Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[samba]

You seem to want to play a game where innocenters have to prove beyond all doubt that Amanda and Sollecito could not possibly have been involved in any way with Meredith's murder, which is almost exactly the opposite of how the justice system actually works. If you don't have a specific story that makes them all simultaneously guilty of murder that you can show is true beyond reasonable doubt, you don't have a case.

Right on! I've asked a few times for the scenario that has AK & RS involved....and I have yet to see one. I just keep hearing..they were definitely involved.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Right on! I've asked a few times for the scenario that has AK & RS involved....and I have yet to see one. I just keep hearing..they were definitely involved.

That's because they don't have any such scenario.

It's been established pretty thoroughly by now that Meredith almost certainly died in the 21:05-21:30 time period - even in the now-sealed guilter forums they ended up accepting that the stomach evidence could not on the face of it be reconciled with the time of death Massei eventually went for, and while they put a lot of effort into trying to find some way to weasel out of the obvious conclusion it was still pretty damned clear that even they had to acknowledge there was (at the very minimum) reasonable doubt about whether Meredith could possibly have died at 23:30.

However once you put the time of death back to 21:05 or so there's no remotely plausible story to be told about how Amanda and Raffaele decided to leave Raffaele's house, head over to Amanda's, hook up with Rudy who they barely knew, savagely sexually assault and murder Meredith and then decide to try to cover it all up. That's not to say that the official reefer madness theory where the four of them hung out for a while toking up and that led somehow to rape and murder is very plausible anyway, unless you're unreasonably afraid of young people, drugs and comics, but it's still the best they had.

There's also the major, major problem of trying to cling to the guilter's touching faith in Nara and Curatolo as witnesses. They really don't want to admit that those two were lying or deluded, but once Meredith's death is moved back to 21:05-21:30 it becomes inevitable that their stories are total rubbish.

They would have to argue that Knox and Sollecito rushed out the door at 21:10 or so, raced to Amanda's house, high-fived Rudy as they went through the door, helped rape and murder Meredith for no reason, using a kitchen knife they brought along for no reason, without getting any blood on their clothes, then ran straight back outside to wander around in front of Curatolo for two hours, then went back to clean everything up, and then I guess somehow Meredith's dying scream travelled forward in time two hours to wake Nara or something... I don't know, I mean, I'm trying my best here but it's just nonsensical.

 

[Matthew Best]

Check it out:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-obsessed-with-amanda-knoxs-fate-2124415.html

Sadly Knox does seem to attract some pretty kooky people to her cause. Lisa Lazuli, for example:

I have only just come to realise that I have massive issues being in a human body and living this earthly existence. Knowing my style is usually blasting through the Game called earth and getting wiped out before I am here too long. This time its different I did try to leave the game over 15 years ago, thinking my ticket was up. I blasted up all the way thinking wow that was twisted and looked below and felt a great sadness of leaving my family back down on earth and just knew I had to come back to finish what I had started.

Huh?

 

[RoseMontague]

I just looked up "Blood: The Last Vampire" which you can view online at:

http://manga.animea.net/blood-the-last-vampire-chapter-1-page-1.html

I skimmed through it and it wasn't as macabre as advertised, and I never did find the scene of legs being chopped off the main character, though a handful of pages didn't load and I just skipped on to the next. You'd think that would be a major plot point--the main character being disabled--and would last more than a page, but perhaps not. She was the last 'purebred' vampire or somesuch, so I guess she could have recuperated within a page.

I had trouble following it as it didn't hold my interest, but there was a fair amount of bare female bodies. The only instances of attempted forced sex that I could see were quickly interrupted by the main character administering a butt-kicking. At the end of Chapter 2 there's a scene with the villain in his/her lair with dead girls who look like they've been slashed, and at the end of the third chapter/beginning of the fourth there's a lesbian scene by someone who doesn't know how to draw a tongue: looks like an unpeeled banana.

Going by the movie at least, "Sin City" was worse in my opinion.

Thanks for the link and review. It looks like a reluctant Buffy in training, Japan style. Is this really what all the fuss is about?

 

[RoseMontague]

You weren't there, you can't know for sure. All you can say is that based the evidence you have seen you that you do not believe he is guilty.

Sure, I agree with that. At some point however, the degree of belief becomes as close to certainty as you can get which is where I am at in my opinion that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent of murder. There is always a possibility that I am wrong just as there is a possibility that Michiavelli is wrong in his certainty of guilt. One of us is wrong, surely. My choice of the word know was probably not the best choice, I will have to use certain next time.

