Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Straw man?!

I had no intention of mischaracterizing your argument/ assertions.

Personally, I detest the tactic for it gets in the way of a good faith discussion of the evidence.

I simply do not agree with your assertion that lay people are competent to evaluate (and extrapolate from) the studies and commentary in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Journals in pharmacology or forensic pathology are not geared toward - nor best understood by - school teachers, mechanics, pilots, or lawyers.

Further, to the extent that you are suggesting that an education in one scientific field is as good as an education in any other, I cannot agree: someone with, say, a PhD in Physics is likely to know a lot less about, say, electrophoresis than a BSc in Genetics.

I stand by my assertion that, in order to be considered legitimate, Lowe's unsupported claims in respect of the 'elasticity' of the human intestine, and the displacement of matter within that organ during autopsy, must be backed by personal experience/ expertise that only a medical doctor could possess.

I also stand by my assertion that, unless Lowe has training/ education in a scientific discipline germane to the functioning of the human digestive system (zoology, physiology, etc.), he is simply not in a position to legitimately evaluate and apply the scientific literature in question.

I disagree. To use a trite analogy, one does not have to be Einstein to be able to understand that energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. It's very easy to comprehend and assimilate most medical papers. Some terminology may require further research to understand, but the concepts and conclusions are usually readily accessible.

That's not to diminish the special skill, training and experience of those who actually conduct the research or those who work in these fields in general. But to suggest that only such people have any chance of understanding or interpreting research in their field is, to me, a massively incorrect assertion.

 

[katy_did]

I stand by my assertion that, in order to be considered legitimate, Lowe's unsupported claims in respect of the 'elasticity' of the human intestine, and the displacement of matter within that organ during autopsy, must be backed by personal experience/ expertise that only a medical doctor could possess.

Here's what a medical doctor posted on the subject earlier in the thread:

Massei's contention that her entire duodenal contents "slipped" to the terminal ileum during the autopsy is far-fetched in the extreme. Had Dr. Lalli neglected to place any ligatures, and intentionally "milked" her entire small bowel hand over hand, it is doubtful that he could have completely evacuated her duodenum, jejunum and proximal ileum.

 

[el buscador]

Straw man?!

I had no intention of mischaracterizing your argument/ assertions.

Personally, I detest the tactic for it gets in the way of a good faith discussion of the evidence.

I simply do not agree with your assertion that lay people are competent to evaluate (and extrapolate from) the studies and commentary in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Journals in pharmacology or forensic pathology are not geared toward - nor best understood by - school teachers, mechanics, pilots, or lawyers.

Further, to the extent that you are suggesting that an education in one scientific field is as good as an education in any other, I cannot agree: someone with, say, a PhD in Physics is likely to know a lot less about, say, electrophoresis than a BSc in Genetics.

I stand by my assertion that, in order to be considered legitimate, Lowe's unsupported claims in respect of the 'elasticity' of the human intestine, and the displacement of matter within that organ during autopsy, must be backed by personal experience/ expertise that only a medical doctor could possess.

I also stand by my assertion that, unless Lowe has training/ education in a scientific discipline germane to the functioning of the human digestive system (zoology, physiology, etc.), he is simply not in a position to legitimately evaluate and apply the scientific literature in question.

By your standards the judges in this case, well really all cases, are unqualified to legitimately evaluate and apply the scientific testimony either. After all, they are not trained or educated in all the sciences involved in a particular case so how can they pass judgement on whether or not any of the science is valid?

 

[treehorn]

Can you find a precident where two people and a third that they didn't previously know got together to kill another with a knife?[/COLOR]

The only murder that comes to mind as even remotely similar were the Manson murders. However, those murders were enormously different; they lived in a cult and were fruitcakes. Furthermore they didn't murder one of their own in their home.

Find a similar murder that was not done for profit, insurance, inheritance or to end a bad marriage.

I double dare you!

Your reference to the Manson case is an object lesson in the need to 'go where the evidence leads' - irrespective of precedent or probability - in order to meet the ends of Justice.

That said, the elements comprising this homicide (multiple attackers, female on female violence with a knife, staging of a B&E at a murder/rape scene, etc.) are far from unprecedented in the annals of crime.

