Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[tsig]

A couple of further comments on the "you're not a pathologist" mole, in the hope that if we hammer it down hard enough this time it will stay down for a while:

I think I've explained clearly more than once why this talking point is stupid, and reflective of serious collective ignorance about how science (and for that matter tertiary education) work.

However there is more to it than merely being stupid. This argument (as I will explain) is also dishonest, and also hypocritical.

It is hypocritical because guilters, often the same ones putting forward the "you're not a pathologist!" talking point are quite happy to position themselves as self-educated experts on interrogation psychology, DNA forensics, police procedure, how glass breaks under the impact of a slow-moving projectile and everything else under the sun pertaining to the case. It's only on this one particular issue, where they very much do not like the results of the research we have done, that they get all relativist on us and start saying "None of us can really know anything, we have to rely on the experts, and by that I mean that subset of experts whose statements taken out of context can be taken to imply that t(lag) can be five and a half hours. Not the experts stating very explicitly and in context that this is incredibly improbable".

If you guilters want to run the "You're not a pathologist" meme at least be consistent about it. Stop posting your views on any subject which you are not personally qualified to speak about as an expert witness. After all, you can have nothing to say about such topics.

Perhaps more importantly it's a dishonest argument unless the people putting it forward would genuinely switch immediately to the pro-innocence side based on the stomach contents evidence if only a qualified pathologist posted that evidence. My amateur-psychological, non-conclusive opinion at this time is that this is about as likely as Vladimir Putin winning the Miss America pageant.

One of my old school friends happens to be a pathologist. He doesn't do autopsies, it must be said, he spends his time looking at microscope slides that get sent to the private lab where he works. So why his job should become the be-all and end-all of authority on this matter to the guilters is a bit puzzling, but then again they probably don't have a very clear idea about what a pathologist is anyway. My guess is that all they know about it is that the people who do autopsies are pathologists.

I haven't spoken to him about the case because he's got a new kid and so he doesn't get out of the house much lately, so I just haven't seen him. However if I did have a chat with him and he agreed with me and I posted that, or for that matter if he got himself a forum ID and posted that agreement here, does anyone really think that the guilters would all do a one hundred and eighty degree turn and start spamming blogs with posts about how the Massei report is a load of old tosh and that the autopsy evidence combined with the computer evidence proves that Amanda and Raffaele are completely innocent?

If you believe that this is exactly what they would do, then you can't view the "you're not a pathologist" argument as dishonest. I do not find such an outcome remotely plausible. Based on their response to other experts in relevant fields who have spoken out against the verdict in the Knox case, they'd just find some reason to ignore any expert opinions that don't fit with their existing beliefs.

So let's never see this mole pop up again. It's a stupid, ignorant, hypocritical and dishonest argument and it should damned well stay in its hole from now on.

Then I hope to never see another post from you with "t(lag)" in it.

 

[loverofzion]

Yes, it is getting ridiculous. All you're doing is repeating yourself without trying to understand the other interpretation. Since Amanda is mentioned immediately beforehand, nobody can be sure who he is referring to.



That's rubbish. Firstly, Amanda and Raffaele are still officially innocent until the appeal process is complete. Secondly, even in the US and certainly in the UK, nobody ever has to prove they're innocent; what they have to do is show that the court reached the wrong verdict in the first trial - on the evidence presented at the time.

The Massei verdict was completely divorced from reality. That is why those who actually want Amanda and Raffaele to be guilty, are only interested in turning unimportant details into something they're not.

If the pair are "officially innocent" then what are they doing sitting in prison?

 

[loverofzion]

It's not a coincidence at all that Amanda falsely accused Patrick. She gave up Patrick because he is the specific person the police pressured her to accuse. Since he is the person with whom she exchanged the "see you later" text.

On the other hand, it is entirely pure coincidence that the actual killer happened to be black, as is Patrick.

The police actually had no possible reason to suspect Patrick until Amanda brought him up in her accusation "He's bad...he's bad..."

 

[Justinian2]

Which has no comparison to this case. Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

It is a straw man, in that it supposes that they were convicted on a lack of alibi alone, which wasn't the case.

Raffaele's computer wasn't destroyed by the police. The hard drive was fine and cloned. And since that was the computer he claimed to have been using that night...I think that's all that matters. I will also remind you that Raffaele's expert was present in person when this was done.