I am certain that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent.

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Brooktrout View Post
Check it out:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...e-2124415.html

Sadly Knox does seem to attract some pretty kooky people to her cause. Lisa Lazuli, for example:

Huh?

I was aware that Peter Popham was gathering comments from Amanda supporters and the article is interesting. I agree with the comment by one reader that the title of the article is not the best choice. Regardless of people's spiritual beliefs they can have an opinion on this case and looking kooky or strange to others is always a possibility when we (the strange and kooky ones) post anything on the internet (LOL).

I thought the quote from Graham Johnson was interesting in regards to the recent claim that Garofano had no real issues with the forensics on this case.

"Garofano didn't come to firm conclusions about who was the murderer. He said, there's no smoking gun, and because it's a matter of uncertainty, he was reluctant to give a conclusive judgement on it. But he did come to different judgements from the prosecution and other people attached to the case. "For instance, he felt that the police relied too heavily on traces of DNA on the alleged murder weapon [a kitchen knife, found not at the crime scene, but in the flat rented by Raffaele Sollecito where Amanda and Raffaele claim that they spent the night of 1 November]. He felt that the sample, claimed by the prosecution to be Amanda's, was too small to produce an effective and reliable DNA model."

As this DNA sample is the only evidence that ties Amanda to the murder, I would characterize this as a major departure from the prosecution's stance.

I wonder if this is an error on Peter's part or if Lisa misspoke?

"A campaigner called Steve Moore, who set up a site called injusticeinperugia.com, got in touch with me and wanted to know why people in the UK had such a negative impression of Amanda."

 

[Machiavelli]

"Arbitrarily"? That was the Massei theory, it's what the prosecution told the court and it's what they were convicted for.

If three people weren't in the room equally participating then their conviction is a miscarriage of justice.

You seem to want to play a game where innocenters have to prove beyond all doubt that Amanda and Sollecito could not possibly have been involved in any way with Meredith's murder, which is almost exactly the opposite of how the justice system actually works. If you don't have a specific story that makes them all simultaneously guilty of murder that you can show is true beyond reasonable doubt, you don't have a case. (...)

No, your opinion is pointless to me. My understanding of justice - in particular of Italian justice - is not compatible with yours. What you say is not true. A miscarriage of justice does not consist in a difference between the judges reconstruction and the dinamic of the crime. All facts must not be proven, not even necessary facts must e proven: only facts sufficient to determine guilt must be proven. Justice is not something based on the Massei theories nor on prosecution theories. Some of judges theories can be just a speculative response to questions and be inessential choices among possible alternatives, theories can be changed, people can be convicted also upon an array of conflicting theories.

 

[RoseMontague]

Some of judges theories can be just a speculative response to questions and be inessential choices among possible alternatives, theories can be changed, people can be convicted also upon an array of conflicting theories.

How does an array of conflicting theories stack up to beyond a reasonable doubt (Italy does have this standard if I understand correctly)? We don't know how they did it, why they did it, or really even when they did it but they are guilty all the same?

 

[Machiavelli]

Third, the scene he describs is not consistent with one single murderer: it is a scenario consistent with the physical traces of two males, the intruder and himself. Plus Amanda who stole money from Merediths drawer.

This is how Kevin Lowe eludes having brought a false point:

This is not a relevant response. If Rudy knew that investigators would likely find evidence that he and two others were present then his initial story would have included two other people.

Instead of admitting it is not true that Rudy built a one person scenario, the issue of truth disappears and the answer becomes not relevant.
The question is not relevant, and based on a not true assumption. Rudy had no reason to think it was likely that evidence of others would be found, and even in the case could have anticipated it, he would have had no reason or interest to tell about it in advance. Besides, the plain fact is Rudy - contrarily form what you state - actually did tell in advance a story including three people who entered the close space of the murder room and had hostile or incriminating contact with the victim.

 

[Machiavelli]

How does an array of conflicting theories stack up to beyond a reasonable doubt (Italy does have this standard if I understand correctly)? We don't know how they did it, why they did it, or really even when they did it but they are guilty all the same?

An array of conflicting theories implies incrimination beyond a reasonable doubt if all theories are incriminating. The lack of reasonable doubt can consist in the fact that no theory of innocence that appears reasonable can be built. This was the judges conclusion in the Cogne case for example.

