Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[loverofzion]

I remember it was all disputed and discredited repeatedly. I remember also that it is usual for some defenders of that very weak pieces of evidence to quickly run out of arguments and resort to insults followed by an inevitable suspension

Where in the judicial proceedings do you remember it being "disputed and discredited repeatedly"?

Funny how Justinian is eerily silent on the subject of citations for wild claims like these.

 

[loverofzion]

If by "other two" you mean Amanda and Raf, I believe they were at Raf's apartment.

On what is your belief based?

 

[loverofzion]

No. I said "I don't dismiss the chance that Amanda's confession could be internalized confession because I already think she is guilty, I dismiss this option instead only on the the basis of the analysis of Amanda's declaration itself".

I think it's clear.
Maybe I express myself in an insufficient English that allows interpretation under the personal spin of the reader. I mean to say that the analysis of Amanda's declaration is a topic in itself, something that can be analyzed and measured and assessed by itself, just like a footprint or a DNA result are analyzed by themselfìves, not on the basis that you think the person is guilty.

Amanda's declarations are not an internalized confession because they do not look like an internalized confession. They only look like hampring the investigation, they are a hampering of the investigation even if she is innocent.

Your English is perfectly adequate; it is your fencing partners on this site who are deliberately distorting your words.

 

[loverofzion]

I agree.

Who prevented her (him?) from responding?

 

[loverofzion]

If in the future Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are found innocent based on new evidence, which is not unheard of in Mignini cases, could it be said that the police actually hampered the investigation by focusing incorrectly on Amanda Knox, causing the internalized false confession?

IF my grandmother had wheels, she would have rolled.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie,

What I disagree with in this senario is when the finger streaks on the wall were made.



These streaks are not on the wall by the wardrobe, they are on the wall between the bed and bedside table. I don't see how if she was stabbed by the desk and brought down on the floor by the wardrobe at what point Rudy (or Meredith) would stand up and walk over to the wall on the left hand side of the bedside table and place the finger streaks. It doesn't seem like a believable senario to me.

I think it is more likely that the attack started near the bed. The mattress is pushed back, the blood mark on the wall above the bed, the left hand corner of the bedside table is cleared, the rest of the items on the bedside table look pushed to the right hand side, the lamp is on the floor - plugged in and facing the wrong direction. The finger streaks are on the wall directly above the lamp on the floor. The lamp was probably knocked on the floor.

Corner of bedside table cleared, lamp on floor, finger streaks
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=159462757411537&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034&ref=fbx_album

I think from this point the attacked moved on the desk area where the chair is shoved and the leg on top of a paper with the blood drops under the desk.

Another point is that the RUG on the floor by the desk would have originally been laying horizontally along side the bed. This is another clue that the attacked started by the bed. Perhaps the Rug got in the way and was kicked across the room?

Rug moved from besides bed to by desk?
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/bloodstains_on_floor.jpg

Interesting. Last night I had a long conversation with a forensic expert who made exactly the same points. So, I will stand corrected on this point.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's a good point, moodstream. It is also in keeping with the suggestion that giving Amanda a false positive on her HIV test was also a way to rattle her and hopefully get her to confess.

Again and again you repeat your false claim after you had been shown multiple times its absurdity, and after you even acnowledged facts and logic are at odds with you theory.

 

[Machiavelli]

However it is not nearly enough to justify a prosecution that the prosecution's explanation fit the data! That would be exactly backwards in fact. The prosecution's explanation must be proven to be true beyond reasonable doubt. If they can't do that, a conviction is not justified.

First we see how one explanation fits.
Then we will see how the explanation is in fact the most simple and moreover how the other explanations don't fit.

 

[LondonJohn]

Something occurs to me regarding Guede's initial statements to police:

Guede was quite clear in these statements that he arrived on his own in the vicinity of the girls' cottage at around 8.30pm, and waited around outside the cottage (his explanation for which was that he'd arranged to meet with Meredith, and she was late arriving). He also says that he left the house on his own at around 10.00pm (he claimed that the real killers left before him, so he exited the cottage alone).

