Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

True, but what outside the first court's verdict gives you reason to think they were actually guilty?

Ooh careful. That's actually NOT true. If the prosecution did not present enough evidence to convince the court of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then they should not have been convicted. Regardless of whether they actually were involved in the murder or not. That's how justice operates these days.

As an example, I became convinced that Barry George was wrongly convicted of the high-profile murder of Jill Dando in the UK. His conviction was subsequently overturned and he was found not guilty in a retrial - correctly, in my opinion. Yet I still believe, on balance, that he likely did commit the murder. And I have no trouble whatsoever in reconciling these two beliefs.

It's plain and simple: if there's not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed a given crime (and assuming the person does not confess), then that person should not be convicted of that crime, regardless of whether they actually committed the crime or not.

 

[Jungle Jim]

True, but what outside the first court's verdict gives you reason to think they were actually guilty?

I'm not positive they are guilty. Nor am I positive they are innocent. I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on either possibility.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The ABA on full DNA disclosure

In addition to every forensic expert whom I asked, legal experts within the United States (see below) support complete disclosure of all DNA forensic information, including but not limited to the electronic data files. Nothing close to full disclosure happened in this case. Bob Graham wrote, “It has also emerged that the prosecution has failed to deliver to the defence all the paperwork and documentation related to the forensic testing.” He reported on the prosecution’s response: “Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’”

The American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section Standards on DNA evidence discusses disclosure in section 4.1:
(a) The prosecutor should be required, within a specified and reasonable time prior to trial, to make available to the defense the following information and material relating to DNA evidence:
(viii) all raw electronic data produced during testing;

Obviously the Italian courts are not bound by the ABA’s guidelines. However, this is additional documentation, as if any more were required, that release of the electronic data files is a near-universal norm in most nations. For Ms. Comodi to indicate that she has the right to decide what is enough is inconsistent with Mr. Maresca's proclamation that Italy is showing the world and the United States how to do forensics. I suggest that Ms. Comodi take Mr. Maresca's words seriously.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry, I just can't understand this at all. Why would it matter to you at all what the JREF moderation team thinks about your participation in other forums? When did they get the right to tell you which forums they "approve" of you posting upon? Post here if you personally want to; don't post if you don't personally want to. It's that simple. Or are you on some sort of payroll or contract?

I also think it's totally out of order to write things like:

"...just to remind people that all the arguments presented here, till now, are ineffective and appear irrelevant to an observer."

That is your opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to it. But it is not fact, however much you might want to present it as fact.

In the final analysis, though, the fact that you seem to feel the need to act upon the implicit instructions of a person (whom you've presumably never met and have no relationship with) who runs another forum (and who clearly has.....issues), ...

I think the JREF moderators dislike my participation in this forum, and I'm not leaving.
This is not the first time you get the meaning of my posts completely wrong. If your comprehension was the same about the legal documents and literature you've read, maybe that's why you come to your conclusions.

It is a fact that your arguments are ineffective on me. Another fact that could be, is they might be unconvincing for a panel of judges. I want to educately point out that I present my opinions/judgements clearly stating them as opinions/judgements, and make clear when I believe something is a facts, by stating it as a fact.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I think the JREF moderators dislike my participation in this forum, and I'm not leaving.
This is not the first time you get the meaning of my posts completely wrong. If your comprehension was the same about the legal documents and literature you've read, maybe that's why you come to your conclusions.

It is a fact that your arguments are ineffective on me. Another fact that could be, is they might be unconvincing for a panel of judges. I want to educately point out that I present my opinions/judgements clearly stating them as opinions/judgements, and make clear when I believe something is a facts, by stating it as a fact.

Thank you for the detailed posting on the bathmat footprint evidence! As always, I value your information immensely Yummi and I am glad to hear you are sticking around. Do you also have information on the other footprint evidence to which you refer in your bathmat post? I'd like to see how they do or do not "fit" like the bathmat demonstration.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the JREF moderators dislike my participation in this forum, and I'm not leaving.
This is not the first time you get the meaning of my posts completely wrong. If your comprehension was the same about the legal documents and literature you've read, maybe that's why you come to your conclusions.

