Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

This isn't very interesting. Are you going to talk about the actual evidence for Amanda and Raffaele's guilt at some point?

This topic was brought in by others, regards Italian society, and it is proposed with insistence as a main ideologic pillar of belief. I may make clear what my views are, thoroughly, on any of the arguments believed and talked about by the other part.

 

[loverofzion]

Well, no, because the idea that sexually active women are more likely to be homicidal maniacs isn't strictly speaking a logical one. It's not a fact that could be produced as evidence, it's a popular prejudice. So it could be far more effectively used to sway a press and public before the trial started (especially since, for the press, it served the dual purpose of titillation, sex plus murder selling papers) than it could have been had it been introduced as a serious piece of evidence.

I think you misunderestimate Mignini if you think he doesn't understand the importance of pre-trial publicity.

The press and public had actually very little impact on the unanimous judicial decision.
I fear you don't give the judges and jurors enough credit for listening and deliberating the evidence and witnesses in order to arrive at their unanimous decision to convict the pair.

As for titillation, Amanda seems to have welcomed the attention throughout most of the trial.

 

[loverofzion]

But you said this a while back, triggering this discussion:

"She was reported to have been waiting outside the store at 7:45 when the owner opened; I believe they knew they had several hours at least until either roommate returned. It was a holiday weekend and they were aware of that."

Have you now changed your mind then?

It would frankly be impossible to know what amanda and her boyfriend had in their minds after the murder.
She either thought Laura would be back at any time, or she thought she would take a few hours.
There really is no way to know .

Tho' personally I don't see as it makes much difference in the total picture; at most it would show their hurriedness or relative leisure in trying to erase traces of themselves at the cottage.

 

[loverofzion]

I am indeed disgusted. By your (and Fulcanelli's) post.

I suggest you read up on the relationships between prolonged psychological stress/adrenalin release/vitamin B12 depletion and herpes sores (or cold sores).

But not between all the above and crass inappropriate t shirts.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This topic was brought in by others, regards Italian society, and it is proposed with insistence as a main ideologic pillar of belief.

I don't know where you got the idea that it's a "main ideologic pillar of belief".

Some people take it to be evidence that Amanda was deliberately lied to about her HIV status in order to get her to cough up a list of sexual contacts, in the hope that Rudy would be on the list.

Some people take it that this is absolutely inconceivable, and that Amanda was treated perfectly ethically.

Absolutely nobody that I'm aware of thinks that this is a core issue with regards to the case, that says anything at all about her guilt or innocence.

I may make clear what my views are, thoroughly, on any of the arguments believed and talked about by the other part.

Of course you can.

However I'd hoped that you would contribute something meaningful, that we hadn't already heard, about the important facts of the case. The evidence regarding Meredith's time of death, for example, or the puzzle of why Amanda and Raffaele used watching Stardust as their alibi for the evening before they knew that the police destroyed that evidence, and why the police destroyed that evidence after they knew it was Raffaele's and Amanda's alibi.

You know, issues that go to the heart of whether the Massei narrative is or is not a complete logical face-plant.

 

[loverofzion]

Vilification of the defendants is a psychological reaction for the intense cognitive dissonance -the belief in guilt is very strong yet lack of strong evidence is jarring.
They are already guilty because they are drug addicted, promiscuous, lying, manga reading, herpes infected, cartwheel spinning narcissists. Believing that way it's much easier to accept the shabby evidence as sound and unconvincing witnesses as rock solid.

Sorry but you really have no idea of what you are talking when you speak of cognitive dissonance.
Amanda and her cohort's characters being viewed as shoddy and narcissistic- versus the "shabby evidence"- is not cognitively dissonant to anyone because the supposedly opposing opinions do not exist simultaneously.
Therefore guilters believe the evidence no matter what the appaent charcter; there really is no need to diffuse any dissonance.

 

[Malkmus]

The Italian judicial system would consider her diary as statements and declarations, not as something personal and sincere. And there is probably nothing that can be seen as specifically "immoral" in her description of herself in her diary, except the fact she never expresses pain for Meredith's death.

