Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

I would disagree with this type of statistical analysis. The different pieces of evidence should not be treated in a "serial" fashion as in a chain, but rather in a parallel fashion.

I disagree with both of you. I think it's both parallel and serial. For example, the prosecution needs to prove that BOTH the alibi is false AND that the LCN DNA is correct to have a case. The alibi is in series with various evidences which may be in parallel with each other.

Is the staged break-in in series or parallel or both?

 

[Kermit]

The Evil Prosecutor and other works of out-of-date fiction

It would certainly, if true, shed light on the idiotic deductions and theories of the prosecution. Under your supposition, we would assume that moronic fantasies of prosecutors are irrelevant so long as prosecutors drop these lame theories at a later date. In essence, turning from idiots to geniuses over night, with us never questioning their credibility thereafter.

.
If you want to join the Douglas Preston Club for Bashing Mignini (Satanic Subsection), go for it.

Mignini has been out of the picture for Amanda since last year. Now she (and her followers) should concentrate on other key judicial figures. Complaining about what could have been the prosecution argument won't get Amanda out of her predicament.

 

[Withnail1969]

.
If you want to join the Douglas Preston Club for Bashing Mignini (Satanic Subsection), go for it.

Mignini has been out of the picture for Amanda since last year. Now she (and her followers) should concentrate on other key judicial figures. Complaining about what could have been the prosecution argument won't get Amanda out of her predicament.

How about the standard theory that Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele took a load of drugs and alcohol on Nov 1st 2007 and sexually assaulted and murdered Meredith Kercher?

Does that sound any more plausible to you than some Satanic scenario?

 

[HumanityBlues]

.
If you want to join the Douglas Preston Club for Bashing Mignini (Satanic Subsection), go for it.

Mignini has been out of the picture for Amanda since last year. Now she (and her followers) should concentrate on other key judicial figures. Complaining about what could have been the prosecution argument won't get Amanda out of her predicament.

Your logic, which you were basing on an assumption that if the satanic theory was being put forth, it doesn't matter (read your own sentence), was awful. Whether I've joined an "subsection" has nothing to do with what you were saying. Would you like a powerpoint on syllogisms?

 

[platonov]

.
If you want to join the Douglas Preston Club for Bashing Mignini (Satanic Subsection), go for it.

Mignini has been out of the picture for Amanda since last year. Now she (and her followers) should concentrate on other key judicial figures. Complaining about what could have been the prosecution argument won't get Amanda out of her predicament.

Its easy for you to say that , arguments about what might have been (and indeed never were) are a vital part of this thread

PS At one stage vampires were involved in the courts findings.
.

 

[Mary_H]

Not another one - you also have been skipping over RVWBLW's posts.

Why ??

Although you are also excused as I hear koalas ? are as lazy as stoned reptiles [but their excuses are not as good]

.

That's an African Bush Baby.

 

[platonov]

That's an African Bush Baby.

I thought it was maybe a stoned koala.

African eh ?? Hmm...

 

[Justinian2]

I would disagree with this type of statistical analysis. The different pieces of evidence should not be treated in a "serial" fashion as in a chain, but rather in a parallel fashion.

I think the best analogy to return to is Vincent Bugliosi's "rope" analogy. Imagine that each piece of evidence represents a strand in a rope. The thickness of each individual strand is related to the strength of that particular piece of evidence in determining guilt. When all the individual strands (representing pieces of evidence) are bundled together into a rope, it gets tugged to see whether it will hold fast or snap. If it holds fast, then that represents guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, if one piece of evidence was a credible eyewitness who saw the crime being committed, this would constitute a single very thick strand. This one strand on its own would probably be sufficient to make a rope strong enough not to break - i.e. this one piece of evidence is probably sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conversely, if there were 50 pieces of much weaker evidence, then even though the "thickness" of each of these 50 "strands" would be far less, when placed together they might form a strong enough "rope" to convict.

It seems to me that if this analogy is applied to the case against Knox and Sollecito, the court in the first trial believed that there were six fairly thick strands to the rope: a) the partial print on the bathmat belonging to Sollecito and definitely not to Guede; b) the Kercher DNA on the kitchen knife being valid and not the result of contamination; c) the Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp being valid and not the result of secondary transfer or contamination; d) the break-in definitely being the result of staging; e) the footprints in the hallway being directly associated with the crime and/or post-crime clean-up; f) the telephone and computer records, and their relation to the version of events given by Knox and Sollecito. And then there were a number of thinner strands (ear/eye witnesses, confused alibis, post-murder behaviour etc).