It is a fact that your arguments are ineffective on me. Another fact that could be, is they might be unconvincing for a panel of judges. I want to educately point out that I present my opinions/judgements clearly stating them as opinions/judgements, and make clear when I believe something is a facts, by stating it as a fact.

Ah yes. Apologies. But the reason why I misread it is fairly obvious: the JREF moderators quite evidently don't care who posts on this forum, so long as they stay on topic and they do not insult other members. Quite why you think that anyone in charge of JREF "dislikes your participation here" I have no idea, and I find the concept insulting to the way these boards are run. And I don't believe you either when you claim this.

On the contrary, other forums issue dictats about who should participate where, and ban people whose point of view they disagree with, whilst insulting them with a liberal use of unpleasant expletives at every opportunity. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand the difference in approach.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Machiavelli]

Ah yes. Apologies. But the reason why I misread it is fairly obvious: the JREF moderators quite evidently don't care who posts on this forum, so long as they stay on topic and they do not insult other members. Quite why you think that anyone in charge of JREF "dislikes your participation here" I have no idea, and I find the concept insulting to the way these boards are run. And I don't believe you either when you claim this.

On the contrary, other forums issue dictats about who should participate where, and ban people whose point of view they disagree with, whilst insulting them with a liberal use of unpleasant expletives at every opportunity. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand the difference in approach.

This discussion is getting off topic, and in possible violation of a board rule. This is why I can't explain you my ideas here. However, if I say my problem is the moderation, I have my reasons to say this, and I invite you to avoid discussing them.

 

[LondonJohn]

This discussion is getting off topic, and in possible violation of a board rule. This is why I can't explain you my ideas here. However, if I say my problem is the moderation, I have my reasons to say this, and I invite you to avoid discussing them.

Fine. No more discussion.

 

[LondonJohn]

The bathmat footprint analysis done by Yummi on PMF is a case study in ex-post rationalisation. The enhanced-contrast photographs of the print show clearly that the outline of the big toe does not extend width-wise beyond the extent of the narrower bloody mark. Yet it now gets conveniently widened in order to fit Sollecito's wider big toe. And there's a convenient failure to comment that Sollecito's arch area does not map to the bath mat print with any accuracy whatsoever.

This is all ludicrous pseudoscience. Its use has been almost entirely discredited in the wider justice community. It's impossible to say whose print is on that mat with any certainty whatsoever.

PS Perhaps the reason the bathmat was still damp was that someone had stood on it with wet feet earlier that morning. After having a shower......

 

[el buscador]

If I remember correctly, the bath mat footprint was first attributed to rudy. I have looked for the police scientific report on this issue but not found it. Was there an early report or was this an early assumption made by someone by just looking at the print?

 

[Malkmus]

The bathmat footprint analysis done by Yummi on PMF is a case study in ex-post rationalisation. The enhanced-contrast photographs of the print show clearly that the outline of the big toe does not extend width-wise beyond the extent of the narrower bloody mark. Yet it now gets conveniently widened in order to fit Sollecito's wider big toe. And there's a convenient failure to comment that Sollecito's arch area does not map to the bath mat print with any accuracy whatsoever.

This is all ludicrous pseudoscience. Its use has been almost entirely discredited in the wider justice community. It's impossible to say whose print is on that mat with any certainty whatsoever.

PS Perhaps the reason the bathmat was still damp was that someone had stood on it with wet feet earlier that morning. After having a shower......

Yeah, seriously, that high contrast photo Yummi posted contradicts his/her entire argument. How can you look at these three photos and not see which two are the same?

 

[lionking]

Before modern forensics, video cameras and computers, convictions were very difficult. Law enforcement and the public must have grown very exasperated because the vast majority of murderers were never apprehended.

So fear was used. When a guilty person was found, they would make a big show of his conviction. The death penalty was used. This made people think twice about committing a crime for fear of being caught. Heck, it even made sense to the less noble in government to convict a few innocent people to increase the conviction rate. Fear of punishment and ridicule would control those inclined to murder. Furthermore, they would be elected because they put criminals behind bars.

