Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

Have you considered the possibility that just because you don't like a group, or what you perceive as their motivations, they still might be right?

I'm afraid you appear to have reversed cause & effect again [as regards this case]

But in general, especially in politics etc I try to allow for that - it certainly informs all our opinions to varying degrees.
And in this case it is possible AK & RS aren't involved in the murder - possible but it seems most unlikely.
And at the risk of repeating myself - nothing the 'Innocentsi' put forward leads me to that view, the reverse in fact.

.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is all very well but among other things how did he (the loose limbed african) scatter the clothes inside the room before the glass was broken & break the window while the outside shutter was closed leaving the broken glass only on the inner part of the ledge

Even the satanic maestro Mignini would struggle to do all that - and he has the power of the darkside to call on.
.

According to Filomena there was glass under her clothes as well as on top of them, which falsifies the idea that the window was broken after her room had already been searched. The prosecution was well aware of this, and the guilters who have been following the discussion here are also well aware of this.

A perfectly viable explanation for the distribution of glass is that a rock was thrown from outside to break the window, almost all of the broken glass went into the room (as is normal in such cases), and Rudy then manually broke off some remaining jagged pieced of glass from the broken window to make it easier to unlatch the window. That explains the glass on the sill and the glass in the room perfectly naturally.

Rudy would almost certainly have worn gloves while he did this, which is consistent with the lack of fingerprints or other traces in Filomena's room which so puzzles certain guilters, who presumably have not yet encountered the idea that burglars might wear gloves, or the idea that people can take gloves off.

Comments like this do nothing to further the discussion. What were you hoping to achieve when making this comment?

Such remarks are absolutely pertinent.

The argumentative methodology and associated social rituals of the 9-11 deniers are quite interesting. They don't do what we call "research" here at the JREF forums, which involves looking for scientific data and the best possible understanding of the facts. They do their own kind of "research" where they watch youtube vidoes, or read explanations of the events of 9-11 aimed at laypersons, then they just make up "impossibilities" or "contradictions" which exist solely in their own mind.

They take their newfound treasure to the Twoofer forums, where instead of being critically examined and weighed up these nuggets of Twoof are applauded with cult-like fervour, and perfectly reasonable alternative explanations are vigorously ridiculed.

Then the new nugget of Twoof gets tossed on the increasingly large and steaming pile which they have amassed, and the sheer size of the pile is taken as incontrovertible proof that there must be something to it all. After all, could so much evidence be wrong, even if it has been collected in completely the wrong way and never once been critically examined by a rational human being?

The process used by the guilters on their own forums is strikingly similar. Terribly poor evidence is extracted by confirmation bias and outright stupidity from various sources, it's dolled up with photos and MS Paint, alternative explanations which are perfectly logical are ridiculed until the guilters can fool themselves into thinking they are really ridiculous, the bold sleuth is treated to a heartfelt round of applause for their contributions to Twoo Justice, and at no stage does actual critical thought enter the building.

The concerted effort to ridicule every possible hypothesis as to how Rudy could have broken in via the window which we have seen right here on these forums is a perfect example. Throwing a rock three or four meters and hitting a target the size of a window off-center on the first try is impossible. The short and easy route to the window via the planter is impossible. The short and easy route to the window via the grate below is impossible. The fact that glass went mostly into the room just because that's what glass does is impossible. The idea that Rudy could have knelt on the sill without first grandly sweeping a rain of glass on to the ground below is impossible. The idea that Rudy could have knelt on the sill with heavy pants, gloves and boots protecting him from the glass is impossible. The idea that someone could climb the wall leaving no traces... I mean, leaving no traces other than a number of possible scuff marks and a fresh hole in the brickwork consistent with a nail being knocked out... is impossible.

The argumentative processes used by the Twoo Justice community both here and on their own forums are very, very reminiscent of the 9-11 Twoof community, and for that matter the moon landing deniers. So I think that the comment you were criticising is absolutely relevant to the discussion going on here, since it goes to the heart of the argumentative processes in play.