Temps weren't taken because the police didn't want to let the doctor in until they'd preserved the crime scene. Had they not done so and we had proper temps, you'd still be complaining the case was bunk because the doctor had disturbed the crimes scene.

Anyway, what does rectal temperature matter? I thought, according to you people, stomach content was the the piece de resistance of measuring TOD!

Nobody asked the accused to prove their innocence, only to answer to the evidence that existed against them. That's fair enough isn't it? If they don't answer it, that's fine. But they can hardly then complain when they are found guilty.

Nobody has shown "lab mistakes".

pg 21

an expert report on the computers of the accused was requested, the memories of which were found to have been damaged at the time of the analysis of the supports carried out by the Postal Police, such that the hard drives could not be duplicated/cloned for subsequent examination.

pg 299 of the Massei report:

As far as the accused Raffaele Sollecito goes, the Postal Police technical examination was carried out only on his MacBook PRO Apple laptop. Insofar as his other PC, an ASUS L300D, as well as Amanda Knox's Toshiba serial number 7541811OK and Meredith Kercher's G4 iBook sustained damage, it was impossible to retrieve data from their respective hard drives.

OK, one computer wasn't damaged. I guess the term is damaged, not destroyed. However, for the purpose of the previous trial, data wasn't available, due to ineptness of the investigation team, which could have cleared RK and AK.

As far as the temperatures being taken in a timely manner that would have proved the time of death, it doesn't matter whether the police are at fault or the police procedure is at fault. The bottom line is that the temperatures were NOT taken in a sufficiently timely manner to produce accurate results. It was ten minutes before one on the 3rd before a temperature measurement was taken. The online ToD calculator on http://www.pathguy.com/TimeDead.htm will only estimate ToD to 20 hours before the temperature measurement. The results of the Massei report quoted a time of death within a 4 hour period, and even that is nearly useless.

I stand pat on most of what I said. The investigation and prosecution teams destroyed much of the evidence needed for a strong alibi and produced no valid evidence of their own.

I stand corrected in that RS's Apple computer was not damaged.

 

[Mary_H]

In fact, [Nara] didn't mistake several things. She didn't make any mistake, but she didn't remember date and time. Which is normal, because dates and times are not objects for the memory, people often don't know what date is today (they may ask it) and often don't take note of the time.

I agree. We'll keep your position about that in mind next time someone says Amanda is a liar because she couldn't remeber when she called whom, or what time she and Raffaele had dinner.

But [Nara] remembered very well the scream. It is not reasonable to assume she had mistaken the scream. Sorry, but this is really not reasonable. You have infinite occasions to be uncertain about the date, but you won't make a mistake on hearing the desperate scream of a woman. I'm not talking of a "mistake" on time like Amanda's, who says "the only thing I am certain about is that we had dinner late".

Oh.

Never mind.

 

[Mary_H]

If the pair are "officially innocent" then what are they doing sitting in prison?

loverofzion, do you think every person who sits in prison is guilty?

(Keeping in mind that WWII concentration camps were prisons.)

 

[Chris C]

You are aware that the post of Judge is not a political post? So why do you think that it would have been political suicide? It's not like Massei would have lost his job, even if he would have returned a 'Not guilty' verdict.

You dont think judges have their own politics?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin,

Let's suppose Dr. Solliceto didn't get his information directly from his son, but from reading the Prison Diary. If papa found any ambiguity in the relevant passage of the Diary, don't you think papa would clarify this issue with his son during a prison visit, before he would advance this "I pricked Meredith" defense in public? So if papa is relying solely on his reading of the Prison Diary, papa saw no ambiguity at all. (But you do?)

What's surprising about that? There are perfectly intelligent people here who disagree with me on this point. I happen think that they are more likely than not wrong, but it could be they are right. The fact that Dr. Sollecito is one of them doesn't tell me anything new.

On second thought. Even if Doctor Sollecito had got this information "directly," as you put it, from his son--- and by that I suppose you mean in verbal conversation in prison--- why would that satisfy you as to Raffaele's meaning in his Prison Diary? If papa misinterpets what Raffaele writes........so he can misinterpret what his son speaks.

There was never any ambiguity in what Raffaele wrote. It's purely an invention, intended to deflect accusations of Raffaele lying. And ---so far as I know ---Dr. Sollecito has not retracted the claim that his son had pricked Meredith.