The question now is, if one or more of the six major strands (plus some of the thinner strands) are removed from the "rope" in the appeal, will the "rope" still be strong enough not to snap when tested? I believe that a fair few strands will be removed, and the remaining rope will most likely be too thin, and will snap in the appeal court. But we shall see.

I would disagree with this type of statistical analysis. The different pieces of evidence should not be treated in a "serial" fashion as in a chain, but rather in a parallel fashion.

I disagree with both of you. I think it's both parallel and serial. For example, the prosecution needs to prove that BOTH the alibi is false AND that the LCN DNA is correct to have a case. The alibi is in series with various evidences which may be in parallel with each other.

Is the staged break-in in series or parallel or both? If it was staged, then it implicates AK and RS. If it was not staged, then it suggests Guede acted alone.

However, the log information on the computer is part of the alibi and is in series with the other evidence because an ironclad alibi makes the other evidence useless.

Also in series are the competences of the police and forensic lab. If they contaminated the evidence, then that reduces the probability that the LCN DNA has any merit.

 

[Kaosium]

.
I think that most agree that the lining up of all the peaks on the Meredith's DNA from the knife with the baseline sample (halides is going to jump on me for not using the right terminology) is not a statistical fluke, but that that is indeed Meredith's DNA profile. Now, quite another thing is if the defence wishes to argue contamination.

Then they should release those files so it can be determined how that result was achieved. As for contamination, that's all it could be anyway. What is interesting about the knife is not that it is evidence of murder, but to what lengths they would go to in order to pretend that it was and that Amanda was in that room.

As regards the absence of prints, etc. for Amanda and Raffaele, in a prior discussion here or on PMF or on any other site, I think there have been many examples given of murders where the suspects/convicts didn't leave substantial physical evidence of their presence.
.
According to you, what is the minimum level of DNA picograms required to convict? If you were shown other murder cases where convictions were obtained with even lower levels, would you suggest that those convictions were the result of desperate attempts to fool people?

In the context of this case which provides ample DNA and other physical evidence of Rudy Guede, and none of Raffaele or Amanda despite desperate attempts to find it there, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Of course there are other convictions where, for various reasons, little or no DNA evidence was found. However in this case we have a violent struggle, a forensics team that found plenty of evidence of one intruder, and in attempting to find anything of the other two they had to go out of the room, or use a microscopic piece that could have transferred from outside the room. What they really needed was something from that room, something on the floor, walls, etc. and if they went to the desperate lengths above it pretty much dismisses the idea there was actually anything of them in that room they could have missed. I'm sure you can find other scenarios where there was little DNA evidence, but not one that applies to the case.

The burglars who broke into the cottage in January 2008 proved that a Spiderman break-in through Filomena's window is counter-intuitive.

No Spiderman needed for that. You're talking about an athletic man shown capable of breaking into second story windows. That one was hardly much of a feat, and I'm truly puzzled by those that think it so.
.

If that was or if that wasn't satanic, it doesn't matter now. The case argued in court two years later and which has ended in Amanda and Raffaele being convicted together with Rudy for Meredith's murder didn't have anything to do with satanism but rather DNA evidence, witnesses, suspects' statements, etc.
.

The DNA 'evidence' and 'witnesses' were more evidence against the prosecution than the defendants. The fact the court didn't see that is why we're discussing it now.

- she was questioned on the night of 5 November for only a couple of hours before admitting to being at the scene of the crime

Wasn't it more like three to three and a half? ~10:30 until 1:45?

Also the evidence suggests she didn't admit to being at the scene of the crime, instead that she was convinced by the cops she was having a 'repressed memory' which she accepted as the cops had lied to her about having 'evidence' that she and Patrick were elsewhere.

- was Amanda any more traumatised than Meredith's friends? Should she have been given special treatment before 5 November compared to other witnesses? Amanda seems perhaps tired in her email home, but she attended classes on Monday, she was shopping with Raffaele, just moments before entering her 5 November questioning she was speaking normally to Filomena about housing arrangements .... when Raffaele stopped giving her an alibi (you seem to be the last person who refuses to admit that), should the police have given her a special treatment and only asked her questions which were easy?

