Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Here's the thing about that site. I rarely go read it because it is 95% mud-slinging with very little substance. While this site sometimes degrades into some of the same, for the most part there are good opposing viewpoints. There is much more content here than there, whether you agree with said content or not.

As you all know, I tend to lean more towards guilt than innocence but I could never belong to that site as I think it is beyond ridiculous what is posted there and misrepresented as debate.

Lately I've been thinking about a compromise situation which would explain many of the troubling aspects (for me) of the case. Like perhaps Amanda knew about something but not that it would end in murder. Perhaps she set Rudy up to run into MK, telling him he might be able to have his way with her because MK liked him. In a sense, she egged Rudy on. Perhaps she didn't know until the next morning what had really happened to MK but she lied about things because she was remotely involved.

It is all conjecture but it seems as though there are only 2 well-defined, separate sides to the debate and I have never seen anyone consider any possiblity in between.

I think there may be an inbetween side too. Amanda may have stumbled on the body in the morning and got scared and confused. I certainly would have. I don't know what I would have done, especially if I had a hangover. If I had a hangover, I would have only been interested in finding a place to vomit.

The lawyers would have told her what to say and what not to say.

The thing is, her calls were monitored. Her cellmates were interrogated (most likely), her diaries were read, copied and distributed, and she was interrogated to the point of torture and brainwashing. If it didn't come out, it probably didn't happen.

 

[Machiavelli]

I again humbly ask which of those statements and their implications compelled you to include in your paraphrase words "and Meredith didn't answer the phone"?

Actually this is the first time I focus on this - only after reading another poster - and I realize I meant to write "Meredith didn't answer at the door". I think this mistake is an overlapping of the concept of "phone" in my mind when I was writing, summed to the fact my language is not English.
But In fact I didn't mean to pay attention at all to recollect what was the second (or third) detail that was attached in Amanda's account after the "open door", when she referred to the "many strange details". I am not giving importance at all to these details in Amanda's explanation. The point is much more simple: Knox just only sketched a vague explanation for the call, devoid of compelling or precise reasons, and appeared to not acknowledge the logical need for a reason, she appeared to diminish the weight of the reason needed for this call.

 

[Machiavelli]

BTW Contrary to what you wrote this is different from Edda's account of that call, as it doesn't include a break-in nor missing Meredith. It clearly indicates that Amanda is trying to hypothesize (by Comodi's request) a call that would have happened at 12:00 (again by Comodi's suggestion). She doesn't remember that call so she has no reason to not believe the time that Comodi pushed and Massei confirmed. (..)

But, do you realize or not that what Amanda was thinking to hypothesize doesn't matter? All this doesn't matter to me! What Amanda "thinks" is nothing factual: it could be an important guess only for those who believe Amanda. This can't have any value for a prosecutor who is accusing her to be a murderer nor for a neutral observer.
Amanda said she doesn't remember any phone call before the police were there, and whatever is the circumstance she tries to hypothesize (or to make up), what matters is this hypothesis is inconsistent, the very fact she hypothesizes urgent phone calls on demand - a calls defined such that wake up her mother in the night - and explains herself in terms of open and vague possibility including anything like "maybe, could be because i found an open door and didn't know about strange things..", this is innatural, it is inconsistent.

 

[platonov]

See, this a perspective I just can't comprehend. How can you possibly know what it would be "natural" for someone to remember or not remember in exceptional circumstances (or even in completely normal circumstances)? How can you have such rigid criteria for what another individual should recollect of a particular situation that you're able to describe the forgetting of a particular (minor) fact as "unnatural" and "not credible"?

It's this position that I don't find credible, because it appears to be based on nothing more than your own arbitrary criteria as to what another person should remember in that situation, which is something you can't possibly know. Not everything can be neatly fitted into a system. If she doesn't remember it, she simply doesn't remember it.



I'm confused. This says nothing about the timing of the first phone call; it only suggests that Amanda remembers the second one, and when it took place ("the one that I made after they sent us out of the house"). How do you get from this that she thinks the first phone call took place after she'd phoned Meredith?