Now you're indulging yourself in the liberty of imagining facts which aren't real, and speculating about what I'd do if they were. I see no need to respond to this.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That argument sucked. Badly lol. When "guilters" post their opinions about broken glass and such, it's just that, an opinion, and it's usually to counter all the opinions you guys throw out there. What they don't do is accuse experts of being incorrect and accusing them of doing their job incorrectly and prosecuting innocent people. That is the problem I have.

This is an extraordinary piece of special pleading. It seems to me you freely ignore the expert opinions of defence experts, and ignore the parts of Dr. Lalli and Professor Ronchi's testimony that you don't like the sound of completely.

The difference is that I have the honesty to nail my colours to the mast when I disagree with a given "expert", and I back up my position with evidence from the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

I actually see this as morally preferable to ignoring the expert opinions inconsistent with guilt, based on no evidence at all. I don't think one can do that and then pretend that one is on a superior moral level because you're not "accusing" them of screwing up. If you think Dr. Lalli and Professor Ronchi were wrong, then please do show us the peer-reviewed scientific literature to back that up rather than just ignoring them.

Like I said once at PMF, I have no problem with people looking over the Massei report, looking over the evidence, and studying it. What bothers me is when people think that they can prove experts wrong based on google searches and guesses. So please, don't compare what we do to what you do, it;s not even close to comparable. Its ok to ask questions, but I think it's presumptuous to pretend that you know more than the people who studied many years and have worked many years in a certain field.

"Google searches and guesses"? Allow me to correct you on this point yet again, although I am very tired of this nonsense after so many repetitions.

I am citing the gold standard for factual evidence in the reality-based community. I am citing the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the highest authority there is on matters of fact on this little blue/green planet of ours. This is not *********** "Google searches and guesses", this is as good as any evidential support for any factual position ever gets.

This argument can only originate in profound ignorance about how science, evidence and tertiary education work, and I think that it's rather cheeky to accuse others of presumptuousness after posting something like this.

As long as you keep playing pathologist/judge/DNA specialist/everything else, I guarantee you it won't be "staying in it's hole".

Yet I don't see you, for example, accusing Machiavelli of "presumptuousness" for presenting his unsourced and unsupported opinions about wound forensics as fact despite his not having any qualifications to perform an autopsy, do I?

I stand by the position that this talking point is not only stupid, but also hypocritical and dishonest.

It seems to me that you do not attack anyone's qualifications to speak on any topic, except in this one case where the highest evidence available unequivocally shows the entire pro-guilt intellectual edifice to be rotten to the foundations.

 

[Dan O.]

Was there a scream?

Using the tools of science in situations where there is a high prevalence of noise, it is customary to look for coincident indications of an event to rule out that it was just another noise spike. Let's examine the case of the scream...

The first mention of the scream comes from Amanda's interrogation late into the night of Nov. 5th. Amanda however is not offering that there was a scream but is saying she was covering her ears so as not to hear the scream. This is the first blip that there might be a signal but there is too much noise in the way the interrogation was conducted to rule out that it could have come from the interrogator.

The next indication comes from Rudy's diary. Rudy claims to have heard a scream while he was sitting on the toilet listening to his iPod when he heard Meredith scream. Even given Rudy's propensity to tell lies, this could have been a cooberation of the scream. Unfortunately, Rudy's diary contains references to Amanda and Raffaele that he got from the news media so he would have also picked up that the prosecutors expected there to be a scream in the story and so he gave them one.

A third potential indicator of the scream comes from Nara. We've already been through the difficulty that Nara would have had to actually hear a scream from the cottage. This would be a moot point if Nara was providing an independent confirmation of there being a scream. Here's again though, Nara doesn't report hearing the scream until well after the news media had been reporting that there was a scream based on the report of the interrogation. Nara may have created a false memory of a scream that she convinced herself she must have heard.

A conclusion that there was a scream cannot be scientifically made from the evidence we have seen so far because there was a single noise source that could have contaminated all the measurements.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Raffaele's computer wasn't destroyed by the police. The hard drive was fine and cloned. And since that was the computer he claimed to have been using that night...I think that's all that matters. I will also remind you that Raffaele's expert was present in person when this was done.

You seem to be talking around the point. The police destroyed the relevant evidence on Raffaele's computer that, if it was intact, would have confirmed or falsified their alibi, before cloning it.

