Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fuji]

So we're being lectured by Machiavelli not to say anything bad about the convicted criminal Mignini, yet you're happy to call a former FBI agent with 25 year's service a 'charlatan'?

How many convictions does Steve Moore have?

1) I am not Machiavelli. He does not speak for me and I do not speak for him.

2) I called Moore a charlatan OR a fool OR both.

3) Not being a prosecuting attorney, I would assume that Steve Moore has zero convictions. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[Fuji]

Fuji,

Upon further consideration, I am less convinced of the relevance of the comparison between the Spader case and the Knox/Sollecito case (this represents a modest change in my thinking). In the former case we know very little.

Hello halides1. Perhaps relative to the Kercher case, there is little public knowledge of the Cates case, but that is hardly surprising. There is only a minuscule percentage of crimes about which as much is publicly known as the murder of Meredith Kercher. Enough information about the Cates case is publicly available to make useful comparisons between the two cases, in my opinion.

Perhaps there was no physical evidence because there was a cleanup.

As was argued by the prosecution in both cases.

Perhaps the police did not properly secure the crime scene.

As has been argued by many Knox supporters in the Kercher case.

And it seems as if you are arguing by anecdote. I think anecdotes are useful, but they have limitations.

No, I am not arguing by anecdote. I presented evidence to disprove a highly specific claim by Steve Moore. When a general claim is presented, all that is needed to disprove it is the existence of one counter-example.

At any rate, I really don't think that you, of all people, would really want to pursue this line of argument. The countless other cases of wrongful prosecutions which you and other Knox supporters have introduced to the discussion here, in an apparent attempt to prove specific claims by comparison with other, unrelated particular cases, are in fact much closer to argumentation by anecdote.

On the other hand, we do know that Mr. Guede left three kinds of evidence, a fingerprint, shoeprints, and DNA. It is the complete lack of Ms. Knox’s trances, and the near-complete lack of Mr. Sollecito’s that is at issue. Are you suggesting a differential cleanup? If not, what are you suggesting is the reason for this difference?

I am suggesting nothing. As stated above, I was disproving an assertion.

 

[Fuji]

No long interrogations and possible false confessions here, no need for the New Hampshire state police to spend time and money doing much more than collecting some blood samples, looking for fingerprints, checking tire tracks and fishing the bag of gunk out of the river and taking it back to the lab.

So it isn't that there wasn't any physical evidence of Spader at the scene, they just didn't collect much there because they didn't have to. From what I was able to find it appeared they had a woman inside collecting the blood samples etc, and a guy on the outside getting the bag out of the river and checking the tire tracks. The forensics department of the New Hampshire State police isn't exactly a scientific forensics team of an entire nation not that far from its capitol. If they actually wanted to cover the scene thoroughly and sweep it down for everything they'd probably have to call in the FBI from Boston. Why bother?

I find this assertion of yours to be an extremely dubious one.

I cannot imagine a district attorney in 2010 - prosecuting the most shocking and horrible crime to hit their state in living memory - willingly forgoing an opportunity to procure as much physical evidence (especially genetic) as possible to secure a conviction. In the absence of said physical evidence, the prosecution had to rely upon the direct evidence provided by the testimony of Spader's co-defendants.

Any competent prosecutor would be aware of the increased likelihood of successful appeals in such cases. And anyone familiar with the work of the Innocence Project would be well aware of the not insignificant possibility of injustices occurring in cases which depend upon the testimony of criminals in the absence of physical evidence.

 

[Withnail1969]

I see nothing expecially unbelievable, and nothing actually meaningful in relation to the indictment and trial.
We know there people who don't like the media attitude by the questore De Felice. We all know you don't like it since it has been three years the innocentisti repeat this point. Now we know you don't like the questore De Felice. And this means nothing in terms of innocence of guilt. This episode says nothing to me. I don't understand what you claim from this. This is not an argument to make assertions on what Mignini and Comodi did during the investigation, about how they worked, what they thought or whether someone fabricated evidence, how judges worked, even less to say whether the defendants are innocent.

