Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Which side do you think has the burden of proof in a criminal case? If the defence does produce expert testimony along the lines that Kevin and I have been suggesting, then they don't need to prove that the murder was committed before 10pm

.

Stop making confusion. The burden of proof for guilt is on the accusation. The accusation has to prove facts that lead to conclude guilt, but hasn't the burden of proof on each other aspect of truth. The defence hasn't the burden of proof on facts they want to put in doubt. But on the other hand, the defence has indeed the buden of proof logiclly on a fact if they want to assert that a fact is certain.
And, the Kevin Lowes' argument - besides being anyway ineffective - rests entirely on the assumption that one fact is ascertained.
A simple open possibility that a murder was committed at 22:00 doesn't work, since is obviously not able to dismiss anything.

 

[Mary_H]

I already gave you the related information about my acknowledgments before you asked, and then I gave repeated statements after. I put in clear that my acknowledgmnts on the point are:
1) Even if it was proven that Meredith was attacked exactly at 21:10 I would still consider Amanda guilty.
2) The court of assise's report contains indeed narrative (or more than one), but the narrative is not the basis of Amanda's conviction, and I do not build reasonings based on the narrative contained in Massei's theory. A change in Massei's narrative would simply lead to formulize a new accusation narrative, not to innocence.
3) The defendants are convicted on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of the theory subsequently constructed. The theory is almost always false strictly speaking. A motivation report may also contain more than one conflicting narratives. A time of death at 21:30 for example would falsify part of Massei's narrative, but not falsify the basis of thir conviction nor the evidence.

As we all know, in this case, the theory was not constructed subsequent to the discovery of evidence. Massei's narrative differs somewhat from Mignini's narrative, but, with the essential basic elements intact, it is based on the same unfounded theory: that three people joined together at the same time and in one room to commit a sex murder.

Even if there is an iota of evidence against Amanda and an iota of evidence against Raffaele, there is still no evidence the three committed murder together, nor is there any evidence of what their individual roles were, except for Rudy's.

"A motivation report may also contain more than one conflicting narratives." That's fine, but wouldn't it be more just if all of these narratives had substantial evidence to support them? Ideally, the court's decision and Massei's narrative should have followed only from the evidence. Instead, they were poisoned by fantasies that had no basis in reality, and they were not able to release them from their minds.

4) Nara's testimony is not falsified by changing the time of death. Only Curatolo would be falsified.

Nara's testimony is falsified by the fact that Meredith did not have the time or the available breath to scream.

On the rest, you are merely unfloding a series of arbitrary beliefs of yours. You are not even able to draw conclusions on a singls sentence written by Raffaele Sollecito...<snip>

Let's hope not.

 

[Solange305]

Solange305,

The story about an anonymous person called “Matthew” is from an article with some factual errors. I have never seen direct confirmation from “Matthew” himself that he said it. Maybe it is true; maybe not. As for buying underwear, Amanda did not have any, having no access to her personal belongings.

Two of Amanda’s friends, Andrew Seliber (p. 295, Murder in Italy) and Madison Paxton (the video I linked yesterday), traveled to Perugia at their own expense to testify. These two know Amanda on a day-in, day-out basis. Those actions speak volumes about Amanda’s character to me. Having once or twice in my life made an insensitive remark, I am willing to cut Amanda some slack if that is what she did regarding “Matthew.”

We can both choose who to believe, and I agree with that. But I disagree with Supernaut's claims that I am somehow forced to believe some accounts of her behavior over others, otherwise I'm some sort of devil incarnate. There have been both negative things and positive things said about her. In particular to the underwear, I know why she was buying them. But what is most remarkable is the "wild sex" comment the shopkeeper heard (you can choose to disbelieve him, I choose to believe him) along with the pictures of their expressions (looked pretty carefree to me).

I understand your claim about confirmation from Matthew, but along with Supernaut's claim that any witnesses who said anything bad must have been "coached", this whole narrative you guys are trying to paint about all these witnesses, interviewees, cops, interrogators, prosecutors, and god knows who else lying or being utterly mistaken is starting to seem pretty unbelievable. Like I said, this must be some conspiracy of cosmic proportions to assume all these people hate and despise an innocent, saintly demure Amanda Knox...

Having said that, I have been following the discussion about DNA and stomach contents, and I think that those are much more relevant than her sexual past or stupid comments in high school.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

But this is a particular case, not ours. In our case, we have a chart in which all loci were found. So it's like having a chart with 6 or 7 numbers instad of 5, like: 4, 16, 23, 39, 48, 72, 84.
In this sequence, all your numbers are found. The fact now could be that your lawyer disputes some of them saying that, albeir they are visible in the sequence - aka, readable on the ticket - they do not belong to you. But this only happens after all of them have been found in the sequence. It's a bit like having a ticket which is made with a backgrund of number, and claiming that on the ticket there are some printed numbers in the sequence that do't belong to the serial number but to the background, and/or that there are some numbers on the backround that instead should be interpreted as part of the serial number.
It is quite obvious that this changes the terms of Halides' example.