 

[Chris C]

The broken window, murdered girl and stolen goods are all evidence of a break-in.

Together with numerous traces Guede left they add up to a coherent no nonsense scenario.
It is that simple scenario, against which we must consider any alternatives - be it a satanic ritual orgy, or a secular, no ritual undertones drug fueled orgy with strangers, an orgy gone wrong ending in a killing with a kitchen utensil carried for protection.
I don't have to write which of them withstands Ockham's Razor test.


BTW The staging is only a necessary condition for even considering AK's and RS's guilt. You still need some good evidence against them. The fact that there is no trace of them at all that would resemble what Guede left is definitely not helping the prosecution's theory.

The thing that strikes me as odd, is why would Knox need to break a window to stage a break in when she tells the cops the door was open when she got home. Unless of course the window was actually broken so someone could break in.

 

[Chris C]

the guessing game of the broken window, as for staging I remain open minded to idea that Rudy could benefit by confusing the scene too. It's not uncommon for the murderer to splatter blood around and knock things over to confuse the inevitable investigation, some go as far as burning the house down.
Rudy could have broken the window from the inside, after he rummaged through things.

There is no evidence the window was broken from the inside. All the evidence points to it being broken while the window was closed.

 

[Mary_H]

First, Manuela Comodi was actively investigating.
Second, if you think they had no reasons to have any doubts, given that it is the case thay deal directly with and the scope of their profession, how could you say other citizens should have doubts? This is an obvious contradiction. If problems and reasons for doubts exist, they would see them before and better than people who learn of the case from newspapers (reporting their work). And, they do have the power to enter the investigation, that's why they are called GIP and GUP (Judges on the Preliminary Investitation).

Comodi was taking her orders from Mignini, wasn't she?

I have never said the citizens had any reasons for doubt; they were in the dark -- maybe some of them still are. If anyone had reasons for doubts in the very beginning, it was the police, but they had to follow Mignini's orders.

I don't think the judges would have had any reasons for doubt until Amanda and Raffaele were heard. Once reasons for doubt began to rear their ugly heads, though, the judges would still have little incentive for distrusting Mignini. They were colleagues, and in many cases, friends who socialized together. Possibly Mignini was known by some as a man not to cross. I mean, do judges as a rule ever question prosecutors' decisions or look into their investigations?

Claudia Matteini is the one who could have put a stop to Mignini, but I guess he had her under his spell. Once she made her statement, it was too late to back down, because of the embarrassment it would have caused Perugia for both her and Mignini to have been mistaken.

 

[Rhea]

The reading of the crime scene with a lone assaulter does not make perfect sense. Nor do the actions of the alleged perpetrator.

The point of entry for burglary is illogic. And dangerous especially because of the glass and the intruder’s balance. The evidence of burglary inside is inconsistent. The sexual assault is inconsistent with being caught by surprise.

It is consistent, it happens everyday, a burglar gets caught and at this oppurtunity starts a violent sexual assault.

A murder with no sexual violence would be definitely more consistent with being caught by surprise and discovery would constitute the motive for murder. In this case, instead, the sexual violence – and the possible discovery of this – was the reason and the motive for murder. This sexual violence on Meredith is utterly illogic, and also inconsistent with Rudy’s personality.

but consistent with Amanda's and Raffaele's personality …

The faeces in the toilet are inconsistent even with interrupted burglary and with burglary itself, and interrupted burglary is anyway too unlikely on the too limited searching for values around the house.

they are extremely consistent, with being caught by surprise, most likely that's why he didn't flush it, he was on the toilet when she came home, he didn't want to raise her attention …

How can a search be to limited, when somebody gets caught by surprise? That's not at all a logical argument. A burglar can climb in somewhere and the moment he begins his search, somebody comes home …

The sexual assault had a kind of staging occurring after, a movement of the body and partial undressing of victim: taking away her sweater after her stabbing is inconsistent, unexplained, not straightforward. Moving her without dropping her blood, using towels: unexplained/illogic, too.

