Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

Alt+F4,

Based upon his statements in two Irish newspapers last March, I would not be surprised to see Dr. Hampikian.

Will he be presenting a review of Darkness Descending or dealing with the forensic evidence as presented in the first trial

 

[Alt+F4]

Oh, and I'd hold fire on that whole "Amanda's defence is so pathetic" angle if I were you as well. Those remarks might turn out to look somewhat stupid.

Amanda's defense is pathetic.

 

[Alt+F4]

What evidence and testimony have you seen that suggests Raffaele and Amanda committed this crime? If I recall correctly, the theory of the crime you posted didn't rely on much of anything in this regard.

There was evidence and testimony presented by both the prosecution and the defense at the trial. The defendents were found guily by the jury. Why do you think this happened?

 

[LondonJohn]

Because "facts as we know them" is not a cathegory taking a part in the play. Building a whole narrative of facts as a combination events based on the "facts" as we - readers on a forum - "know them", is not a method that a "guilter" (a neutral observer) will follow. This is no logical starting point for drawing conclusions.

By the way, I have a question about your calculation of odds. Could you get back and correct your calculation? The questioni is: if you deem the odds for an implication Q, of findings X, Y, Z, are that Q is 60% likely for each one of X, Y, Z, how likely is Q if you find all three X Y and Z together?
You calculated it as if the probability was equivalent to (0,6)^3 = > 21,3%.
Your calculation is egregiously wrong. What is the right result?

* the correct result is 93,6%

Yes, KL's calculation is "egregiously" wrong. But how do you arrive at your 93.6% result?

 

[LondonJohn]

A rather obvious possible source of blood from a fighting injury that would not leave any external indicators on Knox's body would be a nosebleed. Another reasonable possibility would be a bitten tongue or cheek.

So Meredith (or one of the other assailants ) happened to land one single blow on Knox that was sufficient to cause a nosebleed, yet left no bruises or other marks on her (and no, the neck bruise doesn't count)? And Knox biting her own tongue or cheek during the attack is a "reasonable" possibility??

In addition to all this, of course, is the absolute lack of Knox's blood in the murder room or the hallway. So we are also supposed to believe that Knox was struck in Meredith's room with enough force to cause bleeding, but that no blood dripped until she reached the bathroom. Hmmmm........

 

[LondonJohn]

If the defense believed it was contamination why aren't they asking for DNA samples from the scientific police and any cases they were working on at the time to compare against the unknown DNA on the bra clasp?

On the surface of it, they seem to believe the extra DNA belongs to the mobster's brother and/or the mystery guy the baby killer spoke of.

This why I think the defense will lose the appeal. The best avenue of approach would be to push the contamination angle...hard. They choose not to. The defense choose to go with two absolute lies by convicted murderers. Do you really think the jury is going to believe anything coming from the mouth of someone who beat an 18-month old baby to death with a shovel?

Do you think that the defence's whole case on appeal is based on the testimony of these two men? If so, you really don't understand the defence's appeal submissions. That's just one part of an extremely widespread set of appeal submissions, and we don't even yet know whether the defence have something concrete to corroborate this particular testimony.

 

[LondonJohn]

How about a thing most people like to call. Fair Trial.
After all the prosecution put:
Olive guy on the stand
Shopkeeper whose testimony is contradicted by 3 people.
Homeless guy who could see like an owl at night, know exactly what time it was within 1 minute without owning a watch, and could only see buses no one else could see. Guy must have been seing that Harry Potter bus, through the eyes of harry potters owl while it was flying around a clock tower.
A elderly lady that could hear people walking on leaves 300 meters away. While the wind was blowing and she was inside her residence.

It's worth noting that Kokomani (the olive guy) was deemed by Mignini to be worthy of the term "superwitness". Mignini certainly seemed to think that this guy was reliable and credible when he placed him before the court as a prosecution superwitness. I can't help thinking that this gives us a revealing insight into Mignini's character and judgement.

 

[Withnail1969]

So Meredith (or one of the other assailants ) happened to land one single blow on Knox that was sufficient to cause a nosebleed, yet left no bruises or other marks on her (and no, the neck bruise doesn't count)? And Knox biting her own tongue or cheek during the attack is a "reasonable" possibility??

In addition to all this, of course, is the absolute lack of Knox's blood in the murder room or the hallway. So we are also supposed to believe that Knox was struck in Meredith's room with enough force to cause bleeding, but that no blood dripped until she reached the bathroom. Hmmmm........

I pretty much made this exact same point, but strangely Fuji hasn't got back to me on it...

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm guessing that you didn't get the whole point of my post.....

(The point - just so you know - was that various people were citing Knox's apparent lack of long-time friends willing to stand up for her as some sort of proof of her "personality disorder". And yet now here comes an old friend who's seemingly very happy to vouch for Knox. I personally don't care much about what Knox's friends have to say about her - but plenty of other people certainly seemed to draw inferences (ridiculous inferences) from the people around her.)