I don't understand what you mean here. She was probably just as traumatized as everyone else, it's just everyone else didn't get interrogated for at least 14 hours that week culminating in an overnight session with at least twelve cops. Of course she tried to live her life too, I don't see what you're getting at. As for Raffaele I think he was lied to and lied back, and then regretted it. What do you make of it and why?

 

[LiamG.]

Evidence in a criminal trial is not a chain; it is more like a rope or a cable which continues to function even when some of the individual strands are broken.

By your chain analogy, if there were 100 pieces of evidence that you were 99% sure about, certainty of guilt approaches zero.

I don't know why you say jurors must find each individual piece of evidence supporting guilt to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not what jurors are told to do in America.

Here is what jurors are instructed on reasonable doubt in California:

A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This
presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must
prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt [unless I specifically tell you otherwise].

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an
abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not
eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to
some possible or imaginary doubt.

In deciding whether the People have proved their case beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all
the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless
the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, (he/she/they) (is/are) entitled to an acquittal and you must
find (him/her/them) not guilty.

This is what they are instructed about weighing credibility; you can see that the term "reasonable doubt" does not appear:

You alone, must judge the credibility or believability of the
witnesses. In deciding whether testimony is true and accurate, use
your common sense and experience. You must judge the testimony
of each witness by the same standards, setting aside any bias or
prejudice you may have. You may believe all, part, or none of any
witness’s testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and
decide how much of it you believe.
In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may consider anything
that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of
that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:
• How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive
the things about which the witness testified?
• How well was the witness able to remember and describe
what happened?
• What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?
• Did the witness understand the questions and answer them
directly?
• Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as
bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone
involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case
is decided?
• What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about
testifying?
• Did the witness make a statement in the past that is
consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?
• How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the
other evidence in the case?
• [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which
the witness testified?]
• [Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]
• [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]
• [Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]
• [Has the witness engaged in [other] conduct that reflects on
his or her believability?]
• [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in
exchange for his or her testimony?]
Do not automatically reject testimony just because of
inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are
important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make
mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness
the same event yet see or hear it differently.
[If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for
truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know
him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the
witness’s character for truthfulness is good.]
[If you do not believe a witness’s testimony that he or she no
longer remembers something, that testimony is inconsistent with
the witness’s earlier statement on that subject.]
[If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something
significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything
that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some
things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the
part that you think is true and ignore the rest.]

This chain-analogy is indeed rubbish. What really "matters" is conditional probability.
For instance:

If the
event A: No traces of an intruder on the spiderman wall and on the ground below

had occured, then the probability of

event B: The break-in was real

is, lets say 1%,

whereas

event A: No traces of an intruder on the spiderman wall and on the ground below

had occured, then the probability of

event B: The break-in was staged.

is, lets say 95%.

Of course you can expand this "calculation" by adding more and more evidence to your population (some glass particles on top of the clothes etc.), thus increasing the probability, that the break-in was staged and decreasing the probability that it was real.
But let`s be honest, why "use" mathematics in a field where common sense is sufficient.

 

[RWVBWL]

I've always wondered if Amanda didn't think that Lumumba and Guede were the same person. It's commonly true that people that haven't lived with people of another race sometimes have recognition problems; they look all the same.

Maybe Amanda saw Guede a couple of times and thought he was Lumumba. I don't think Amanda was in Perugia long enough to differentiate between the two.

After Amanda worked for Lumumba for a week she must have recognized him...

Link to Guede
Link to Guede
Link to Lumumba

Ok, maybe not. There is a considerable difference in appearance between the two. You'd have to be stoned to confuse the two.

Greetings Justinian2,
When I open your 2nd link to compare the photographs of the 2 different "black guys" who were arrested in this case,
I saw, once again, the photograph of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito together right after the murder had been discovered.

And this brought something to mind.
In that photo, Amanda Knox looks tired and a little disheveled, and I always wondered why since she took a shower and dried her hair that morning.

Reading in Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face" on page 35,
I know that the night she died Meredith had left Robyn's place and went home early because she was tired, since she stayed out until 6:30am on Halloween.

But Amanda stayed out late on Halloween too, until 5:00am, from what I have read. Wasn't she tired too?

Meredith slept alone that post-Halloween morning, and probably got a better morning of sleep than Amanda did,
since Amanda slept in the same bed with her new boyfriend, who probably couldn't keep his hands off her...