Today we don't have to convict innocent people and throw them in jail just to throw the fear of 'God' into the majority. Is this the reason why some people act like their lives depend on the continued incarceration of AK and RS?

I would let my daughter be AK's roommate. I would let my son date AK.

This post went by uncommented upon. Do you have any evidence, examples or even anecdotes supporting these contentions?

 

[Dan O.]

Since it's already been pointed out that some of the measurements on the reference footprints are incorrect, where do we look to confirm the actual scale?

 

[Machiavelli]

The bathmat footprint analysis done by Yummi on PMF is a case study in ex-post rationalisation.

while arguments build by by supporters groupies are not....

The enhanced-contrast photographs of the print show clearly that the outline of the big toe does not extend width-wise beyond the extent of the narrower bloody mark. Yet it now gets conveniently widened in order to fit Sollecito's wider big toe. And there's a convenient failure to comment that Sollecito's arch area does not map to the bath mat print with any accuracy whatsoever.

I posted pictures for everybody to see. I made a comment on the line you mention, and I wish people to consider many aspects of the print altogether, as visual information and the right side of the brain allow us to do.
I could have commented, for example, that Sollecito almost doesn't put weight on his small toes, while Guede puts considerable body weight on them, and the bathmat print has no (or almost no) small toe marks. This is an analogy. I wonder why Guede's big toe has got so completely soaked and the fore part of the feet got evenly bloodied, while the small toes diden't.
I want people to consider the overall parts of the picture, like where Guede's second toe falls and where the bloody mark falls.

This is all ludicrous pseudoscience. Its use has been almost entirely discredited in the wider justice community. It's impossible to say whose print is on that mat with any certainty whatsoever.

PS Perhaps the reason the bathmat was still damp was that someone had stood on it with wet feet earlier that morning. After having a shower......

perhaps... or perhaps not.
But I'd like you to correct your statement on alleged pseudoscience, because this is offensive since not true. It is legitimate and intellectually correct to state that you thnk the research doesn't lead to a conclusion, but it is not fair and quite offensive to say it is pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" may only refer to something that declares to be science or pretends to be science. This is not my case, I'm not selling you science (and - while I take in account of any scientific argument available - I have never thought judicial cases must or can be solved by science). The purpose for which you use the term "pseudoscience" is derogatory, you use it as an argument to attack the very fact that the topic is raised and evalued, before chacking how inconclusive could be and independently from its conclusions.
This is a bit beyond in being dismissive, quite "too certain" as well from my point of view.
Anyone can make his own idea by looking at the pictures. New ways can be searched to fit the bathamt in Guede's print. Arguments can be listed. Everybody can make up their logical interpretations or search for more literature or research on experimental grounds, or decide what they think is more likely.

 

[Machiavelli]

Since it's already been pointed out that some of the measurements on the reference footprints are incorrect, where do we look to confirm the actual scale?

I have never stated that the measurements on the reference footprints are incorrect, they are correct (except the wrong number shown more than a year ago by CWilkens, a datum that is reported correct in Massei's report ayway).
I said I assume they have an intrinsic error, which is something totally different.

 

[Malkmus]

Anyone can make his own idea by looking at the pictures. New ways can be searched to fit the bathamt in Guede's print. Arguments can be listed. Everybody can make up their logical interpretations or search for more literature or research on experimental grounds, or decide what they think is more likely.

Machiavelli, anyone can look at the photos above and see three distinctive similarities between the bathmat print and Guede's:

1. The big toe is the same exact shape as Rudy's and completely different from Sollecitio's.

2. You can even see where Rudy's foot is cleft between the big toe and second toe (what looks like a triangular indentation on the ball of his foot).

3. Rudy's reference print leaves a mark between the pad of the big toe and where it connects to the ball of the foot. Sollecito's does not. The bathmat print has that imprint. Sollecito's does not.