It seems to me that you're just over-complicating things here, or not wanting to admit you were wrong with your initial quote of what Amanda said. Why not just admit you were loosely paraphrasing and got it a bit wrong? It's not exactly a big deal.

Heck, we all forget things on occasion.

This I can actually agree with - as it applies to this debate. That's not to say his point isn't clear and well made - nor difficult to comprehend; merely he is pitching his argument at the wrong level [as I predicted** on the basis of the 'perplexity' over the broken window ]

Indeed till a day or 2 back several posters were blaming Comodi for this and even events predating* her 'lies'.
All that seems to have been forgotten.
*in this case despite (or perhaps because of) my humble and succinct efforts.

It appears neither brevity nor patient explanation will suffice.


** Have no fear , Randi's million is safe. It was like calling a two-headed coin toss.

 

[Dan O.]

Lately I've been thinking about a compromise situation which would explain many of the troubling aspects (for me) of the case. Like perhaps Amanda knew about something but not that it would end in murder. Perhaps she set Rudy up to run into MK, telling him he might be able to have his way with her because MK liked him. In a sense, she egged Rudy on. Perhaps she didn't know until the next morning what had really happened to MK but she lied about things because she was remotely involved.

It is all conjecture but it seems as though there are only 2 well-defined, separate sides to the debate and I have never seen anyone consider any possiblity in between.

For me, in order to find a compromise, I would need do see some bit of evidence for it. There have been many suggestions that Amanda knew something that she shouldn't have known if she were innocent; but none of those when examined closely bare any fruit.

First the prosecution says Amanda heard Meredith scream. But Amanda writes of this and says it was the prosecution that suggested there was a scream. The prosecution could have proven this was not so by producing a tape of the interrogation but there was no tape (or so they say). Even then, independent confirmation of the scream would have been a point in their favor. But alas, they destroyed all evidentiary value of the scream by immediately releasing the story to the press.

Then it's "Amanda knew details of the murder scene". But it turns out that what she knew, Meredith being stuffed in the closet with only a foot sticking out, is totally not reality except the part about the foot. The rest of those present did see the room when the door was kicked in and they talked about it on the way to the police station and Amanda got it wrong as would be expected in that situation.

Before the door was kicked in, Amanda moved away from Meredith's door and some say this is an indication that Amanda knew what lay beyond the door. But this is pure speculation as there is no data that would show whether a guilty person would be nearer of further from the door at that time.

It's gone on like this since the beginning. Every little movement or statement by Amanda has been analyzed and inevitably someone says that it's an indication of her guilt. But never has there been any solid validation of this belief. Where is the statistical evidence showing that performing cartwheels at the police station is a sign of guilt?


For me, without any proven evidence of even partial guilt it comes down to one rule: presumption of innocence.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

For me, without any proven evidence of even partial guilt it comes down to one rule: presumption of innocence.

If she and Raffaele had been there but not actively involved in the murder, they'd have admitted it. As it is, the cops pulled these kids into separate rooms and scared the crap out of them, arrested them, and hauled them off to jail - and neither one of them said a word about the guy who left bloody fingerprints and shoe prints in the room where Meredith was killed. That does not compute. The other day, somebody mentioned the Shoreline Six, which was typical of how these cases play out. When the heat came down, the kids admitted they were there, but they blamed each other and minimized their own roles.

 

[Justinian2]

If she and Raffaele had been there but not actively involved in the murder, they'd have admitted it. As it is, the cops pulled these kids into separate rooms and scared the crap out of them, arrested them, and hauled them off to jail - and neither one of them said a word about the guy who left bloody fingerprints and shoe prints in the room where Meredith was killed. That does not compute. The other day, somebody mentioned the Shoreline Six, which was typical of how these cases play out. When the heat came down, the kids admitted they were there, but they blamed each other and minimized their own roles.

Fantastic point!