May i ask if you've ever been to Britain, Machiavelli? I'm not trying to blow Britain's trumpet particularly (God knows the weather sucks) but i would say that our police force is more professional in every single detail than the Italian police.

The Italian police in this case have this whole thing of parading suspects before the press and announcing that the case is solved with some stupid half-baked theory... these things just simply don't happen in Britain.

It looks like the police in some South American dictatorship or somewhere like that.

 

[pilot padron]

This is beginning to test common sense

As I scan the past couple pages, I am somewhat surprised at the dramatic degradation of documentation cited to support most pro innocent arguments.

Examples:
1) Curt Knox said
2) Steve Moore said
3) Bruce Fisher said
4) Janet Huff said
5) Anne Bremner said
6) West Seattle Herald said
7) My granddaughters and boyfriends said

Needless to say, each and every one of the first 6 above sources are to say the least, *completely* biased and one sided.
The 7th needs no explanation for incongruous use
I am dismayed to see their dismal preponderance in an 'evidence based' lively discussion Forum for skeptics.

Since past arguments here have also boasted about how much more scientific and 'evidence based' members of this Forum must always be compared to PMF, this degradation of documentation used to support innocence arguments is definitely disappointing, but understandable.

May I (to my increasing amazement) add to the above list another incredibly incongruous documentation used today as part of argument about whether Raffie was stoned when he went to Police Station:

8) Acquaintances who are drug addicts said

persons of my acquaintance tell me that a lot of stoners start their day with a big joint and then carry on in the same vein for the whole day. It's a lot more unlikely that Raff was not stoned.

Additionally, it is even more amazing that this question merits a scintilla of 'evidence based' discussion.
Isn't Raffie's own statement pretty plain and unequivocal.
Is there per chance a single word in it that needs dissection, exemplification, spinning, or endless agenda motivated parsing ??

PS: Yesterday's list also should include the use of an ever so scholastic scientific quote from a U.K Whirlpool Washing Machine Operators Manual

 

[Kaosium]

Instead of lying, just admit you are wrong. The mistakes Steve Moore made are not semantics. They are mistakes, plain and simple. You can call them what you want, but it doesn't make it true. Stop trying to backpedal and just admit what you said was a stupid statement, or at least a silly way of stating it.

Depends on what you're talking about, some was pedantry, some was semantics. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote very closely. Jumping on little mistakes and then pretending that is all that matters in an argument is pedantry. Some like to crow about it like the little boy who left a big mess in the toilet and wants everyone to come see. I just roll my eyes and note they dodged the actual argument and will have to try again.

Moore said that the court concluded Amanda made all three wounds to Meredith, that is wrong.
He said none of the prints or stains contained Meredith's dna, and that is factually wrong. He said that Amanda recanted her accusation against Patrick as soon as she got some food, that is untrue unless Amanda went without eating for two weeks. If you think that an FBI agent with 25 years experience, who has decided to put himself front and center in this case, should not know these kinds of things, that is fine, we can agree to disagree. But you cannot sit here and call it what it is not: a smear or "semantics".

This is from him talking on TV right? He made mistakes talking on camera sometimes, most that aren't practiced public speakers do when they start. None of that engages his overall points, how many blows Amanda delivered in the fantasy in the report is irrelevant to his point she was supposedly in this violent struggle in this small room and bears no wounds, marks, never steps in blood, never leaves a trace anywhere. That's his argument, not that Amanda 'delivered' one, two or all three blows in something he knows never happened anyway.

As for the one about the food, well, I thought that was a funny way of saying she 'recanted' soon after they let her out of that room, which wasn't any two weeks later, that's just how long they took to release Patrick. I find your interpretation rather obtuse semantics.

By the way, in regards to this:

What do you think Mary calling Mignini a "fat-faced wino pervert" says about her? Or let me guess, in your alternate universe where you get to decide what words mean what, that isn't considered a "smear". Got it!

That's just an insult, and it says to me that Mary really doesn't like PM Mignini, as I've seldom seen her use such terms. I understand why she says it too, even though it's not how I would put it. It's hardly a convincing argument to me though, and I doubt she intended it as such. A smear usually entails a disingenuous statement or argument in my mind.