Now, it seems to me that Guede would have no idea what kind of eyewitness testimony the police might have at this point, or what kind of eyewitnesses might turn up when the murder became publicised. I therefore think that it's entirely possible that Guede was telling the truth about how and when he arrived and departed the girls' cottage, but tried to concoct "innocent" explanations to account for both, in order to counteract the impact of any potential eyewitness testimony.

In other words, Guede quite possibly realised that he probably shouldn't tell the police lies in this area (e.g. that he entered the cottage with Meredith at around 9.00pm and left the cottage by 9.15pm), because he knew that any lies about his coming and going might be able to be contradicted from eyewitnesses. If he had indeed arrived at the cottage at around 8.30pm and had spent some time casing the cottage, then he was probably passed by a few cars driving along the main road during this casing period, and he also knew that he might have been observed from places such as the car park roof or the apartments opposite. Similarly, if he left the cottage at around 10.00pm, he must have known that he might have been spotted. And, for the exit, this also partly explains why Guede's story has the killers rushing out first, because he then has an explanation as to why he might have been spotted leaving on his own at around 10.00pm.

It's striking that Guede's timings correlate very well with a plausible alternative narrative: Guede arrives at the cottage around 8.30pm, cases it for 15 minutes or so, then breaks in. He has an immediate urge to defecate, so he seeks out the bathroom before he starts searching for items to steal. While he's in the bathroom, Meredith returns home at around 9.00pm, and goes into her bedroom. Guede tries to exit the house quietly and undetected (and therefore doesn't flush the toilet, the noise of which might alert Meredith). He discovers, however, that the front door is locked shut. At this point, Meredith is alerted and a confrontation ensues - probably starting near to her bedroom door. The confrontation turns violent (perhaps Meredith refuses to unlock the door to let him out, and/or threatens to call the police). Guede gets Meredith into a subservient position with his knife at her throat. He now becomes aroused by being in physical and psychological control of a woman he lusts after, and begins a sexual assault. Meredith resists, and he kills her. He then completes the sexual assault (perhaps including masturbation onto the pillowcase), goes to the small bathroom to clean blood off himself, returns to Meredith's room with towels, and goes through her belongings to find the keys to the door. He opportunistically takes her cellphones, credit cards and cash, and exits her door - stepping in the now-pooling blood on his way out. He locks Meredith's door to delay discovery (perhaps this is also why the phones were taken), and exits via the front door at around 10.00pm. While he is walking back towards his apartment, one of Meredith's phones makes a noise to signal an incoming MMS. He decides to get rid of the phones and throws them away into the darkness, towards what he thinks is a wild ravine, but which is in fact a garden. He then returns to his apartment, changes clothes, and goes out to nightclubs.

 

[Machiavelli]

We've discussed them in detail and they are ludicrous... unless you are merely shooting for "consistent with the facts" as opposed to "true beyond reasonable doubt". That is the only sense in which a rational person could describe them as sound, sufficient or satisfactory, and since their job is to be proof beyond reasonable doubt it is not a relevant sense.

It has to be clear - independently from the assessment probative value of each part of the evidence - that the word "evodence", when referred to a single piece of evidence or only to a part of the whole evidence set, does not indicate something true beyond reasonable doubt, and beyond reasonable doubt is a standard which applies only to the conclusion drawn from evidence as a whole. Single pieces/parts of evience do not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to be part of the evidence set.

In Italian the word "evidence" doesn't exist. In criminal/legal context (and logic) there are two words: indizio, and prova.
Indizio is a piece evidence which by itself does not constitute proof beyod reasonable doubt, while prova is a piece of evidence from which certain conclusion can be derived. It is important to know that both those kind of objects are part of the evidence in a criminal trial, and it is not necesary to have one prova to be certain beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[treehorn]

supposition upon supposition, guess upon guess

My current understanding is that Ronchi made some statements to the effect that ligatures were not used (Massei 148), which is highly curious in light of the fact that they were in fact used.