 

[platonov]

For me, in order to find a compromise, I would need do see some bit of evidence for it.
...............
..........................
.................................
.......................................

by Amanda has been analyzed and inevitably someone says that it's an indication of her guilt. But never has there been any solid validation of this belief. Where is the statistical evidence showing that performing cartwheels at the police station is a sign of guilt?
For me, without any proven evidence of even partial guilt it comes down to one rule: presumption of innocence.

And after ~27,300 posts we are back to square 1.

Is this what the big crunch will feel like ?

.

 

[RoseMontague]

And after ~27,300 posts we are back to square 1.

Is this what the big crunch will feel like ?

.

Let's compare notes afterward, shall we?

I believe that guilt on the basis of physical evidence has grown considerably weaker over the last few months and what is left amounts to little more than what it started with.

 

[s_pepys]

hi rose

i would certainly agree that the debate has not moved forward to much although the evidence, imo, stands the same as it did at the start. Damn that cartwheel thread!

lxxx

 

[s_pepys]

btw

i started reading darkness descending but had to stop a few chapters in. I found it to be vile, tacky and totally innapropriate in its style and content. horrible! im not easily offended but i found that book extremely disturbing and offensive. cant imagine how the kercher or knox families would feel after reading that airport trash!

surprised its not been brought up before, or am i just forgetful?

lxxx

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is the remand order on Sabrina Misseri (Sarah Scazzi's cousin) if any are interested in that case.

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Assets/Pdf/scazzi_ordinanza_sabrina.pdf

 

[RoseMontague]

hi rose

i would certainly agree that the debate has not moved forward to much although the evidence, imo, stands the same as it did at the start. Damn that cartwheel thread!

lxxx

I saw your post on the other thread stating a still undecided position. You indicate concerns with both the murder weapon and time of death. Both of these things indicate to me that you must have some degree of doubt but are not convinced. What is it about these two issues that you remain unconvinced on?

 

[s_pepys]

hey rose

Defintely undecided is a good description of my position. Although i think that more people here should admit that undecided is the only honest position unless you where there in the courtroom or privvy to all the evidence and arguments.

From reading this thread and Massei i notice that the impossibility (despite what some think) of determining a tod is a big problem for both the prosecutors and the defence in this case. This to me just highlights how vital it is on a forensic scene to prioritise this information.

With regards to the knife. It is not shown, imo, whether it was the actual murder weapon or not. I must therefore defer to the people in the courtroom to decide. anything else is conjecture. Again, it just highlights the importance of positively identifying the murder weapon without doubt.

This is not an open and shut case but, then again, they rarely are.

I started the other thread as i am very interested in the public opinion relating to cases like this and have found constructive discourse to be difficult on this thread. a lot seem to have invested so much on their "side" that objectivity went out of the window about 5000 posts ago. If it has ever been here at all.

Present company accepted. lol

lxxx

 

[Mary_H]

hey rose

Defintely undecided is a good description of my position. Although i think that more people here should admit that undecided is the only honest position unless you where there in the courtroom or privvy to all the evidence and arguments.

From reading this thread and Massei i notice that the impossibility (despite what some think) of determining a tod is a big problem for both the prosecutors and the defence in this case. This to me just highlights how vital it is on a forensic scene to prioritise this information.

With regards to the knife. It is not shown, imo, whether it was the actual murder weapon or not. I must therefore defer to the people in the courtroom to decide. anything else is conjecture. Again, it just highlights the importance of positively identifying the murder weapon without doubt.

This is not an open and shut case but, then again, they rarely are.

I started the other thread as i am very interested in the public opinion relating to cases like this and have found constructive discourse to be difficult on this thread. a lot seem to have invested so much on their "side" that objectivity went out of the window about 5000 posts ago. If it has ever been here at all.

Present company accepted. lol

lxxx

I responded to your post on the other thread, sam.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188989&page=2

P.S. Other people here have said Darkness Descending is a bad book.