Machiavelli,

I would suggest that you consult page 330 of the book “Race to Injustice” or a textbook in forensic genetics. Your argument does not match the situation at hand. However, the fact that Massei refused the defense’s request for an independent review of the forensics, despite the disagreement at six loci, is perhaps even more telling than his flawed argument, which Raffaele’s appeal chastised with complete justification.

 

[Solange305]

I was just reading the front page of http://truejustice.org/. What a piece of ◊◊◊◊! They were wanting people to submit the names of people hostile to Italy as a result of the AK and RS verdict. So Americans that exercise freedom of speech are to be sued? The implication was that H. Clinton wanted the information!

I tried to get on their forum about a year ago. They wouldn't let me on! They didn't know me from Adam, yet they denied my membership. It's a closed site. They don't want freedom of speech unless it is their own.

Something is wrong with their registration Justinian, I could never get registered either, I dont think its intentional...

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I understand your claim about confirmation from Matthew, but along with Supernaut's claim that any witnesses who said anything bad must have been "coached", this whole narrative you guys are trying to paint about all these witnesses, interviewees, cops, interrogators, prosecutors, and god knows who else lying or being utterly mistaken is starting to seem pretty unbelievable. Like I said, this must be some conspiracy of cosmic proportions to assume all these people hate and despise an innocent, saintly demure Amanda Knox...<snip>

Our narrative is more believable than the prosecution's narrative. There are known precedents for witnesses being coached by lawyers, cops being overly eager and rough with detainees, forensic labs falsifying data, prosecutors and judges being in bed together, subordinates being afraid to defy authority.....

In my opinion, the innocentisti's view rests on experience and knowledge of human nature, while the colpevolisti's does not.

 

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH.

Remember to address the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Fuji]

Fuji, you're a very good sport for being willing to play the clown for our amusement.

Particularly so since, by the very logic you included in your sig line, by so doing you've just dishonoured yourself.

Socrates must be rolling over in his grave. But, don't worry, it's probably convulsions of laughter.

I'm glad my posts have brought you such joy.

However, I am a bit confused by your second comment. Could you please explain how I have purportedly "dishonored" myself?

 

[Fuji]

From what I've read the defence is quite aware of the issues with the time of death, and quite aware of the potential to extend Amanda and Raffaele's alibi forwards using the computer evidence. Possibly you've been listening to echo chamber cheerleading about how the defence is all over the place and bound to lose, and so you've got some misconceptions about the reality of the appeals case?

You have made the repeated assertion in many posts here that the key to Knox's and Sollecito's emancipation is to be found in your authoritative conclusion that the contents of Ms. Kercher's GI tract definitively preclude their possible guilt. Given that Ghirga and Bongiorno were unable to establish this to the court's satisfaction in the first trial, it seems as though you may have valuable assistance you can render on the convicted's behalf. It is not my conscience, but yours, that must deal with the moral implications of your inactivity should their appeals fail.

And since you speak quite readily about "the reality of the appeals case", perhaps you would care to make a friendly wager? If their appeal succeeds, I will never post on this case again at JREF; likewise, if the appeal fails, you shall do likewise. How about it?

So anyway, it turns out that when I flagged you as a PMFer you had by your own admission been browsing PMF for at least a week. So may I ask why you firstly tried to pass it off by saying "I do not post at PMF", and then tried to sell us the story that it was mean old Kevin Lowe who drove you into the loving arms of PMF?

How does one become a "PMFer", by your definition? What does that term even mean? Is it meant to refer to one who browses there infrequently, browses there frequently, formally registers as a member, posts there infrequently, posts there frequently, or is there some other standard of classification?

I have honestly shared my experiences. Perhaps you would also care to contribute your own regarding that forum, so that we may make a valid assessment as to who is the "PMFer"?

I wouldn't bring it up, but I'm making the charitable assumption that you've been reading Socrates and he's inspired you to change your life.

Not recently, no. But from decades ago when I was in college, what little I could glean of his wisdom was quite valuable to me.

Since you appear to be a fan of his as well, please allow me to share another one with you.