Machiavelli, have you read Amanda's diary in its entirety, or are you simply referring to the excerpts that have been published randomly? If you have access to the entire diary, please share.

 

[Chris C]

You seem to have left out the bit about the diary getting into the investigation file.

Or the part about the photos that where taken of the diary while in possession of the investigators.

 

[loverofzion]

I've seen this talking point stated over and over but fail to see the mop story being given any special treatment by Amanda or Raf, other than it being a part of recounting the night and next morning's events. Could you elaborate on how "they went out of their way to go on about the mop's importance"?

They both brought it up several times in recounting their varying alibis; at one time it was to clean up a leak under raffaelo's sink; in another there was a spill from cooking pasta; the 2 volunteered details of the purposes of the mop which roused experienced investigators' interest in said item.

 

[Chris C]

But I am glad to remind you Mignini. Nobody is going to explain how Amanda's diary came to the press, because nobody is supposed to know nor to explain this, moreover this is not your buisness nor mine nor nobody's buisness, and I have no interst in it. I have made quite clear that in the Italian system the sized diary is an unprotected piece of evidence. Nobody will make it safe just to make a favour to Amanda. There is no protection. The diary is not secret. Delivering the trial file to somebody is no violation per se. An investigation file may be secret only for a limited period of time. Even the clerk at a judge's office could have leaked it: clerks always leak documents to journalists from trial files.

Once again, it was leaked by allowing the person physical access to the diary and then allowed to take pictures. This means the evidence was compromised by violation of chain of custody.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the waiting is the hardest part, second chorus

loverofzion,

I took the time to list a number of unanswered questions and comments from myself and Mary_H directed toward you. What is your response to them?

 

[Malkmus]

They both brought it up several times in recounting their varying alibis; at one time it was to clean up a leak under raffaelo's sink; in another there was a spill from cooking pasta; the 2 volunteered details of the purposes of the mop which roused experienced investigators' interest in said item.

So, then as the mop story was part of the events which took place the night before and morning after the murder, isn't it necessary for them to mention it each time they recounted that sequence of events? Please tell me how Amanda would be able to ever sum up those events without mentioning the leak and mop.
Amanda mentions the the water as a "spill" in her email home, but I don't see how this negates the leak itself as the damage to the sink was verified by the investigators.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amanda's diary with respect to Meredith's death

Y And there is probably nothing that can be seen as specifically "immoral" in her description of herself in her diary, except the fact she never expresses pain for Meredith's death.

Machiavelli,

Your comment is far off the topic of the HIV testing. Moreover, it is flatly untrue. In comment #4876 I quoted a portion of the diary where Amanda cried over several things including Meredith's death. She also wondered about Meredith's final moments in another portion of her diary, and in this section she refers to Meredith as a friend.

Another mole whacked, but for how long will it stay that way?

 

[Machiavelli]

However I'd hoped that you would contribute something meaningful, that we hadn't already heard, about the important facts of the case. The evidence regarding Meredith's time of death, for example, or the puzzle of why Amanda and Raffaele used watching Stardust as their alibi for the evening before they knew that the police destroyed that evidence, and why the police destroyed that evidence after they knew it was Raffaele's and Amanda's alibi

.