 

[LondonJohn]

btw

i started reading darkness descending but had to stop a few chapters in. I found it to be vile, tacky and totally innapropriate in its style and content. horrible! im not easily offended but i found that book extremely disturbing and offensive. cant imagine how the kercher or knox families would feel after reading that airport trash!

surprised its not been brought up before, or am i just forgetful?

lxxx

I'd agree. It's a very strange mixture of adjective-strewn semi-fiction and reportage. I particularly dislike the way the authors have chosen to dramatise key events with descriptive language that is pulled completely out of thin air.

Darkness Descending was the first piece of information that I read about this case - I hadn't really followed the arrests and trial contemporaneously. I overlooked the often-distasteful writing style, but I sort of assumed that the reportage parts were factually correct. How wrong I was. This book, in a nutshell, is why I started out believing Knox and Sollecito to be guilty as charged, since if one were to read this book and nothing else, it would be hard to arrive at a different conclusion. Fortunately, reading the book made me interested to find out more about the case. And the more I found out about it, the more I became concerned that the convictions weren't in fact safe at all.

 

[Kaosium]

Goodness. It's like 'This is your Commander speaking, come back to your home planet', isn't it? Extraordinary.

It makes you wonder sometimes if they realize how they come across. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I read some of this stuff and go 'Geez...'

 

[Dan O.]

hey rose

Defintely undecided is a good description of my position. Although i think that more people here should admit that undecided is the only honest position unless you where there in the courtroom or privvy to all the evidence and arguments.

We may actually have the same opinion of the evidence. While I have not seen evidence that proves (or even strongly suggests) guilt, I have also not seen evidence that proves innocence. Where you equate these two and come up with "undecided", I apply the overriding rule of presumption of innocence and come up with "not proven guilty".

The presumption of innocence is necessary for balance. Where the prosecution is in control of gathering the evidence and can formulate any hypothetical scenario of guilt consistent with that evidence, the defense must defend against any scenario that the prosecution may choose and for a large part using the evidence that the prosecution provides.

The bias in evidence gathering we saw early in the case. In one example, the prosecution received and analyzed survailence video from street cameras on the route that Amanda and Raffaele would have taken to reach the cottage. But when the defense asked to see those videos within a week or two of the crime they had already been destroyed. There were two two street cameras along that route that I was able to identify and both would have had a view of the outside of the store where Amanda supposedly stopped to buy cleaning supplies on the morning of the second. We don't have this evidence to confirm or deny anything because the prosecution decided in the first week that there was nothing they could use.

 

[Katody Matrass]

They did have some bad things to say about us. I think Katody is going to get her feelings hurt when she gets up in the morning.

Beloved Leader ordered a full scale retreat, I mean a tactical regroup
And I get a honorable mention, I'm flattered. Does it mean I'm declared a "suppressive person" now? Should I expect an investigation of my identity and subsequent stalking ?

 

[Kaosium]

Lately I've been thinking about a compromise situation which would explain many of the troubling aspects (for me) of the case. Like perhaps Amanda knew about something but not that it would end in murder. Perhaps she set Rudy up to run into MK, telling him he might be able to have his way with her because MK liked him. In a sense, she egged Rudy on. Perhaps she didn't know until the next morning what had really happened to MK but she lied about things because she was remotely involved.

It is all conjecture but it seems as though there are only 2 well-defined, separate sides to the debate and I have never seen anyone consider any possiblity in between.

What really happened we may never know, but I find Amanda's and her supporters version plausible and the prosecution's theory unproven and frankly absurd. The depths they descended to in the attempt, and the fact they could come up with no actual evidence suggests to me whatever happened, Amanda and Raffaele weren't there, didn't know, and were frightened when accused of it.

I'd be interested in discussing alternate theories too, but I suspect the reason this tends to come down to two camps is it all started with the prosecutor trying to prove one thing, and if that's not true it doesn't seem like there's much reason to think she was involved at all. Rudy left real evidence all over the crime scene and what ties Amanda to Rudy? Almost nothing, he was a drifter who hung out with the boys downstairs. Why would Amanda have had anything to do with setting up a sex-game or whatever they decided on, with Rudy?