Indeed, consider the murder of Reena Virk (a young female of East Indian descent) by Kelly Ellard (a young, attractive white female) and a male accomplice (who barely knew the victim).

This homicide began as a group-bullying incident, and flowed from the petty jealousy of a school girl.

 

[treehorn]

Here's what a medical doctor posted on the subject earlier in the thread:

I read that post last night, replied to it and look forward to hearing from the doctor in respect of my reply.

 

[treehorn]

By your standards the judges in this case, well really all cases, are unqualified to legitimately evaluate and apply the scientific testimony either. After all, they are not trained or educated in all the sciences involved in a particular case so how can they pass judgement on whether or not any of the science is valid?

That is why medical experts were called to the stand and subjected to cross examination before the triers of fact.

 

[samba]

Indeed, to the extent AK may be a sociopath (and, yes, there are indications), resentment of Lumumba for favoring MK with a more prestigious post may have given AK added incentive to falsely accuse Lumumba/ fail to retract the accusation.

What are the indications?

 

[Justinian2]

Your reference to the Manson case is an object lesson in the need to 'go where the evidence leads' - irrespective of precedent or probability - in order to meet the ends of Justice.

That said, the elements comprising this homicide (multiple attackers, female on female violence with a knife, staging of a B&E at a murder/rape scene, etc.) are far from unprecedented in the annals of crime.

Indeed, consider the murder of Reena Virk (a young female of East Indian descent) by Kelly Ellard (a young, attractive white female) and a male accomplice (who barely knew the victim).

This homicide began as a group-bullying incident, and flowed from the petty jealousy of a school girl.

Not bad. You get an A for effort. However, the cases aren't all that similar.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Ellard

While at the bridge, it is claimed that teenagers drank alcohol and smoked marijuana. Virk was subsequently swarmed by a group later called the Shoreline Six. Witnesses said that one of the girls stubbed out a cigarette on Virk's forehead, and that while seven or eight others stood by and watched, Virk was repeatedly hit, punched and kicked. She was found to have several cigarette burns on her skin, and apparently attempts were made to set her hair on fire. This first beating ended when one of the girls told the others to stop.

Virk managed to walk away, but was followed by two members of the original group, Ellard and Glowatski. The pair dragged Virk to the other side of the bridge, made her remove her shoes and jacket, and beat her a second time. It is believed that Ellard forced Virk's head under the water and held it there with her foot until Virk stopped struggling.

It was a girl and her boyfriend - no 3rd party (like Guede). All the people were poor. She was taunted and/or ostracized by these girls whose subculture was influenced by Los Angeles street gangs. Virk [the victim] allegidly stole a phone book from Nicole Cook and started calling Cook's friends and spreading rumors about her. Nicole Cook started the fight but got off scott free.

These were teenagers and got off relatively lightly.


Also from Wikipedia:

Cook stubbed out a cigarette on Virk's forehead during the attack. Another girl, M.G.P, was allegedly angry with Virk for stealing her boyfriend. Virk once lived with the two girls in a youth group home. It is suggested she may have done those things in order to assert herself as "tough

."

I think the main differences are that they didn't kill the girl in their home and leave the body there and blood all over... That would be really stupid. But someone that killed like that would be stupid, eh? But that is circular reasoning; it assumes they are crazy because they are guilty.

 

[RWVBWL]

Good day colonelhall,
I'd like to chime in with my opinion to your recent post here, if you don't mind...

Kestrel"The call was made at 12:47 in the afternoon. "
But as we all know, that was 4:47 in the morning in Seattle. Well before most people are up.

I don't know if you have ever had a college-aged daughter or step-daughter in your life,
but after seeing my last girlfriend of 6 years interact with her own young adult college going daughter,
believe me, they DO call ALL the time, even interupting those special, intimate moments, if you get my drift...
Mom's and daughters can and do have that kind of bond, especially when 1 is on the other side of the country, or I'd imagine, the world.
Nothing sinister there, I believe...

Wouldn't it have been better to have called the police, well before this time?

In retrospect, sure it would have been better for Amanda Knox herself to have called the police...
BUT personally, I can't see a young college-going gal who lives with 3 other gals calling the police just because the front door was found open when she arrived home that morning,
nor calling the police after she got out of the shower and 1st noticed the blood on the mat and few drops of blood in the sink, nor calling the police when she found unflushed feces in her other housemates bathroom.
Would you have?