Yet it's not illogical at all to you, that Amanda and Raffaele without any prior history of violence would murder Amandas friend Meredith, the argument with the logic is always only used one way. "It's illogical Rudy used a towel, so therefore Amanda killed Meredith"

The sexual violence is also physically extremely moderate, aborted, contrasting with the extreme and decided violence of the killing action. And her scream, which was actually hared and reported by all witnesses including Rudy, should have started on her discovery of an intruder, even before the sexual violence, not on her killing.

Rudy is particularly reliable … Logic tells us the time of death was way before those witnesses appearently heard a scraem, this alleged sream logically didn't have anything to do with the murder.

And the duvet to cover the dead body: the covering is made usually when the murderer is close to the victim, here it is another useless, unmotivated, not straightforward element for a burglar, nor for a violent rapist. Further alteration of the room – that was slightly “tidied up” – is visible. Shoeprints from unknown shoes by more than one person are visible in the victim’s room and in different locations of the house.
Nothing is straightforward in a lone-perpetrator scenario.

A cite for the assertion the covered victim means the attacker was close to the victim. An FBI-Profiler said it's a sign of a young person who has never crossed that line before …

 

[Justinian2]

A staged break-in does not implicate Amanda and Raffaele. There is no evidence of them being present at the scene during the time of the crime. Rudy could have staged a break-in.

It doesn't make them guilty, but it does doesn't help their cause.

Anyway, a staged break-in doesn't seem likely especially after seeing that you-tube video of people scaling three story brick buildings in eight seconds.

 

[Machiavelli]

Comodi was taking her orders from Mignini, wasn't she?

I have never said the citizens had any reasons for doubt; they were in the dark -- maybe some of them still are. If anyone had reasons for doubts in the very beginning, it was the police, but they had to follow Mignini's orders.

I don't think the judges would have had any reasons for doubt until Amanda and Raffaele were heard. Once reasons for doubt began to rear their ugly heads, though, the judges would still have little incentive for distrusting Mignini. They were colleagues, and in many cases, friends who socialized together. Possibly Mignini was known by some as a man not to cross. I mean, do judges as a rule ever question prosecutors' decisions or look into their investigations?

Claudia Matteini is the one who could have put a stop to Mignini, but I guess he had her under his spell. Once she made her statement, it was too late to back down, because of the embarrassment it would have caused Perugia for both her and Mignini to have been mistaken.

Absolutely not. Manuela Comodi was not taking orders from Mignini. It is a common misrepresenting of this trial, to say Mignini was the "head prosecutor". Mignini was only the first prosecutor dealing with the case, the one who was on turn that night.

On the rest, you just have to decide whether you consider them all conspirators and disingenous - so address them as rouge criminals instead of Mignini - or if they are all less competent than you and less acknowledged of the case. You are going around the question.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It is consistent, it happens everyday, a burglar gets caught and at this oppurtunity starts a violent sexual assault.

Thankfully it's pretty rare. In the US, with a population of 300 million, there are usually less than 100 sexual homicides in a given year. But the ones that do occur often leave a crime scene very much like the one at the cottage. Ramirez, the Night Stalker, sometimes killed his victims, sometimes not. Sometimes he raped them, sometimes not. Sometimes he left Satanic graffiti at the crime scene, sometimes not. Usually he stole cash or valuables, but never did he systematically loot a place. His behavior was inconsistent and illogical, and he was fairly typical of the genre of sex killer who preys on women in their own homes.

 

[Justinian2]

I can certainly agree with the opening 2 remarks; that's the point I and others keep trying to get across - idle speculation or musings on conspiracies is useless especially when it doesn't accord with the facts or timelines as accepted by both the defence and the court.