Anything beyond simply using one's eyes to look and compare the the three prints is excessive and I find your exhaustive attempt to make the print look like Rudy's to be a prime example of obfuscation. It simply doesn't need that much explanation. It's obvious who the print belongs to.

 

[Danceme]

Just to chime in on the whole phone call debate, I'd be interested in knowing what Katody et al think Edda meant by saying "...but nothing had happened yet" when taped conversing with Amanda about the call. Why did Edda describe the call this way? Could it be because when Amanda called her she told her mother only very little of the strange things she found at the house. Perhaps she had not mentioned the broken window at this point, or much else besides finding an open door and a couple of blood stains in the bathroom, hence her mother saying"...nothing had happened yet". If she had told her mother all this it's unlikely to be described as "nothing had happened yet", when in fact plenty had happened.

Also, Amanda's insistence on her utter lack of memory of this call could simply be because she and her lawyers were unwilling for her to be questioned on its content, on exactly what she told Edda in that call to leave her mother thinking that nothing had happened yet. Edda's own testimony on the stand about this call makes one wonder why she would ever have described it as 'before anything had happened yet' given the amount of detail she says Amanda relayed in an 88 second call.

I think Comodi zones in on this call to get from Amanda why she would call her mother, waking her from sleep, before she had even called the police, given all that had actually happened by this point. The broken window was discovered, Meredith's was nowhere to be found and her door was locked, there was blood and feces in the apartment, and the front door had been found open. Amanda was standing next to her Italian boyfriend who could have easily dialed the number and relayed the info to the police but that didn't happen right away, Amanda calls her mom first. Sorry, but that just seems strange to me too, and all the emphasis placed on the evil intent behind the 12:00 or 12:47 time as stated by Comodi these last ten or so pages only serves as a distraction and a way to avoid discussing the real issues around this call.

The call, if able to be described as Edda described it as "...but nothing had happened yet", really could be the beginnings of trying to establish an alibi.

There's always two ways of looking at something and it seems that what one believes about this call is completely entrenched in one's view of innocence or guilt. The 'innocentisti' only see it as Comodi deliberately attempting to mislead the jury, even though Amanda's lawyers have prepared her for her testimony, and even though they know all evidence to be presented in advance through discovery, and even though they have wads of paper relating to the evidence sitting on the tables in front of them, no one catches the evil tactics of Comodi that serve to let the jury think Amanda made this call some 47 minutes before she did, at a time when "nothing had happened yet".

On the other side, Amanda won't admit to this call because it would probably incriminate her to be examined on it, it was her feeble attempt at creating the start of an alibi, and Edda lied on the stand to cover for her daughter because she's the only person other than Amanda who knows exactly what Amanda said in that phone call to her mother, when she should have been calling the police instead.

Personally, I'm really not positive of either interpretation.

 

[Kaosium]

Ooh careful. That's actually NOT true. If the prosecution did not present enough evidence to convince the court of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then they should not have been convicted. Regardless of whether they actually were involved in the murder or not. That's how justice operates these days.

I understand what you mean; however I think, like I believe you suggested in another post today, that there's at least two levels to this case. One, whether they did it, and two whether or not sufficient evidence was presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they did it, the standard under Italian law.

I think both are worth exploring and this case garners more attention than most because there is plenty of indications, starting with no evidence of them at the scene outside the contrived, that they didn't do it. I'm afraid I wouldn't have as much interest if it appeared they might just get off on a technicality. I think there's probably many that feel that way.

 

[Justinian2]

This post went by uncommented upon. Do you have any evidence, examples or even anecdotes supporting these contentions?

History gives us has trial by combat, trial by ordeal, and the vendetta. In light of man's history, we should not be surprised at anything. I am so sure of AK's and RS's innocence (in terms of evidence) that I am sometimes guilty of circular reasoning. Enough said.

 

[Chris C]

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?

Dont forget some of the guilters like to bring up how she is a Nazi and a Racist. She blames Patrick of the crimes because he is black and Knox is a White, Nazi and Racist, but they like to leave out the fact that she stands accuse of being part of a sex game with another black man.