Still on page 35,
I read that the morning after Halloween,
Amanda left Rafffaele's pad and came home to shower and change clothes. Afterward showering, Raffaele came over and had sex with her, again.

With this in mind, I wonder if Raffaele had sex with Amanda once again after she took a shower on the morning of Nov. 2, for in "Angel Face" it says this on page 56:
"police said Amanda's body odor contradicted her claim that she'd just showered: she smelled like sex. They noticed that her face was puffy, with makeup smeared under her eyes."

Is that why she looks a little tired and disheveled?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-Platonov, you're allright!
Anyone that digs Cats, which I've seen twice at the Hollywood Pantages Theater
and Apocalypse Now, which I own, is cool in my book, even if we don't see eye to eye in this discussion of a brutal murder and it's aftermath...
Sorry you don't dig my stories...

PSS-Platonov,
Professional surfers were some of the 1st sportsmen to boycott South Africa due to it history of apartheid,
and in the mid 1980's I watched a well known "DogTown" surfer spray paint, graffiti-style, a large "Free South Africa" at a booth
right next to where former South African World Surfing Champion Shaun Tomson had set up his booth for "Surfbeat", a surfshop he had opened in Santa Monica, California, of all places.
That Nelson Mandella became president of South Africa still boggles my mind many years later. Who would have ever thought that would happen?

If Amanda Knox is freed sometime soon, who knows what good she too might accomplish with the rest of her life?
Peace, RW

 

[Withnail1969]

This chain-analogy is indeed rubbish. What really "matters" is conditional probability.
For instance:

If the
event A: No traces of an intruder on the spiderman wall and on the ground below

had occured, then the probability of

event B: The break-in was real

is, lets say 1%,

whereas

event A: No traces of an intruder on the spiderman wall and on the ground below

had occured, then the probability of

event B: The break-in was staged.

is, lets say 95%.

Of course you can expand this "calculation" by adding more and more evidence to your population (some glass particles on top of the clothes etc.), thus increasing the probability, that the break-in was staged and decreasing the probability that it was real.
But let`s be honest, why "use" mathematics in a field where common sense is sufficient.

Why would you expect any traces of an intruder on the wall? the intruder stood on the top part of the grating on the window below and hauled himself through the upper window. No reason to really touch the wall at all.

 

[Kaosium]

How is retrocausality not 'beyond stupid' - had RS mentioned the Knife before the cops announced it had been tested & the result it would have been worse for him - in fact fatal.
.

When did Raffaele say he 'pricked' Meredith with the knife? I assumed that was in his initial interrogation, but since I can't find a record of that I don't know for sure.

At any rate, why do you suppose they decided on that knife which made them look so foolish? That's all I was trying to answer. Speculation on my part.

 

[Kermit]

How about the standard theory that Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele took a load of drugs and alcohol on Nov 1st 2007 and sexually assaulted and murdered Meredith Kercher?

Does that sound any more plausible to you than some Satanic scenario?

Key elements of your first referenced scenario:
- drugs
- alcohol
- sexual assualt
- murder

Key persons:
- Amanda
- Rudy
- Raffaele
- the victim, Meredith

Lets start with the persons: did Amanda know Raffaele? Yes. Did Amanda know Rudy? (Yes, from before she knew Raffaele. A fact confirmed by Amanda in court, in spite of a strenuous effort by FOAK and The Entourage to deny it over the course of a year)

Now your elements: was Raffaele known to use drugs? Yes (marijuana, and insinuations of harder substances). Was Amanda known to use drugs? Yes (at least marijuana). Was Rudy known to use drugs? Yes (at least marijuana). Did Amanda smoke marijuana with Raffaele? (yes, as per her testimony) Did Amanda smoke marijuana with Rudy? (yes, as per her testimony)

Is there evidence of Rudy being at the cottage on the night of the crime? Yes (we all agree there). Is there evidence of Amanda and Raffaele being at the cottage on the night of the crime? I say yes, I imagine you say no, but it can be debated.

I'll leave out the alcohol, as all of the convicts imbibed at least a little from time to time, I assume. (Amanda's friend's Youtube video confirms that)

Was Meredith sexually assaulted? Yes, before, during and/or after her brutal murder.

Was Meredith murdered? Yes

Could Amanda (with Raffaele? without Raffaele?) have wandered down to the cottage and coincided in the basketball courts or right at the cottage with Rudy? Raffaele says she wasn't at his place for up to 4 hours on the night of the crime. It's plausible. Could Raffaele have gone with Amanda or arrived a little later? Maybe. Are there witnesses that support that situation? Yes (I know, I know, you believe Curatolo is discredited).