 

[RoseMontague]

An array of conflicting theories implies incrimination beyond a reasonable doubt if all theories are incriminating. The lack of reasonable doubt can consist in the fact that no theory of innocence that appears reasonable can be built. This was the judges conclusion in the Cogne case for example.

I agree that Amanda and Raffaele have not yet succeeded in proving their innocence. What I don't agree on is that they should have to.

BTW, in light of my quote above regarding Garofano are you going to change your opinion that he thought the forensics in this case were sound?

 

[RoseMontague]

Sarah Scazzi case update, skip it if you are not interested.

Friday in the interrogation of Michael Misseri have shifted the responsibility for the murder of his niece's daughter Sabrina, taking only the guilt of having hidden the body in the country.

This guy is a real piece of work, I think someone needs to sic that last vamp manga girl on him(e).

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo495199.shtml

 

[Kaosium]

An array of conflicting theories implies incrimination beyond a reasonable doubt if all theories are incriminating. The lack of reasonable doubt can consist in the fact that no theory of innocence that appears reasonable can be built. This was the judges conclusion in the Cogne case for example.

However in this case there is a theory of innocence that makes far more sense and can be proven as well as any theory can be, and there doesn't seem to be any theory of guilt left, just scattered inconsistencies in their story. I've tried myself to put one together, to even come close you have to ignore half the available information and twist the rest and still the whole thing is either absurd or makes them barely culpable.

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks for the link and review. It looks like a reluctant Buffy in training, Japan style. Is this really what all the fuss is about?

That's my guess, outside the legs-cutting bit it seemed to fit the description. I'd say an 'R' rated Buffy pretty much sums it up.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is how Kevin Lowe eludes having brought a false point:

Instead of admitting it is not true that Rudy built a one person scenario, the issue of truth disappears and the answer becomes not relevant.
The question is not relevant, and based on a not true assumption. Rudy had no reason to think it was likely that evidence of others would be found, and even in the case could have anticipated it, he would have had no reason or interest to tell about it in advance. Besides, the plain fact is Rudy - contrarily form what you state - actually did tell in advance a story including three people who entered the close space of the murder room and had hostile or incriminating contact with the victim.

He claimed Meredith said Amanda stole money from Meredith's room, but this is not remotely the same thing as claiming that Amanda wrestled or stabbed Meredith in the murder room.

He also did not claim to have wrestled or stabbed Meredith himself.

He definitely did not tell a story where three people simultaneously struggled with Meredith, and not only was this exactly the story presented by the prosecution in court, but a frequently employed guilter meme is that Meredith would definitely have had more or different defensive injuries if she had only been attacked by one person.

The simple fact remains that Rudy did not tell a story where three people simultaneously struggled with Meredith, because such a thing never happened. If it had happened, then he would have made up a story where three people simultaneously struggled with Meredith, because the idea that three people could struggle with Meredith yet leave absolutely no forensic trace except possibly a speck of DNA on a bra hook is ludicrous.

No, your opinion is pointless to me. My understanding of justice - in particular of Italian justice - is not compatible with yours. What you say is not true. A miscarriage of justice does not consist in a difference between the judges reconstruction and the dinamic of the crime. All facts must not be proven, not even necessary facts must e proven: only facts sufficient to determine guilt must be proven.

Of course if there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt then guilt is proved: that is what sufficient means.

However if a necessary premise is false, then in a consistent universe a true, sufficient premise cannot possibly exist.

Logically unless all three did it together and simultaneously, they are not all three guilty of murder. That is logically necessary. The court's verdict was that all three were guilty of murder.

If, for example, Amanda's coerced false statement was actually true and she was on the couch covering her ears when Meredith was murdered, she would not be guilty of murder, correct?

Or if Raffaele was asleep at his house when Meredith was murdered, as some have speculated, and Amanda and Rudy did it, then Raffaele would not be guilty of murder, correct?

The idea that the verdict can be justified, without there being proof beyond reasonable doubt that all three were directly involved in the murder, is specious. If any one of them was not involved, the conviction is a miscarriage of justice.

Justice is not something based on the Massei theories nor on prosecution theories. Some of judges theories can be just a speculative response to questions and be inessential choices among possible alternatives, theories can be changed, people can be convicted also upon an array of conflicting theories.