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't "your current understanding" based upon a data set that is incomplete:

o you were not in court to hear the experts testify (do you even speak italian?), or the cross-examination they were subjected to by counsel, or the closing arguments of counsel in respect of this testimony

o you have not read transcripts of this testimony, or the subsequent cross-examination, or the closing arguments made in respect of it, correct?

o you have not seen the video of the autopsy (no one other than the triers, counsel and the accused have)

o the translation of the Massei report that you are relying on does not include any of the sworn statements, reports, transcripts, photos, exhibits, etc., that are referenced throughout (it's not unusual to see 10, or more, such references on a single page of the judgment)?

if you've got an incomplete data set, why state things so resolutely, authoritatively, and confidently?

physicists discuss the theory of gravity with less certainty

Ronchiseems to have been well aware that if Dr Lalli had not somehow misplaced food which was in Meredith's duodenum, then Meredith didn't die at 23:30. Ronchi came up with the story, in court, that no ligatures were used and speculated that Dr Lalli might have manually squeezed all the material in Meredith's duodenum down five meters of intestine to the very end, which would beggar belief even if ligatures were not used.

your take on what Ronchi was "aware of" = supposition

your claim that he "came up with a story = supposition

why does Massei come up with his own fairy story about improperly applied liagtures? That seems to be because Massei saw the autopsy video where ligatures were clearly applied. Whoops. I guess Ronchi's memory must have been going, right? Because otherwise it looks a bit like perjury. It's also a curious bit of writing by Massei, because he quotes Ronchi making statements he knows are false, but leaves the reader assuming those statements are true. If you just read p148 and don't read p178, you come away with the distinct impression no ligatures were used. Hmm.

"seems ...Massei saw..." = you are (in your words, wild-a##) GUESSING, correct?

you have not seen that video and, therefore, have no idea what Massei saw or did not see in this regard, no?

, Massei was left in the awkward spot of knowing that ligatures were applied, and knowing that if there was no food in Meredith's duodenum and Dr Lalli hadn't totally botched the autopsy then she didn't die at 23:30, but having to justify the verdict that she did indeed die at 23:30. Thus his own invention of "improperly applied" ligatures, which we see on Page 178 of the Massei report. You'll notice that by page 178 the story about ligatures not being used has vanished, since Massei can quote other people getting it wrong but can't make such false factual statements himself.

claim of "invention" = based on above noted SUPPOSITIONS and GUESSES

you've claimed that you expect 'evidence-based' analysis (backed up by peer-reviewed journals, no less), correct?

yet what you've advanced here is, in point of fact, supposition upon supposition, guess upon guess

you need complete transcripts, the video, and all of the documents and exhibits that inform the judgment before you can even begin to claim to have offered an 'evidence-based' argument vis-a-vis the ligatures and PERJURY

IMHO, you are far, far too quick to malign learned doctors, scientists and jurists based on nothing more than speculation about testimony and exhibits you've LITERALLY not seen/ heard

i could just as easily speculate that the confusion in respect of ligatures might be resolved if we were to learn that one or more ligatures failed in the course of the autopsy

BTW, have you ever seen one of these ligatures?

what are they made of?

how are they to be applied/ tied?

how many and where?

is there a standard practice in respect of them?

London John has confessed to not being a doctor, but I suppose it's possible you have a MD, in which case, please enlighten me!

how easily is alimentary matter in the human intestine displaced in the absence of ligatures?

alas, i'm not saying you are wrong (for all i know you could be right), but i am saying that you, as yet, do NOT have enough objective evidence upon which to base your (possibly libelous) claims, or the certainty with which you state them

 

[Machiavelli]

Once again you are employing circular reasoning: It's not Rudy's footprint on the bathmat because there is no trace of him in the bathroom, and there is no trace of him in the bathroom because it's not his footprint on the bathmat.

I am not employing circular reasoning, and even less I am doing it again, because I never did. I always consider each reasoning on a part of evidence based on its independent ground.
The bathmat print is not compatible with Rudy because it is not compatible (because of its measurements). This is what I said.
Then , moreover - meaning: it's additional reasons - the scenario of a lone-pepetrator is incompatible with the evidence also because there is no trace of Rudy in the bathroom (2. reason) and also because it is incompatible with the dynamic of Rudy in the house since Rudy had shoes (3. reason).