Why were there no alarm bells ringing when Knox claims that she took a shower?

Miss Knox, from all that I have read colonelhall, has always said that she 1st noticed the few drops of blood when she got out of the shower and finally just thought that her fellow housemate Meredith was simply menstruating...

Wouldn't you think there was a simple explanation such as this too?
Or would you immediately think that your fellow housemate was lying dead on her bedroom floor right near you, stabbed to death surrouned by her own blood?

Did she not relay some of her suspicions to the boyfriend earlier in the day?

When Amanda Knox left Raffaele Sollecito's pad to grab a quick shower before they were to split on a day trip to Gubbio that morning,
Raffaele wanted to catch up on his sleep.

It was only after she had returned to Raffaele's pad, mopped his floor, and then had breakfast with Raffaele
that "she described to him "the strange blood in the bathroom, the door wide open, the turds left in the toilet."
As Raffaele later said to police: "She told me that when she got home, she found the door wide open and bloodstains in the small bathroom. She asked me whether I thought it was strange. I said I did, and advised her to phone her friends."
Ref: "Murder in Italy, C. Dempsey, pages 55+56

And it was when she returned later, after first calling Meredith's cell phone, and then Filomena, whom she spoke with, that she brought Raffaele back to her apartment and showed him the feces in the toilet, opened Filomena's bedroom door and then saw that Filomena's window was broken...

All of this occurred before the 1st phone call at 12:47 pm to Amanda's Mom in Seattle.

Hope this time I just spent typing 1 peck at a time helps inform you better, colonlehall...
Take it easy, RWVBWL

 

[treehorn]

I disagree. To use a trite analogy, one does not have to be Einstein to be able to understand that energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. It's very easy to comprehend and assimilate most medical papers. Some terminology may require further research to understand, but the concepts and conclusions are usually readily accessible.

Do you really think it is fair to characterize quantum physics in this manner?

Wave-particle duality as 'easy to comprehend'?!

As I'm sure you are aware, the scientific literature physicists are producing and reading is NOT easily understood by lay people simply because they've been made aware of a famous formula expressing mass-energy equivalence.

Do you really believe that exposure to this formula (in pop culture, in an elementary high school physics class, or in a quick Google search) automatically imbues one's mind with a full/ nuanced appreciation of the nature of light, energy, and mass?!

How many people who've seen this formula would have even the slightest idea about the distinction to be drawn between mass and 'matter'?

How many of them can legitimately evaluate the latest paper in quantum mechanics in relation to the historical context of the search for a unified field theory?

In the same way, the medical matters Lowe is attempting to portray as simple, clear-cut and easily resolved are well beyond the competence of anyone but a medical doctor.

Simplicity is something lay people are quick to see. For the expert, "simplicity" is only a dream.

So I repeat: Is Lowe a doctor???

(I know 2 doctors that are inclined to suspect that he is not.)

 

[platonov]

"But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then --"

So Knox is imagining why she would have made the phone call. The answer reveals that she was thinking of a phone call that was made from her flat, not sollecito's. She knew what was being discussed. She knew that they were talking of a call that was made just before the door was broken down.

Have I got this right? Some of the lengthy discussions here make even the simplest things sound confusing.

You aint' seen nothing yet Colonel. You must have had a sheltered military career.

I invite you to revisit (on this thread) the perplexity over how one could possibly break a (inward opening) window from within a room by striking the outer face of the window pane - before adding to that the confusion between the inner and outer 'shutters'.

The confusion/confidence over analysis of gastric content and DNA evidence seem positively tame by comparison.

 

[treehorn]

Not bad. You get an A for effort. However, the cases aren't all that similar.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Ellard



It was a girl and her boyfriend - no 3rd party (like Guede). All the people were poor. She was taunted and/or ostracized by these girls whose subculture was influenced by Los Angeles street gangs. Virk [the victim] allegidly stole a phone book from Nicole Cook and started calling Cook's friends and spreading rumors about her. Nicole Cook started the fight but got off scott free.

These were teenagers and got off relatively lightly.


Also from Wikipedia:

."

I think the main differences are that they didn't kill the girl in their home and leave the body there and blood all over...