Well, actually I don't think Massei's narrative (properly, the court of assise's narrative) is the main object of the case and I don't think the evidence depends on the particular logical consistence of the narrative chosen by the court.
I think I have some more to say about other topics before.
I can say something in advance on the mentioned issues: I simply think the evidence is non sensitive to the time of death. There are several windows were it is possible to locate time of death, it is quite indifferent respect to the evidence, whether Meredith died at 22:00 or at 23:30, with the sole exception of Antonio Curatolo's testimony. But I never consider Curatolo's testimony when I think at the evidence.
The second argument is completely flawed. I think by "desctruction of evidence" you can only mean the modification of log file due to new "last access" data. Even here, there is no reason to assume the police ever accessed the file (there is not even a reason why they should destroy evidence, loosing information doesn't help them). The laptop was on for days after the murder and the file shared on a P2P application all the time. Anybody or any automatically launched application can change this log data. Moreover, there is not much for asserting that a last access on Stardust could be "evidence". The truth is we don't even have the word of Raffaele claiming of the use of Stardus, because Raffaele refused to answer in court and refused to make statements on the topic, so any alleged previous claim of him is unconfirmed hersay and because of his silence his police statements are not entered in the court debate.
On the other side, there is an evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied in their recollection of the night (this is a topic itself).

 

[Machiavelli]

This means the evidence was compromised by violation of chain of custody.

The evidence file is not under a chain of custody.

 

[Machiavelli]

halides,

Amanda has the right to write whatever she likes in her diary, to be a narcissist or a sociopath, without necessarily being a killer. But if you want to speak of what sounds moral - and seems this is what you chose to talk - then your citation says it:

In comment #4876 I quoted a portion of the diary where Amanda cried over several things including Meredith's death.

It is exactly so: after her frustration is triggered by the fact they don't believe her, as she cries for her being stuck into things, she also cries for Meredith.
And I believe her, that her friend's death hurts her in that moment.

"So when I went back to my cell, I cried at the ugliness of it all, my being in prison, my friend dead, the police following a cold and irrational trail because they have nothing better".

"so" - after what happened with the police - when she went back to her cell, she thinks to the "ugliess of it all". I believe her. Anyone is free to judge this text as they feel and draw their conclusion.

 

[Diastole]

HIV test accuracy

Machiavelli, forgive me if I have misinterpreted your post #7811, but are you suggesting that public health officials in Italy do not routinely perform contact tracing for infectuous diseases such as HIV?

Given the specificity of current 3rd and 4th generation ELISA tests for HIV in the range of 99.5% for a low-risk population (99.9% for ELISA plus confirmatory Western blot), one might be quite justified in questioning the circumstances around her dubious "false positive" result.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This topic was brought in by others, regards Italian society, and it is proposed with insistence as a main ideologic pillar of belief. I may make clear what my views are, thoroughly, on any of the arguments believed and talked about by the other part.

It's a fair question, though. What do you think happened that night? Do you accept Massei's theory that Rudy started the trouble, and Amanda and Raffaele sided with him against Meredith? What about the kitchen knife - do you agree that it's possible, even likely, that Amanda was carrying it in her purse for personal protection? And how about Meredith's cell phone activity at 10 pm - are you in agreement with Massei that this was simply idle fingering of the keys? And why do you suppose she made no further attempt to call her mother, after attempting to call at 8:56 pm?

I'd very much like your thoughts on these points. You have an impressive English vocabulary, and you don't hold back in using it, but for all the verbiage you have contributed, I never have understood what you think happened to Meredith Kercher.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

.

Well, actually I don't think Massei's narrative (properly, the court of assise's narrative) is the main object of the case and I don't think the evidence depends on the particular logical consistence of the narrative chosen by the court.

If the Massei narrative was false then they were convicted on the base of a false case, correct? If so I cannot see how it can not be "the main object of the case".

You can't legitimately convict someone if it's not possible for them to have done it.

I think I have some more to say about other topics before.
I can say something in advance on the mentioned issues: I simply think the evidence is non sensitive to the time of death. There are several windows were it is possible to locate time of death, it is quite indifferent respect to the evidence, whether Meredith died at 22:00 or at 23:30, with the sole exception of Antonio Curatolo's testimony. But I never consider Curatolo's testimony when I think at the evidence.

As we have shown by citing the peer-reviewed scientific literature, there is no way known to science that a normal, healthy young woman who had eaten a small-to-moderate size meal with no alcohol, serious stress or other confounding factors could have no digested matter at all in her duodenum at 23:30.

No confounding factors with any plausibility have been suggested.