On the English to Italian thing ,you seem to be saying that the FOAkers ran a similar campaign in Italian.
I wasn't aware that was the case - in fact I very much doubt it.
That kind of nonsense wouldn't fly in the Italian press as the better informed local journos & public would laugh it off - just as many of us in the English speaking world do.
In fact it would just highlight the weakness of the 'innocence' arguments, as indeed it does here.
.

Provide me to a link of a news article written in November that you do NOT think libelous.

 

[Mary_H]

Absolutely not. Manuela Comodi was not taking orders from Mignini. It is a common misrepresenting of this trial, to say Mignini was the "head prosecutor". Mignini was only the first prosecutor dealing with the case, the one who was on turn that night.

On the rest, you just have to decide whether you consider them all conspirators and disingenous - so address them as rouge criminals instead of Mignini - or if they are all less competent than you and less acknowledged of the case. You are going around the question.

Very likely.

I am more than willing to agree that all the magistrates in Perugia should have called Mignini on his wild speculations. As for why they did not, I believe it is possible they are less acknowledged of the case than most of the innocentisti, OR, that they felt that they had too much to lose by questioning it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

On the rest, you just have to decide whether you consider them all conspirators and disingenous - so address them as rouge criminals instead of Mignini - or if they are all less competent than you and less acknowledged of the case. You are going around the question.

Why I can't I think they were disingenuous and less competent than me at logical thinking and less well informed about relevant facts like the science involving establishing a range of possible times of death by means of stomach contents?

I think they've amply demonstrated all three characteristics.

 

[JREF2010]

There is no evidence the window was broken from the inside. All the evidence points to it being broken while the window was closed.

I agree the glass shows this, but there are the other statements of glass on top of the clothes. My point was that Rudy would benefit from confusing everyone, from staging too, not just Amanda.

 

[Kaosium]

Absolutely not. Manuela Comodi was not taking orders from Mignini. It is a common misrepresenting of this trial, to say Mignini was the "head prosecutor". Mignini was only the first prosecutor dealing with the case, the one who was on turn that night.

On the rest, you just have to decide whether you consider them all conspirators and disingenous - so address them as rouge criminals instead of Mignini - or if they are all less competent than you and less acknowledged of the case. You are going around the question.

I don't think there needs to be more 'conspirators' than Mignini to perpetuate this fiasco, a vengeful man with a reputation for going after anyone who stands in the way of his 'investigations.' Politicians, journalists, even former police chiefs. I can't see why anyone would be that interested in drawing his ire, thus he probably gets away with more than he should, evidenced by some of the more curious decisions of the court.

Also, at the outset it might looked like he had a real case. On the superficial level he defamed the suspects thoroughly, causing suspicions everywhere even if it was bogus information like the bleach receipt, as well as claiming DNA evidence tying them to the scene, which sounds damning until it is put in context and the 'quality' of it exposed. I think the creation of the character 'Foxy Knoxy' caused people to be willing to suspend disbelief and start thinking about what was possible instead of what was probable.

I think perhaps that is a weakness of the system, "who watches the Watchmen?" What happens when someone with that kind of power and latitude goes off the reservation? I think in this case we found out.

 

[Kaosium]

The thing that strikes me as odd, is why would Knox need to break a window to stage a break in when she tells the cops the door was open when she got home. Unless of course the window was actually broken so someone could break in.

I'm with you. The inexperienced 'conspirators' wouldn't have thought to break a window if the door was going to be left open, as apparently that door was sometimes which would explain the murderer's method of entry and leaving.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm with you. The inexperienced 'conspirators' wouldn't have thought to break a window if the door was going to be left open, as apparently that door was sometimes which would explain the murderer's method of entry and leaving.

I don't think we should go too far into this kind of armchair psychology - the guilters love it, because in the end their armchair psychology has as much evidentiary basis as ours.

The important thing in my view is the hard evidence: That there is absolutely no positive evidence of a staged break-in, that the alleged negative evidence is perfectly consistent with Rudy breaking in while wearing gloves, removing them on the toilet and then being surprised by Meredith coming home, and that the M.O. of the break-in is consistent with the other burglaries Rudy has been linked to.