The murder was in Canada, not LA.

The girls were middle class.

Why are you over-looking all of the 'relevant similarities'?

alcohol + weed
petty school girl jealousy
group-bullying turned murder
multiple attackers
young, attractive, white female = ring leader
male accomplice who barely knows the victim
victim of East Indian descent

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn, what was the point of asking Kevin_Lowe so many times whether he was an MD, if when an actual MD posts to confirm what KL has been saying you just dismiss his/her opinion by falling back on the old argument that 'stomach contents don't prove anything anyway'? If you don't think it gives someone extra insight into this aspect of the case, then why were you even asking?

I am most decidedly NOT "dismiss[ing]" anyone's opinion.

I think this is a very interesting argument - I wouldn't have wasted my brothers' time with it otherwise.

I'm also very interested by the fact that "Diastole" (apparently a MD) has a very different opinion of Lowe's argument than my 2 doctor-brothers do.

It's all very difficult for me, as a lay person, to sort out. Hence my interest in Lowe's credentials.

If he's just an amateur like myself, well...

 

[Kestrel]

I disagree. To use a trite analogy, one does not have to be Einstein to be able to understand that energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. It's very easy to comprehend and assimilate most medical papers. Some terminology may require further research to understand, but the concepts and conclusions are usually readily accessible.

That's not to diminish the special skill, training and experience of those who actually conduct the research or those who work in these fields in general. But to suggest that only such people have any chance of understanding or interpreting research in their field is, to me, a massively incorrect assertion.

My sixth grade teacher once told us that only a few special people understood relativity. She also made it clear that we had our station in life, that none of us would ever understand such mysteries.

Even back then, I knew this was bull. My father was a scientist, I grew up around scientists. I understood that the articles in the scientific journals were written by mere mortals. Being in the same field might make it easier to understand the jargon and references to prior work. But any reasonably bright person could read these articles and come away understanding the logic, reasoning and evidence. It was even possible for a lay person to find errors of fact or reasoning in such works.

The dictates of authority are often used to pass off woo as reality. The preacher tells us he understands the secret code in the Holy books. A dowser tells us he has spent years learning how to find water with a forked stick. A psychic has a special gift allowing her to see the future. How it works is simply magical and beyond the comprehension of a lay person.

Real science isn't like this. The evidence is presented in a way that even people without advanced degrees can evaluate.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Indeed, to the extent AK may be a sociopath (and, yes, there are indications)

No, there aren't any indications. It is malicious speculation and nothing more.

When I first got involved in this case, back in April 08, I had compiled enough information to see that Amanda Knox was obviously innocent. But I had no idea what she was like.

Since that time, I have met Amanda's entire family and gotten to know Chris and Edda quite well. I have also met Amanda herself.

What I realize now is that Amanda has a special place in her family. She is the one who gets along with everyone, who dotes on the smaller children, who always finds time to listen and take an interest in other people, who is honest and fair in all her dealings. That is why her whole extended family is fighting so hard and so persistently to get her out of this judicial train wreck.

Nobody who actually knows Amanda would ever describe her as a "sociopath."

 

[treehorn]

NO, it would make very little sense for Knox to try to frame Lumumba. She knew with 100% certainty that he was working in his bar that night. A bar is a somewhat public environment, where she would have known that Lumumba would have been witnessed by customers, friends and staff. Had she known that Lumumba lived alone and was planning a quiet night in, then naming him might have made more sense.

Mmmmmmm...

it DID take the police a considerable amount of time (what was it...10 days?) to track down the one person that could confirm Lumumba's alibi

seems AK's educated-guess about Lumumba was right - he really did have trouble finding a witness/ accounting for his whereabouts at the relevant time...

do you recall the details?

it was a professor, I believe...

 

[treehorn]

No, there aren't any indications. It is malicious speculation and nothing more.

When I first got involved in this case, back in April 08, I had compiled enough information to see that Amanda Knox was obviously innocent. But I had no idea what she was like.

Since that time, I have met Amanda's entire family and gotten to know Chris and Edda quite well. I have also met Amanda herself.

What I realize now is that Amanda has a special place in her family. She is the one who gets along with everyone, who dotes on the smaller children, who always finds time to listen and take an interest in other people, who is honest and fair in all her dealings. That is why her whole extended family is fighting so hard and so persistently to get her out of this judicial train wreck.