 

[Justinian2]

I see nothing expecially unbelievable, and nothing actually meaningful in relation to the indictment and trial.
We know there people who don't like the media attitude by the questore De Felice. We all know you don't like it since it has been three years the innocentisti repeat this point. Now we know you don't like the questore De Felice. And this means nothing in terms of innocence of guilt. This episode says nothing to me. I don't understand what you claim from this. This is not an argument to make assertions on what Mignini and Comodi did during the investigation, about how they worked, what they thought or whether someone fabricated evidence, how judges worked, even less to say whether the defendants are innocent.

This police chief reminds me of a classmate that later became chief of police. He was a straight C student, except for the year he was held back. He was first to smoke. He encouraged others at my birthday party to sing "Happy birthday to you. You belong in a zoo..." He and a football tackle later assaulted me and removed my pants in front of screaming teenage girls - before puberty. He assaulted a teacher in his senior year. He swore like a trooper. He was never good at sports.

That's who he reminds me of ... a real jerk I once knew. Doesn't say much about the choir to whom he preached either.

I suppose you would have loved to be assaulted and stripped in front of screaming teenage girls. But I assure you at that age it was traumatic.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dreams versus reality

Hi Halides,

I don't see how Candace's quote in any way backs up what Steve Moore said. He specifically says that Amanda recanted her accusation of Patrick as soon as she got some food. In reality, did she not back up her accusation of Patrick in a written statement made the next day, and she had already eaten?

I think in essence both sides have the same complaint about the other, people have a tendency to forgive errors made by anyone who agrees with them.

Hello Solange305,

Amanda wrote, "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion...But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked." To me this is already a recantation. How could an open-minded investigator hold Patrick on the basis of a person who says what she remembered seems unreal or dreamlike? I just don't see it.

 

[Antony]

I think it's very germane to the situation that the Perugia Police had come under a good deal of criticism for their handling of the Sonia Marra case over the previous 12 months. And that many of the international students in Perugia were considering their ongoing presence in the city. There are therefore certainly compelling reasons why the Perugia police and prosecutors would want to announce this case "solved" as soon as possible.....

Never underestimate the ability of people in power, but not in control, to paint themselves into a corner. The whole situation illustrates the pressures that the police feel, not to establish the truth, but to come up with plausible scapegoats. You could almost feel sorry for them if the consequences weren't so serious.

Why did it happen? Local pride, maybe, in not wanting to admit they were out of their depth; arrogance in believing that they could make the facts whatever they wanted them to be; and short-sightedness in terms of the prospects of maintaining their pretence indefinitely. All that, and confidence in their own impunity: the record of police officers being called to account in any meaningful way when the truth comes out in these cases, is pitiful.

Of course, the irony is that in these cases the usual result is that innocent people languish in jail while the real culprit has a free pass - which would have been the case here were it not for Lumumba's alibi (not for want of the Perugia police trying to act as if it didn't exist), and Guede's appearance in Germany.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see nothing expecially unbelievable, and nothing actually meaningful in relation to the indictment and trial.
We know there people who don't like the media attitude by the questore De Felice. We all know you don't like it since it has been three years the innocentisti repeat this point. Now we know you don't like the questore De Felice. And this means nothing in terms of innocence of guilt. This episode says nothing to me. I don't understand what you claim from this. This is not an argument to make assertions on what Mignini and Comodi did during the investigation, about how they worked, what they thought or whether someone fabricated evidence, how judges worked, even less to say whether the defendants are innocent.

Well, if you can't see (or don't want to see) any sort of connection between the breathtakingly presumptive and incriminating comments made on the 6th November 2007 by the most senior police officer in Perugia, and the way the subsequent investigation and prosecution proceeded (not to mention it being a revealing insight into the prevailing attitude of the Perugia law enforcement community), then so be it. There's nothing more I can say, really.

Withnail is right - the Monty Python "Argument" sketch does seem to come to mind all too often.

 

[LondonJohn]

Never underestimate the ability of people in power, but not in control, to paint themselves into a corner. The whole situation illustrates the pressures that the police feel, not to establish the truth, but to come up with plausible scapegoats. You could almost feel sorry for them if the consequences weren't so serious.