Could the two or three of them have been high and start to bother Meredith / or Meredith starts to get bothered by them / or Meredith discovers that her money is missing? Sure, it's a scenario.

Could a Perfect Storm of Dysfunctional Complicity have arisen where one bad and hurtful decision leads to another until there are bad and criminal decisions happening?

I can't say that it happened on those lines. But it could have worked out that way.

 

[Kermit]

When did Raffaele say he 'pricked' Meredith with the knife? I assumed that was in his initial interrogation, but since I can't find a record of that I don't know for sure.

.
He wrote it in prison once the Double DNA Knife was seized and examined.

"The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologized immediately and she said it was not a problem."

"I was in a total panic because I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her… Amanda may have set me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith. When I saw the knife on TV ... my heart jumped into my throat."

You can find it and the original reference on PMF.

 

[platonov]

<snip>

PS-Platonov, you're allright!
Anyone that digs Cats, which I've seen twice at the Hollywood Pantages Theater and Apocalypse Now, which I own, is cool in my book, even if we don't see eye to eye in this discussion of a brutal murder and it's aftermath...
Sorry you don't dig my stories...

<snip>

What's this about Cats - I'm straight

I'm guessing from your comments the musical was based on the poem.

.

 

[Kermit]

Why would you expect any traces of an intruder on the wall? the intruder stood on the top part of the grating on the window below and hauled himself through the upper window. No reason to really touch the wall at all.

.
I guess you don't do much rock climbing.

Since the wooden window frame is slightly inset in the window, by doing what you're suggesting, Spiderman would have had to drag his body along the wall as he improbably hauled himself up. Try it.

It's not just easier, it's natural to stand out, using your feet against the wall to remove the drag friction of your body.

That said, the Spiderman scenario is silly in any case, and even if it had occurred, Rudy would have likely cut himself and spread shards on the outside.

 

[Kaosium]

.
He wrote it in prison once the Double DNA Knife was seized and examined.

"The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologized immediately and she said it was not a problem."

"I was in a total panic because I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her… Amanda may have set me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith. When I saw the knife on TV ... my heart jumped into my throat."

You can find it and the original reference on PMF.

Oh, yeah, I knew about that. I saw people making a big deal about it and I assumed it was something that he said to the cops during the interrogation, thus relevant to him 'lying' officially.

If that's all there is, then perhaps he did tell the cops that in his interrogation and he was re-iterating that, or perhaps the cops were beyond stupid. I just don't think there was an actual attempt to frame them outright, and thus offered an explanation that might make sense of why they went after that knife and made such fools of themselves.

 

[Withnail1969]

.
I guess you don't do much rock climbing.

Since the wooden window frame is slightly inset in the window, by doing what you're suggesting, Spiderman would have had to drag his body along the wall as he improbably hauled himself up. Try it.

It's not just easier, it's natural to stand out, using your feet against the wall to remove the drag friction of your body.

That said, the Spiderman scenario is silly in any case, and even if it had occurred, Rudy would have likely cut himself and spread shards on the outside.

Wrong. I've done rock climbing before. It's absolute crap to state it's impossible to get into that window while standing at the top level of the security grille on the window below. It would be easy.

I used to do a much harder climb than that whilst at university when i forgot the latest keypad combination for the front gate.

Looking back on that climb, I can't believe I was able to do it, but you forget just how nimble and lithe you were as a teenager.

 

[Kaosium]

Raffaele did have a bunch of knives (I don't know the exact count) three of which are written about in the motivations. There may be more mentioned, if so, please add.

I think one knife was taken from Raffaele at the Questura very early on November 6, and the other two were taken from his flat on the morning November 6 (in the kitchen and in his bedroom).

The motivations states the times of tests run on page 181:



Raffaele writes about the results of the knife taken from his kitchen on November 16 so part of the test results were back by that date. I would assume that the other two knives were also tested during this first time but I am not sure.

There was another testing of items started on December 21, 2007 (after the December 18 cottage search).

Thank you for the information, Christiana. I have seen Raffaele's "knife collection" referred to numerous times, but I don't know the inventory off the top of my head. I have seen a picture of it, on this thread or a different site, though I can't recollect where for sure and my attempts at googling for it again were unsuccessful.