That evidence rules out all times of death later than 22:00, and makes any time of death after 21:30 incredibly unlikely. The most likely time of death by far is the earliest which can be reconciled with the witness evidence that says Meredith wasn't home until 21:05 or so.

This is also consistent with the body temperature evidence, the anomalous phone use and the anomalous 22:13 ping.

Whereas the Massei narrative has absolutely no positive forensic evidence whatsoever to push forward the time of death.

You can either contest these facts with facts and citations of your own, or accept that Meredith almost certainly died in the 21:05-21:30 range and that Amanda and Raffaele are therefore innocent. There is no rational alternative.

The second argument is completely flawed. I think by "desctruction of evidence" you can only mean the modification of log file due to new "last access" data. Even here, there is no reason to assume the police ever accessed the file (there is not even a reason why they should destroy evidence, loosing information doesn't help them). The laptop was on for days after the murder and the file shared on a P2P application all the time.

The alterations to the Stardust metadata occurred six days after the murder while the laptop was in police custody but had not yet (as far as we have been told) been backed up.

There is an excellent reason for corrupt police to destroy this evidence: It almost certainly falsified the prosecutor's theory that Amanda and Raffaele were in a drug-fuelled orgy at Amanda's place, when they claimed that they were at home watching Stardust.

If the police had the laptop plugged into an internet connection with access to the outside world, which is what it would take for the P2P excuse to hold water, that would be just as amazingly incompetent as destroying multiple hard drives without backing them up, and destroying the evidence which could prove or disprove two of the suspects' alibis.

Past a certain point, the charitable hypothesis that these were the most incompetent computer forensics workers in all of human history ceases to be credible.

Anybody or any automatically launched application can change this log data.

No. You have to open the specific file. The laptop was in police custody at the time, so the only "anybody" with access to do so was the police.

Moreover, there is not much for asserting that a last access on Stardust could be "evidence". The truth is we don't even have the word of Raffaele claiming of the use of Stardus, because Raffaele refused to answer in court and refused to make statements on the topic, so any alleged previous claim of him is unconfirmed hersay and because of his silence his police statements are not entered in the court debate.

This is really a reach. If the file was opened at a time when prosecution witnesses or theories have them out on the town or murdering Meredith that is hard fact, recorded in ones and zeroes, that the given witness was lying or that the given theory is false.

On the other side, there is an evidence that Amanda and Raffaele lied in their recollection of the night (this is a topic itself).

We hear this sort of vague accusation a lot, but please don't get into this sort of petty stuff before you answer the tough questions about the time of death and the computer forensics.

Once we've sorted that out you can cite specific sources to back up the claim that they lied, and we can look at them, if it's still relevant in any way.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you accept Massei's theory that Rudy started the trouble, and Amanda and Raffaele sided with him against Meredith?

I don't know if this reconstruction is entirely correct. I think Rudy's initiative was essential in creating the point of no-return and the problem at a certain point. I always thought the whole chain of event is a more complex picture and there is information missing.

What about the kitchen knife - do you agree that it's possible, even likely, that Amanda was carrying it in her purse for personal protection?

No.
I think it is more likely somebody fetched the knife at a certain time. From the very cottage door to Raffaele's apartment it takes 1 minutes 45 seconds of walk without striding.

And how about Meredith's cell phone activity at 10 pm - are you in agreement with Massei that this was simply idle fingering of the keys? And why do you suppose she made no further attempt to call her mother, after attempting to call at 8:56 pm?

Some of the phone calls (like Abbey bank) were surely just a touch of the key. About 8:56, my interest goes more to why her mother didn't try to call her back. This implies her mother didn't answer the first call and didn't notice it. And this could be the simple reason why meredith didn't call a second time. Why disturb her again? Howevr, I don't think Meredith voluntarily chose not to call her back for two hours. So I assume something happened meanwhile. I think Meredith was alive in the next hour, but was distracted and engaged in something that was happening, this is why she didn't do any "normal" call.