"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance." - Socrates

 

[katy_did]

But this is a particular case, not ours. In our case, we have a chart in which all loci were found. So it's like having a chart with 6 or 7 numbers instad of 5, like: 4, 16, 23, 39, 48, 72, 84.
In this sequence, all your numbers are found. The fact now could be that your lawyer disputes some of them saying that, albeir they are visible in the sequence - aka, readable on the ticket - they do not belong to you. But this only happens after all of them have been found in the sequence. It's a bit like having a ticket which is made with a backgrund of number, and claiming that on the ticket there are some printed numbers in the sequence that do't belong to the serial number but to the background, and/or that there are some numbers on the backround that instead should be interpreted as part of the serial number.
It is quite obvious that this changes the terms of Halides' example.

Not that I want to put words in halides' mouth, but I think you might be missing the point with regard to his post. The argument Massei puts forward is, scientifically, complete garbage: i.e. the idea that as long as more loci match than not, we can claim that the profile matches the suspect. This is the argument Massei uses to dismiss Tagliabracci's position that some of the loci don't match's Sollecito's profile, and it's utter nonsense. Of course, it has the advantage of allowing him once again to accept the prosecution's claims on the basis of nothing more than an 'act of faith', without needing to explain his reasons for doing so.

As halides notes, there are serious problems with considering the report a well-reasoned document.

 

[katy_did]

On the subject of Nara, it's interesting that Massei places 'the scream' at 23:30 on no other basis than that Nara said she usually got up two hours after she took her tablets to go to the bathroom (one wonders how she knew, if she wasn't in the habit of looking at the clock, not even after hearing a 'scream of death'). Nara also said that she went out to the shops to get bread at about 11 a.m. the day after she heard the scream, and that this is when she heard some young people shouting about how a girl was killed in the cottage, and that shortly after she saw posters with news of the murder at the newsstand. She knew it was 11, because she always goes out about that time. Kind of like how she knew the scream was at 23:30, because she always wakes up around that time.

She also says she saw Amanda and Raffaele later that same afternoon in the parking lot opposite the cottage, looking over at the house. Given her advance knowledge of the crime and her faux sightings of Amanda and Raffaele, I'm starting to get a little suspicious of Nara.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

An example of LJ's method of breaking and mix up arguments. As I already observed on Kevin Lowe's comment, the truth is that if the defence wants to use an argument in the way Kevin Lowe proposes, which is to use it as a firm point (albeit Kevin Lowes has amazingly stepped back from this position in a recent post) able to undermine the whole case independently from the rest of the evidence, they have to prove it. Not just propose its possibility of existence.

Nobody is trying to prove the case on the basis of the digestive evidence alone. It's not as though the digestive evidence stands in opposition to other evidence. Instead, it fits as part of a pattern that also includes:

- the unflushed toilet
- the fact that Meredith's 8:56 call home was interrupted with no follow-up attempt, or any calls to anyone else, or any checking of email, or the other normal things Meredith would have done on a quiet evening at home.
- the random pushing of buttons on her cell phone, starting roughly an hour after she got home.

Collectively, this information fits together to tell a story: Guede was in the house when she got home, and she was ambushed almost immediately. It all makes sense.

Meanwhile, Massei has been forced to use absurd speculation to fit Sollecito's kitchen knife into the crime, and to incorporate the luminol footprints, and to explain the strange activity on Meredith's cell phone, and to accommodate witness testimony. The net result is an utterly preposterous fable - Guede decided to rape and kill Meredith, and Amanda and Raffaele sided with him instead of her, because their judgment was addled by too much pot.

I've said this before but it bears repeating: it is interesting to see so many otherwise intelligent people struggling to protect their belief in an obvious hoax.

 

[colonelhall]

Kevin the Philosopher. O.K. I admit it! You know a lot more about digestion than I do. You have made your point. Can we now drop it?

It looks as if the Knox defence team has a good case here and I am sure that they will be employing a scientific expert to crack the case. Better still, they should employ you, because you must be one of the world's foremost experts in this field, judging by the time and study that you have devoted in this case.

As a firm believer in Knox's guilt, I have to admit that I am really chocked about the outcome of the appeal, especially as it is all going to come down to stomach contents and, as you have pointed out, it looks like a done deal. But top marks to you Kev. Looks like you've cracked it.

What have we got left to talk about? If you like I'll show you some of my wild life pictures.

 

[isotope1]

review of old stuff ?

It sounds like you guys have it worked that part out then...how about running over some things that are probably old hat for JREF (I am occasional lurker, and newbie poster).

My (admittedly) cursory take has always been that:

1) There is no reason not to believe prosecution's contention that RG moved directly from MKs room to front door, i.e., shoe prints tapering, in one direction, no other prints found outside MKs room, etc etc.

2) Bathmat foot print stands in stark contrast to contention in 1) above.

3) Ergo, minimum second person required at/during scenario.