Now how do you think Amanda and Raffaele knew that the police were going to do that? Because presumably you think they were lying about watching Naruto and Stardust, because if they were telling the truth the whole Massei narrative falls apart and into the dustbin. But if they were lying, it would have been trivial for the police to prove this... if only they hadn't destroyed that evidence after they had established what Raffaele and Amanda's alibi was.

Using Naruto and Stardust for their alibi only makes sense if they were telling the truth, and knew that the data on Raffaele's hard drive would back them up.

Temps weren't taken because the police didn't want to let the doctor in until they'd preserved the crime scene. Had they not done so and we had proper temps, you'd still be complaining the case was bunk because the doctor had disturbed the crimes scene.

Anyway, what does rectal temperature matter? I thought, according to you people, stomach content was the the piece de resistance of measuring TOD!

I find it very hard to reconcile this argument with the charitable presumption that your statements are made in good faith.

You know very well that the 21:05-22:00 time of death has been established by a combination of witness testimony, mathematics, stomach contents, body temperature and cell phone records. All of these taken together clearly show that Meredith was very highly likely to have been attacked by 21:10, and that a nigh-absolute upper limit on the plausible time of death is 22:00.

So why are you posting this nonsense? You know that it is a false characterisation of the pro-innocence position unless you have a very, very poor memory indeed.

You have a large number of other unanswered questions on your plate. I would very much to see you attempt to answer them this time.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no reply at all

If the pair are "officially innocent" then what are they doing sitting in prison?

loverofzion,

They were in custody for almost a year before being formally charged, so the logic of your position is minimal at best.

How are your replies coming along? I have more than six comments directed toward you that have never been answered, and other posters have some as well. I was hoping you would come back and answer some of them. I feel like Phil Collins.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amanda spoke with Patrick that day

The police actually had no possible reason to suspect Patrick until Amanda brought him up in her accusation "He's bad...he's bad..."

Amanda had spoken with Patrick earlier that day, to tell him she would have to quit. The police might have been aware that the two had talked. Have you made any progress on your replies to those of us who asked you questions or directed comments toward you?

 

[Amazer]

You dont think judges have their own politics?

So? How does that impact the verdict?

 

[Danceme]

Then I hope to never see another post from you with "t(lag)" in it.

I am citing the gold standard for factual evidence in the reality-based community. I am citing the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the highest authority there is on matters of fact on this little blue/green planet of ours. This is not *********** "Google searches and guesses", this is as good as any evidential support for any factual position ever gets.

What a flabbergasting post! You posted two links back when but refused to quote anything from these two articles you found by googling yourself. The "gold standard", really? Get over yourself.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What a flabbergasting post! You posted two links but refused to quote anything from these two articles you found by googling yourself. The "gold standard", really? Get over yourself.

Do you really think it's going to get you anywhere on this board to attack the speaker, on this of all points?

The people here are very well aware of the role the peer-reviewed literature plays in science and in the evidence-based world view.

Telling me to "got over myself" for pointing out that the gold standard for factual claims is the scientific literature is as asinine as telling me to "get over myself" for pointing out that the world is not flat and supported by a quartet of elephants. This is not a questionable assertion backed only by my personal authority: It's a statement of fact held to be universally true by everyone who understands the matter.

The scientific literature is the gold standard whether or not the person telling you so is a big meany and whether or not you or any other person who believes in the Massei narrative has the inclination to get off their backside and look at it.

Based on the history of science, it's conclusions aren't going to change much either. They will almost certainly be refined in the future, and special cases we don't currently understand more completely explored, but you're not going to see mean t(lag) suddenly become five and a half hours in the next published paper any more than you're going to see a paper coming out telling you that the speed of light is 50kph downhill with the wind behind it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What a flabbergasting post! You posted two links back when but refused to quote anything from these two articles you found by googling yourself. The "gold standard", really? Get over yourself.

Thanks, its late here and a smile goes a long way before bed.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Then I hope to never see another post from you with "t(lag)" in it.

Allow me to clarify your apparent misunderstanding.

I am perfectly comfortable with people pointing to replicated studies in the peer-reviewed literature as evidence that a given expert, on either side, got something wrong. If anything I very dearly wish that pro-guilt posters here would do so more often, or indeed ever.

