may find it comforting to think that lots of people agree with you - to me it is neither here nor there either way.

You don't know why I'm here, yet I have discussed some specifics of the case and why I think they are guilty, your comment implies that I haven't. What I refuse to do is be like you, sit on my couch on my computer another country away and pretend that I know about DNA and scientific evidence more than an expert who, oh i don't know, trained in that field? It's presumptuous and laughable at times.

I have mocked this talking point before, and it really is indicative of the poverty of the guilter position on the time of death, and the sheer scientific illiteracy of the guilter group, that this is the sole talking point you have on the matter.

You do not need to be a pathologist to read and understand the scientific literature about t(lag) as far as it pertains to the time of death. Nobody with any understanding of how science actually works would find that claim anything other than utterly laughable.

All you need is competence in understanding the English language, some basic knowledge of statistics, access to the texts in question (available from every university library) and the inclination to learn.

Doing that won't make you a pathologist. You won't then be competent to perform autopsies, examine biopsies, diagnose illnesses, carry out treatments, conduct medical research or do any of the other things that people with MDs and advanced qualifications in pathology do. However you will indeed know exactly as much as they do about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature says about t(lag).

This is no different from you going to wikipedia to find out what the speed of light in a vacuum is. Doing so won't make you the equivalent of someone who has a Ph.D. in physics, but you will know exactly as much as one as far as what the speed of light in a vacuum is goes.

 

[Justinian2]

This is what we call an Appeal to Popularity, one of the canonical fallacies.

Democracy isn't always right, but it's always safe to be on the side of the majority.

All you need is competence in understanding the English language, some basic knowledge of statistics, access to the texts in question (available from every university library) and the inclination to learn.

All schools teach the scientific method, but it doesn't always get assimilated.

Why doesn't everybody know this?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the strange men myth

To all,

I would like to address one other attack on Amanda’s character that has shown up here and elsewhere, the charge that she brought home “strange men” to the girls’ flat, with the not too subtle implication that the men were sexual partners. There was only one man whom Meredith thought was strange, and that was Juve, who worked at Le Chic and had a girlfriend (Murder in Italy, pp. 110-116). I hope that we do not have to whack this mole again.