Certainly, however if a necessary condition for their guilt (such as the necessary condition that Meredith died at 23:30 or so, since there is absolutely no coherent theory consistent with Amanda and Raffaele's guilt that has Meredith dying at 21:05) turns out to be false, then we know immediately that you will never, ever find sufficient evidence of their guilt. It is logically impossible for any such evidence to exist in a universe where a necessary condition for their guilt has been proven false.

 

[katy_did]

Sarah Scazzi case update, skip it if you are not interested.

This guy is a real piece of work, I think someone needs to sic that last vamp manga girl on him(e).

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo495199.shtml

Thanks RM. I'd seen the Corriere article on this. Yeah, that isn't a predictable change of story at all... To be fair, from reading the earlier post on Perugia Shock the guy seems like a simpleton and I bet his lawyer had a hand in this new version.

Frank also has another very good post up, in which he talks about the interpretation of Amanda's drawings, a picture owned by Pacciani in the Monster of Florence case and a similar phenomenon in the Sarah Scazzi case. Lots of illustrations of confirmation bias:

In these days we are witnessing the same phenomenon in Avetrana, Puglia, for the case of Sarah Scazzi, where the interpretation of everything always confirms the actual situation.

When Sarah was still missing, everything she produced --writing, drawings, the chats she had online-- were interpreted as a will to escape. Then they found that she didn’t go anywhere, she was killed.

Only after Michele's confession of killing Sarah, were experts finally able to detect signs of lying in his body language. Before the confession, they saw nothing.

Same interpretations in Sabrina’s body language and behavior, but only after she was accused.

Even a letter Sabrina’s sister recently wrote, where she explains that her sister is innocent, was analyzed by experts, who, of course, found in it evident proof of lying and insensitivity.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks RM. I'd seen the Corriere article on this. Yeah, that isn't a predictable change of story at all... To be fair, from reading the earlier post on Perugia Shock the guy seems like a simpleton and I bet his lawyer had a hand in this new version.

Frank also has another very good post up, in which he talks about the interpretation of Amanda's drawings, a picture owned by Pacciani in the Monster of Florence case and a similar phenomenon in the Sarah Scazzi case. Lots of illustrations of confirmation bias:

You are right about the very good nature of this post. I am wondering if this comment is real ∅

She is obviously a bestial and savage murderer on looking at this absolutely disgusting picture.
I don't know how you could post this Frank; look at her hands, they are the hands of lady Macbeth.
Vile, disgusting and hideous.I am appalled , shocked and saddened by this and the nudity is obscene in the extreme.

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!

 

[katy_did]

You are right about the very good nature of this post. I am wondering if this comment is real ∅

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!

I thought it was sarcasm. But who knows? So difficult to tell sometimes.

 

[Mary_H]

An array of conflicting theories implies incrimination beyond a reasonable doubt if all theories are incriminating. The lack of reasonable doubt can consist in the fact that no theory of innocence that appears reasonable can be built. This was the judges conclusion in the Cogne case for example.

What are the theories that are incriminating?

Machiavelli, do you have me on "ignore?" I have asked you several questions in the last few pages that haven't been answered, for example, most recently responding to this comment by you:

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
Maybe you mean you possess the truth? And you don't need to make arguments?

Just one thing to say about proof: not all human rational thinking is coincident with mathematical science. Even a doctor on a diagnosis may be not able to demonstrate (mathematically) his conclusion: however you may have no chance to have a demonstration, you may loose your time if you do, while instead you have to take a decision anyway, based on available rational knowledge.
On the otehr hand, the concept of proof in law is not coincident with definitions of proof that you may have in mathematics. Justice is not math and science, a proof can consist in something non repeateble or not subject to known methodic tests.

My question: If we can establish probable guilt or probable innocence with math and science, but we choose not to, then what are we using instead to reach our decision?

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree that Amanda and Raffaele have not yet succeeded in proving their innocence. What I don't agree on is that they should have to.

BTW, in light of my quote above regarding Garofano are you going to change your opinion that he thought the forensics in this case were sound?

I hope you can appreciate the difference between proving innocence, and assessing that a consistent theory of innocence is possible.


I didn't read your quote of gen. Garofano yet. My opinion however doesn't change on single quotes: I've listened to Garofano at lenght and have an articulate picture of his opinions.
"the forensics are sound" is yet a too general statement. To me this formulation already a shift. The process is no to establish whether the forensics of the case, in absolute terms, are sound or not.