 

[Chris C]

I agree the glass shows this, but there are the other statements of glass on top of the clothes. My point was that Rudy would benefit from confusing everyone, from staging too, not just Amanda.

Rudy left while the car was still broken down on the street. I'm sure they would have heard the window break. Of course, if the woman with the superman hearing heard leaves blowing across the ground, you would think she would have heard the window break.

 

[TomM43]

It depends if all of them need to be true or not. If they all need to be true for the prosecution to work then as a matter of logic they should be regarded in a serial rather than parallel fashion.

If only some of them need to be true then you should indeed regard them as parallel.

As I have been arguing for some time, there are several places where without a vital bit of evidence the whole prosecution case falls apart. Meredith needs to have died at 23:30 for the Massei narrative to work, and it falls apart completely if she died at 21:05, for example. It doesn't matter how many other strands Massei thought he had consistent with a 23:30 time of death.



If every single one of those pieces of evidence needed to be true for the accused to be guilty, then yes, absolutely, the odds of the accused being guilty are a mere 36.6%. (Not zero or anything close to it).

If they were all independent and redundant pieces of evidence, each of which alone could correctly convict the accused, then the odds of the accused being guilty are so close to 1.0 as makes almost no difference.

I have the impression that you make no distinction between the elements of the crime (which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt), the theories of the crime, and the evidence supporting contested issues, as to which the concept of reasonable doubt does not apply.

The elements for homicide in the my state in the US are that the defendant killed someone without justification. The state's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is to show 1) the defendant killed, 2) without justification. The charge of murder imposes on the state the burden of proving the killing was with malice aforethought. If the state wishes to enhance the penalties, such as death, findings of special finding are required, and the state must prove the existence of those beyond a reasonable doubt, as well.

Alternative theories of the crime are permitted. The jurors are told they do not have to agree on the theory of the crime. In fact, they simply have to agree from their own reflections after deliberating that they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt on each of the elements of the crime and conclude that the defendant is guilty as charged.

But as far as assessing the testimony, and the physical or documentary evidence it is simply what the jurors believe.

 

[Kermit]

Thankfully it's (sexual homicide) pretty rare. In the US, with a population of 300 million, there are usually less than 100 sexual homicides in a given year. But the ones that do occur often leave a crime scene very much like the one at the cottage. Ramirez, the Night Stalker, sometimes killed his victims, sometimes not. Sometimes he raped them, sometimes not. Sometimes he left Satanic graffiti at the crime scene, sometimes not. Usually he stole cash or valuables, but never did he systematically loot a place. His behavior was inconsistent and illogical, and he was fairly typical of the genre of sex killer who preys on women in their own homes.

.
So, you have raised Rudy's criminal profile from "drug dealer", to "burglar", to serial sexual killer. I don't think that the profilers in Quantico (or wherever they work) would see it that way.

 

[Kermit]

Why I can't I think they were disingenuous and less competent than me at logical thinking and less well informed about relevant facts like the science involving establishing a range of possible times of death by means of stomach contents?

I think they've amply demonstrated all three characteristics.

.
Why haven't Amanda's or Raffaele's legal teams sought you out to be a star witness???

In the same manner, why hasn't Elizabeth Johnson been sought out as another star witness??? (That icon of well-informed investigation, Steve Moore has suggested that some sort of international task force of DNA experts who support Amanda should be assembled and set to sea, docking at Port Perugia)

If your analysis is so right, why hasn't the Amanda Knox Defense Fund set aside a few of their air-miles from their treasure chest for people like you? People very close to Amanda read here (and on other sites) on a daily basis.

Maybe they're holding back until the very last minute, to make the future script of the Knox-Mellas approved TV movie all that more suspenseful (the only problem is that meanwhile, Amanda continues in prison, but that's a price that they're willing to pay, it seems).

Perhaps you should bypass official Knox-Mellas approval, and make your own spontaneous appearance and declaration in the appeal court.