Why did it happen? Local pride, maybe, in not wanting to admit they were out of their depth; arrogance in believing that they could make the facts whatever they wanted them to be; and short-sightedness in terms of the prospects of maintaining their pretence indefinitely. All that, and confidence in their own impunity: the record of police officers being called to account in any meaningful way when the truth comes out in these cases, is pitiful.

Of course, the irony is that in these cases the usual result is that innocent people languish in jail while the real culprit has a free pass - which would have been the case here were it not for Lumumba's alibi (not for want of the Perugia police trying to act as if it didn't exist), and Guede's appearance in Germany.

Don't forget that Lumumba was released due to the fine work of the Perugia police, and that they released him the moment his alibi witness was checked out and they could present the case for his release to a judge. Don't forget also that they were forced to keep his bar shut for months and months after his release, on account of it being a "crime scene". Seriously.

 

[Kaosium]

No, treehorn's posts are no fun at all.

I find them kinda funny actually. That faux-naivety as John calls it works well as comedy, sometimes I think he/she is actually breaking the fourth wall and winking a little.

The information was trivial, yes, but that never stopped a zillion bloggers from dwelling on it.

I think my eyes glazed over on that one after I realized it was in reference to a party tax ticket and I just scrolled past them. I did a lot of that reading about the 'impossible' window to climb into after I saw the damn picture.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hello Solange305,

Amanda wrote, "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion...But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked." To me this is already a recantation. How could an open-minded investigator hold Patrick on the basis of a person who says what she remembered seems unreal or dreamlike? I just don't see it.

Ahh, but if woolly-thinking people are told (or tell themselves) enough times that "Amanda actually repeated her accusation of Lumumba - and confirmed her own presence during the murder - in her written statement of the following day", then this becomes received "wisdom" to them.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Kaosium]

persons of my acquaintance tell me that a lot of stoners start their day with a big joint and then carry on in the same vein for the whole day. It's a lot more unlikely that Raff was not stoned.

Going to the police station to be questioned about a murder?

Geez, I'm going to bust a gut here! No wonder he can't ever remember anything!

 

[Withnail1969]

As Josef Goebbels once said, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

I want to make it clear that I am not invoking Godwin's Law at this point.

 

[quadraginta]

May i ask if you've ever been to Britain, Machiavelli? I'm not trying to blow Britain's trumpet particularly (God knows the weather sucks) but i would say that our police force is more professional in every single detail than the Italian police.

The Italian police in this case have this whole thing of parading suspects before the press and announcing that the case is solved with some stupid half-baked theory... these things just simply don't happen in Britain.

It looks like the police in some South American dictatorship or somewhere like that.

In North American democracies we call them "perp walks". The press normally outnumbers the parade. ("Film at eleven.")

 

[LondonJohn]

As Josef Goebbels once said, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

I want to make it clear that I am not invoking Godwin's Law at this point.

I think Godwin's Law was amply proven on this thread many, many months ago

 

[Withnail1969]

In North American democracies we call them "perp walks". The press normally outnumbers the parade. ("Film at eleven.")

Do they drive the suspects through the streets in a parade, sounding their horns as they go? And do the police publicly announce the case is solved before the trial begins?

 

[platonov]

Hello Solange305,

Amanda wrote, "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion...But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked." To me this is already a recantation. How could an open-minded investigator hold Patrick on the basis of a person who says what she remembered seems unreal or dreamlike? I just don't see it.

halides1

That just wont fly I'm afraid -- you cant place the blame for the criminal & false accusation made by AK at the hands of ILE.

Have you forgotten [or just not seen ] the rest of the 'gift'........the cops and prosecutors were so woolly headed they didn't & thus also took it into account .... for example.

I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

You would have them both, or even PL, released after reading this, without further investigation -- or even reading the rest of the gift ??
What's that line again ......there are none so blind as those

Suspects the world over would would like to have you dealing with their cases [RG excluded of course] - victims not so much so I'd imagine.

.

 

[Magister]

delete