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>

as for RS's statement (lie?) about having 'accidentally pricked' MK (or is it AK???), are you referring to the statement in RS's 'prison diary'?!

it's even worse than i thought!!!

in that particular context, he has no reasonable excuse for what appears to be a voluntary statement (in writing, no less!)

unless RS can persuade the court that, as some here have argued, he was referring to AK rather than MK, he's done

once again, i'll throw this one out there in the hope that someone can point me in the right direction:

did RS's defense argue that RS was referring to AK rather than MK when he wrote of the time they were "all cooking together"?

mmmmmmm "...all cooking together...," that's not how someone would describe a situation where they were cooking with just one other person (AK)...

treehorn, do you have anything to offer about Raffaele other than that you think he should be convicted based on one statement that looks to you like a lie? Last night you wrote:

baring duress, a low IQ, mental illness or extreme introversion, an innocent person is not likely to fabricate lies under police interrogation

if innocent, a relatively stable 24 year old man of reasonable intelligence could/ would/ should be expected to deny the evidence and state that it is impossible

You're new to this board, so you may not be familiar with the literature that has been referred to several times about what innocent people are capable of doing during interrogations. A search of the topic will be helpful to you if you would like to become more educated about the topic.

i've noted that RS has never claimed duress

I suggested that you might want to read Raffaele's prison diary. When you do get around to reading it, you will find that Raffaele made the statement in the context of some legal advice from his attorney, and that he was under extreme duress at the time.

 

[Mary_H]

Certaian knives are certainly illegal to carry.
And of course there was never any mention of fears for her safety; she was used to walking to and from work at night without ever having mentioned feeling frightened.

I know -- right? Why would Amanda carry a butcher knife with her if she wasn't even afraid?

 

[treehorn]

Bearing it foremost in our minds that we are in the realm of speculation here, my guess would be that they wanted the murder weapon to be found at Raffaele's place because the same weapon found at Amanda's place would have proved nothing whatsoever. Found at Raffaele's it "proves" they they were involved in murder, conspiracy and a clean-up..

you led me to believe the JREF forum was restricted to evidence-based argument only

i am confused now

are you for or against a discussion restricted to evidence-based argument?

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry moodstream again you are fabricating freely.

First,the evidence was coming back that DID implicate AK and RS.
And it IS certainly implicative of their guilt when RS writes : I might have pricked her (MK) while cooking together.
He did NOT say she pricked herself while cooking.
Either way MK had NEVER been to his apt so it is apparent he was making this up.

And Amanda was taped saying to the indefatiguable Edda that she was worried about the knife, NOT she was worried about her situation due to the claim that the knife was being used to implicate her.

So you see how when you just subtly changed a few key words you have turned things around falsely.

I KNOW, again -- right? I mean, if you read her testimony, you can see how suspicious the lawyers and judges were of that statement:

FM: Why did you say to your mother "I'm worried because there is a knife of
Raffaele's."

AK: Well, I was worried because to me that was impossible. I didn't understand how that could be.

[Quite a long silence as we hear Maresca flipping papers.]

FM: I don't know if I have any more questions, Presidente.

GCM: Yes, yes, go ahead, avvocato.

[More silence pause, more sound of papers.]

FM: No, I don't have any more. I'm finished, Presidente. Thank you.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It has to be clear - independently from the assessment probative value of each part of the evidence - that the word "evodence", when referred to a single piece of evidence or only to a part of the whole evidence set, does not indicate something true beyond reasonable doubt, and beyond reasonable doubt is a standard which applies only to the conclusion crawn from evidence as a whole. Single pieces/parts of evience do not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to be part of the evidence set.

In Italian the word "evidence" doesn't exist. In criminal/legal context (and logic) there are two words: indizio, and prova.
Indizio is a piece evidence which by itself does not constitute proof beyod reasonable doubt, while prova is a piece of evidence from which certain conclusion can be derived. It is important to know that both those kind of objects are part of the evidence in a criminal trial, and it is not necesary to have one prova to be certain beyond reasonable doubt.

It has to be clear, that a piece of evidence must be proved to be true beyond reasonable doubt if the prosecution narrative depends on it being true.

You can't have a whole theory which is proven to be true beyond reasonable doubt if you have reasonable doubt about necessary parts of the theory.

For an example of an unnecessary bit of the theory, exactly who stabbed Meredith isn't a necessary part of their narrative. They wouldn't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Rudy stabbed her, or that Amanda stabbed her, or that Raffaele stabbed her, if only they could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the three of them were in the room with her when she died. (They can't prove any such thing of course, but it's just an example).