My point is that it would be hugely hypocritical for someone to assert that you needed to be a pathologist before you are entitled to state what is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, but then defend or support the collection of pro-guilt non-pathologists, non-DNA experts, non-forensic-professionals and non-logicians who "presumptuously" make claims about pathology, DNA, forensics or logic.

 

[Chris C]

So? How does that impact the verdict?

Maybe you need to reread the comments?

I found a quote at TJfM, “Amazingly, even the deeply respected Massei Report is coming in for ridicule.” I for one do not make fun of the report. What I do say is that one of the two reasons that Massei gives for accepting that some of the bra clasp DNA is Raffaele’s is contrary to the principles of forensic genetics. It is not a question of ridicule: I think it is unfortunate that a judge trained in law has to give opinions on matters of science. This error does not automatically invalidate the whole report. However, it should cause one and all to treat the other conclusions of the report with great caution.

I do not Blame Massei, he had no choice in this matter. It would have been political suicide to overturn the conviction. Instead he had to make everything fit and thats why that report is the way it is.

When I envision the prosecutions case the Big Bang Theory comes to mind. When I was in school the BBT was just starting to get its roots.
If i remember correctly then the universe was between 5 and 7 billion years old. It was very simple in the beginning. However as the years have passed BBT has turned into dozens of theories with evidence contradicting other theories. So now the BBT is just a collection of multiple theories.

At the center of this murder is Amanda.
From the start Mignini is after Amanda. Afterall they all believe she is the one from the very beginning. They just had to prove it. As more and more bits of possible evidence comes in the prosecution starts to add multiple theories that doesn't quite fit with the other theories of the case. Then at the trial the prosecution dumps all their EVIDENCE and theories on the jury and point the finger at KNOX. However, none of the evidence proves a theory it just contradicts the other theories. Any attempt to attack the evidence is met with resistance by not allowing the defense to examine it. Any attempt to add evidence is met with resistance by the Prosecution and Judge.
However, this investigation and trial where doomed from the beginning because Meredith should have been the center of the Murder.

You are aware that the post of Judge is not a political post? So why do you think that it would have been political suicide? It's not like Massei would have lost his job, even if he would have returned a 'Not guilty' verdict.

You dont think judges have their own politics?

In a case that is clearly high profile and the jury returns with a guilty verdict it would be political suicide to overturn the jury's decision. Basicly I'm agreeing with Massei's decision not to overturn the verdict, because even judges have their own form of politics within their ranks. If he would have overturned the verdict he would have disassociated himself from the rest of his peers.
So instead of overturning the verdict, Massei has to make the evidence fit as best he can in his report. I'm pretty sure every judge in Massei's position has to do this, and every judge has this exact dilemma. In their report they have to make the evidence fit the decision of the jury. Massei's task of trying to make sense of all the crap the prosecution fed the jury wasn't an easy task. You can see that by reading the Massei report and then looking at the appeals of Sollecito and Knox and see where they are attacking it at.

Or to answer your question.

He could have just committed political suicide within the judicial ranks and said not guilty. Losing his job would have been a possibility however most likely he would have lost the confidence and respect of his peers. Or do you think there would have been no repercussions if he said, "not guilty?"

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Maybe you need to reread the comments?

In a case that is clearly high profile and the jury returns with a guilty verdict it would be political suicide to overturn the jury's decision. Basicly I'm agreeing with Massei's decision not to overturn the verdict, because even judges have their own form of politics within their ranks. If he would have overturned the verdict he would have disassociated himself from the rest of his peers.
So instead of overturning the verdict, Massei has to make the evidence fit as best he can in his report. I'm pretty sure every judge in Massei's position has to do this, and every judge has this exact dilemma. In their report they have to make the evidence fit the decision of the jury. Massei's task of trying to make sense of all the crap the prosecution fed the jury wasn't an easy task. You can see that by reading the Massei report and then looking at the appeals of Sollecito and Knox and see where they are attacking it at.

Or to answer your question.

He could have just committed political suicide within the judicial ranks and said not guilty. Losing his job would have been a possibility however most likely he would have lost the confidence and respect of his peers. Or do you think there would have been no repercussions if he said, "not guilty?"

I think that both sides in this subtopic are making all sorts of claims and suppositions, but neither side has presented any evidence at all, merely attempted to foist the burden of proof on the other.

As such this seems unproductive to me unless someone on either side has some evidence regarding the pressure Massei may or may not have been under to justify a guilty verdict.