So I guess my question is...how do we know 1) is absolutely true? Does anyone outside of the case have access to actual documentation of contention in 1) above?

 

[lane99]

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Originally Posted by Withnail1969
Nara 'Miracle ear lady' Capezzali's testimony is trash, absolute rubbish. We discussed it at some length here a few days ago if you care to look through recent posts.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

We've not finished discussing it yet. We only suspendend the thread on some dismissive (arrogant and pointless, in my opinion) statements of yours.

Without commenting on the merits of your opinion, for the record, your own post does not seem entirely devoid of arrogance.

At any rate, is it your belief that the noise that Ms. Nara claims to have heard was Meredith Kercher being attacked?

If so, what time do you believe it was when she (Nara) heard this noise?

 

[lane99]

...Even if it was proven that Meredith was attacked exactly at 21:10 I would still consider Amanda guilty...

The plot thickens.

If that was so proven, would you also still consider the boyfriend (Raf) guilty of murder?

 

[Danceme]

Which side do you think has the burden of proof in a criminal case? If the defence does produce expert testimony along the lines that Kevin and I have been suggesting, then they don't need to prove that the murder was committed before 10pm. Instead, they would need to show that it's very, very highly likely that the murder was committed before 10pm, and that it's extraordinarily unlikely that the murder was committed after 11pm. If they manage to substantiate these claims, they will by definition introduce elements of reasonable doubt into the prosecution's case (and the court's reasoning) as it stood in the first trial.

LJ, if it's such a smoking gun, why do you think Amanda's appeal summary, as written by Bruce, doesn't even touch on this subject? There appears to be something made of each aspect of the trial, witnesses and evidence, but unless I simply missed it no mention is made of the stomach contents and it's ability to prove their innocence. Raffaele's does mention it on the other hand.

Are you going to answer the question I actually asked?

What, if anything, would constitute sufficient evidence for you that Meredith died before 23:30?

I guess I'll know it when I see it Kevin. I will happily feel relief and gladness for Amanda and Raffaele if something turns up to unequivocally exonerate them and I will wholeheartedly support their being compensated for their lost years. I don’t hate them and I’m open to changing my mind if something conclusive comes along. So far it hasn’t.

Your argument on stomach contents proving she died at 9:10 or very shortly before or after doesn’t convince me either because it seems too narrow in focus and unsupported by the majority of the literature out there regardless of how many times you shout about it being peer reviewed and post your two or three links. What makes your links and opinions any better than all the other opinions and links by numerous other people, also published in scientific journals, who warn over and over about using stomach contents as reliable proof of anything. Your links are few among many. And now, before you go all snaky again on the t-lag stuff and tell me we just don’t understand while you are the veritable font of knowledge, why don’t you read a couple of these other articles. It seems like you want to believe the argument you’ve created so badly you only look to your couple of abstracts and refuse to glance at differing opinions. You shout, you insult and you seem hell-bent on proving something even the defense barely touches on. Why isn’t Amanda’s defense using the stomach content argument to prove Meredith was already dead while they sat home and watched Naruto? In Bruce’s summary of her appeal it’s not even mentioned. You've already accused her lawyers of guessing their information and not doing the math so I presume you think they're simply unintelligent and incompetent.

In that case perhaps it's your moral duty to call them on it. If you are so sure you’ve figured the case out why haven’t you publicized it beyond the JREF thread? Where are the all articles for Injusticeinperugia? Where are the calls to the mainstream press? Why haven’t you shouted from the rooftops? Why haven’t you contacted the defense lawyers? Have you even written to her parents? It’s not like any of these things are beyond the realm of possibility and if you're in any way right you might actually help.

 

[piktor]

as it is all going to come down to stomach contents and, as you have pointed out, it looks like a done deal.

Next to come: finessing the 9:10PM/9:20PM number to plus/minus three seconds.

There's gotta be a "curve" describing that towering ultra-precise moment in time, just waiting to be revealed by concerned citizens in a google-aided position to know.

You would have to ignore ALL experts in the Kercher trial testifying to the fact stomach content calculations are unreliable and at best approximate- not by minutes but by hours, though.

 

[katy_did]

1) There is no reason not to believe prosecution's contention that RG moved directly from MKs room to front door, i.e., shoe prints tapering, in one direction, no other prints found outside MKs room, etc etc.

2) Bathmat foot print stands in stark contrast to contention in 1) above.

3) Ergo, minimum second person required at/during scenario.

Bearing in mind that the first is a shoe print and the second a bare footprint, how do (1) and (2) logically lead to (3)...?

 

[colonelhall]

"If the defence does produce expert testimony along the lines that Kevin and I have been suggesting,"

WHAT!!!! You mean that there is a possibility that they may not?