Nobody who actually knows Amanda would ever describe her as a "sociopath."

If you didn't become involved with this case until some 6 months after the murder, how is it that you managed to "meet" with AK?

As for the signs of Antisocial PD, are you unaware of the opinions of psychologists that have been published?

Are you a psychologist or psychiatrist?

If not, how is that you are able to 'diagnose' AK?

 

[RWVBWL]

LOL, RWVBWL, how I love your inimitable earthy take on things. I thought of you when I read SomeAlibi's list of evidence for what happened the morning of the 2nd.
Yes, it is hard to believe they were asleep, but SomeAlibi's evidence doesn't lead me in the same sinister direction it leads him. For those of us who didn't have our noses to the grindstone in law school when we were in our early twenties, if we woke up in our boyfriend or girlfriend's bed at dawn, we didn't go back to sleep, if you catch my drift.

How about this scenario instead?

Raffaele gets up at 5:30 to go to the bathroom. Amanda is pounding her ear, and he is too polite to wake her up, so he gets back in bed with his laptop and starts playing music (songs he knows she likes?), hoping that'll do the trick.

At 6:00 the SMS from Raffaele's dad comes in. (BTW, it is concluded by the judge that this indicates Raffaele's turned his phone on, but it is not proven by phone records.) Amanda is awake by this time, whether from the music or the SMS; they make love for a while, then doze off again. At around 9, Raffaele's dad calls, they talk. Amanda is tired, so she sleeps. After Raffaele talks to his dad, he goes back to sleep.

Amanda wakes up again around 10 or 10:30. She testifies:
Quote:
AK: So, when I woke up, I don't remember what time it was, but I think around 10, 10:30, I was there and I saw that Raffaele was still sleeping, so I watched him for a little while, then I said, okay, I'm going home to take a shower and change, and when I come back, we'll go, because we had this plan to go to Gubbio, because it was a holiday that day, there was no school for me, or anyway I was going to skip it.

The elephant in the room is that Amanda and Raffaele probably had sex all night, with short naps between sessions. The first several days they were questioned by police, they didn't know the horrible fate that was about to befall them, so they withheld the personal details -- after all, it's nobody's business. Once Amanda had told the police she had slept in until about 10, she was not about to go back and say, "Well, what I meant was, we got it on for awhile at 6 and then went back to sleep. Raffaele's dad called at 9 and I dozed while he talked to him. By the time I woke up at 10, Raffaele had fallen back to sleep. We were both super-super-tired from doing it all night."

Does that sound more likely to you, RWVBWL?

Either that, or Knox really did sleep all the way through til 10am or so. It's entirely plausible that Sollecito might have woken up around 5.30, messed around on his computer for half an hour or so, played some music, checked his cellphone for messages, then went back to sleep until his father called him just before 9.30am, then went back to doze/sleep again until around 10am. And all without Knox ever properly waking.

Most people who share a bed with a partner (me included) know how possible it is to wake in the night and put on the TV or play music for a while, without your partner ever waking up. And I've definitely made phone calls before under the same circumstances.

As I mentioned before, I don't believe that Sollecito has ever been questioned in depth about the exact circumstances of that night. If I'd been to bed last night, woke up at 5.30 and watched TV for half an hour, went back to sleep, was woken by the phone at 9.30, then went back to sleep again until 10.00-10.30am, and I was asked what time I'd got up this morning, I'd undoubtedly say "10-10.30".

Hi Mary H and LondonJohn,
You have both described very nicely how I can see things truly happening on the morning of the day that Miss Meredith Kercher was found dead...

The part where Amanda Knox says that she looked at Raffaele as he was asleep struck a chord in me, I bet she must have really liked the guy.
I've awoken to see my gal doin' the same...

Have a good day,
RWVBWL

 

[Kaosium]

The information on the internet, which is all we have, is partial. The best documentation to prove guilt is withheld by those releasing trial documents.

If that's the case, why did they rely on such dubious 'evidence' at trial? Wouldn't that suggest that any additional evidence they might have collected is of even less quality?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I could be wrong but the slander case is not a criminal case but a civil case raised by the Perugian Flying Squad officers against Amanda and her parents; can anyone confirm?