For an example of a necessary bit of the theory, the prosecution needs to prove that Raffaele and Amanda were not at home watching Naruto when Meredith was murdered. (They can't - game over). They need to prove that there was a staged break-in, because if Rudy broke in then the whole prosecution story about a sex party gone wrong goes up in flames. (Oops, game over again). If a necessary part of the story is susceptible to reasonable doubt, then the whole story is susceptible to reasonable doubt.

Of course this isn't a problem for Machiavelli because as far as he's concerned the court doesn't need to be right on any of the details at all in order to justify a conviction. If the defendants can't prove that they are innocent, using the subset of the evidence that the police chose to collect and chose to share, that's good enough for him.

It's decisive for those of us who understand logic, however.

 

[Mary_H]

Where in the judicial proceedings do you remember it being "disputed and discredited repeatedly"?

Funny how Justinian is eerily silent on the subject of citations for wild claims like these.

Is "eerie" what we should call your silence on the subject of citations for any of your claims, wild or tame?

 

[treehorn]

treehorn, do you have anything to offer about Raffaele other than that you think he should be convicted based on one statement that looks to you like a lie? Last night you wrote:

"...based on ONE...," i made no such assertion

are you trying to put words in my mouth?

if you want a complete list of my reasons to suspect that RS is guilty (I have more than ONE), it would include, inter alia:

o the fact that his DNA trace was found in the private bedroom of MK, where she was murdered, on her bra clasp

o the fact that his alibi shifted at least 3 times; &

o the fact that his alibi (pick anyone you like) is not supported by cell tower pings, phone records and computer logs.

You're new to this board, so you may not be familiar with the literature that has been referred to several times about what innocent people are capable of doing during interrogations. A search of the topic will be helpful to you if you would like to become more educated about the topic.

thank you, Mary

are you speaking of "internalized false confessions"?

i have started to look into that area already, and guess what i discovered:

only 2 types of subjects are at risk:

1) those with very low IQ scores; &

2) "extreme introverts"

does AK fit either category, in your opinion?

I suggested that you might want to read Raffaele's prison diary. When you do get around to reading it, you will find that Raffaele made the statement in the context of some legal advice from his attorney, and that he was under extreme duress at the time.

"extreme"? RS?

punches? kicks?

water-boarding?

electric shock?

pliers?

power drill?

loaded gun?

do tell!

i've read nothing of the sort in his diary

 

[Mary_H]

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't "your current understanding" based upon a data set that is incomplete:

.................................

if you've got an incomplete data set, why state things so resolutely, authoritatively, and confidently?

..................................

yet what you've advanced here is, in point of fact, supposition upon supposition, guess upon guess

you need complete transcripts, the video, and all of the documents and exhibits that inform the judgment before you can even begin to claim to have offered an 'evidence-based' argument vis-a-vis the ligatures and PERJURY

IMHO, you are far, far too quick to malign learned doctors, scientists and jurists based on nothing more than speculation about testimony and exhibits you've LITERALLY not seen/ heard

..................................

alas, i'm not saying you are wrong (for all i know you could be right), but i am saying that you, as yet, do NOT have enough objective evidence upon which to base your (possibly libelous) claims, or the certainty with which you state them

treehorn, your use of color and large font sizes conveys agitation. Is that your intention?

Why should it bother you if other people "state things so resolutely, authoritatively, and confidently?" You are not being forced to believe them.

Most of the innocence supporters, I believe, are following this approach: The prosecution needs to make a case. The defense does not. From the information we have available to us, the prosecution has not made its case. We are reflecting the flaws we find in the prosecution's case.

We don't have all the information about the case, but we have a lot of information about it. The important thing is that the innocenters and the guilters have the same information from which to work. Arguments stemming from that basis of information should be judged on whether they accurately reflect that information (i.e., are factual) and on whether the arguments are logical. Logic can be supported by referring to information and knowledge that is extraneous to the case, e.g., the laws of nature.

(Incidentally, when I see guilters worry about maligning the "learned doctors, scientists and jurists" who are responsible for this travesty of justice, it makes me want to use color and large font sizes.)