Personally, from just reading her email back home I don't think she has a "personality disorder". I just think she comes off as uncaring and selfish and in no way do I think she and Meredith were friends.

 

[Alt+F4]

Do you think that the defence's whole case on appeal is based on the testimony of these two men?

No I don't, but I think in the end it's these two murderers who will cause the appeal to fail.

 

[Kaosium]

There was evidence and testimony presented by both the prosecution and the defense at the trial. The defendents were found guily by the jury. Why do you think this happened?

A perfect storm of illegitimate suspicions raised, a frenzied prosecutor leading the investigation with a police force and scientific team screwing up wholesale giving him bad info, and a bizzare fusion of police leaks and tabloid imagination that led to the creation of the character of 'Foxy Knoxy.' That caused people to suspend disbelief and not listen to the more rational explanation suggested by the actual evidence.

Basically the prosecution said it saw a ghost, and despite all the 'evidence' for that looking suspicious upon reflection, in the heat of the moment the jurors agreed.

What evidence or testimony have you seen that compels you to believe that Raffaele and Amanda took part (in any way) in this break-in that led to sexual assault and murder?

 

[LondonJohn]

Personally, from just reading her email back home I don't think she has a "personality disorder". I just think she comes off as uncaring and selfish and in no way do I think she and Meredith were friends.

But it was pretty conclusively shown that the CCTV timestamp was 10-12 minutes slow - meaning that the postal police likely arrived at just before 1.00pm.

(Following in the series of irrelevant responses to posts)

 

[Alt+F4]

A perfect storm of illegitimate suspicions raised, a frenzied prosecutor leading the investigation with a police force and scientific team screwing up wholesale giving him bad info, and a bizzare fusion of police leaks and tabloid imagination that led to the creation of the character of 'Foxy Knoxy.' That caused people to suspend disbelief and not listen to the more rational explanation suggested by the actual evidence.

Do you have any evidence that any of this led to the convictions?

What evidence or testimony have you seen that compels you to believe that Raffaele and Amanda took part (in any way) in this break-in that led to sexual assault and murder?

The following are the reasons why I think they are guilty. I think everything else can be disregarded. Yes, most of these are circumstantial but then Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence and I don’t think anyone here is going to argue that he is not guilty.

1. The timeline - I think it was very short (9:05 to 10:00) so it’s much more likely that there was multiple attackers considering the extensive wounds on Meredith’s body and everything else we know that happened.
2. Amanda’s lamp in Meredith’s room.
3. Inconsistent and contradictory statements in regard to her email back home, her trial testimony and his prison diary (none of which were coerced).
4. No alibi.
5. Amanda's phone calls on November 2:
- In the 48 minutes between 12:07 – 12:55 she spent a total of only 23 seconds trying to phone Meredith though she stated she was “panicked” as to her whereabouts.
- Amanda was back at her apartment by 12:34. The Postal Police didn’t show up for another 21 minutes with Meredith’s phones. Why didn’t Amanda stand outside Meredith’s door, call her phones and listen for rings?
- Both Amanda’s mother and Filomena told Amanda to call the police based on what she told them, she didn’t.
6. Raffaelle’s call to the police:
- He told them that nothing taken from Filomena’s room, there was no way he could know that.
- He told the police “there is a lot of blood” when everyone at the scene agreed there was very little blood.
- why would he mention a closed door?
7. Raffaele’s lie in his prison diary regarding the knife.
8. Amanda’s behavior:
- not flushing the toilet with the crap in it
- not looking in the murder room
- overexplaination regarding the mop
9. bra clasp – sorry it is Rafaelle’s DNA on it.
10. evidence of a cleanup:
- the bathmat – FBI guy Steve Moore said no one could have left that room without blood on their shoes yet there are no bloody footprints leading to the bathroom. Moore said he has seen all the crime scene photos from the bedroom so who is anyone to question his analysis?

 

[Alt+F4]

But it was pretty conclusively shown that the CCTV timestamp was 10-12 minutes slow - meaning that the postal police likely arrived at just before 1.00pm.

(Following in the series of irrelevant responses to posts)

What does this have to do with Amanda being uncaring and selfish...which is the post you are responding to?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Your boggling my mind - not in a good way.
How can I have it wrong when I asked a question.

It seems that my original point was correct - i.e. its a very weak point in the appeal. But I'll need a couple of weeks to carefully analyze a single line from the Mail to be sure.
Unless you want to link to or quote the relevant part of the appeal doc in English.

.

platonov,

As a matter of courtesy to our host, I try not to post long quotes. Instead, I give a short quote and a citation in the hopes that an interested party will read the whole essay, whether a newspaper article or a gift statement.

 

[RoseMontague]

Do you have any evidence that any of this led to the convictions?



The following are the reasons why I think they are guilty. I think everything else can be disregarded. Yes, most of these are circumstantial but then Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence and I don’t think anyone here is going to argue that he is not guilty.



- He told the police “there is a lot of blood” when everyone at the scene agreed there was very little blood.

I am surprised you did not see the later correction on this by the PMF translators after listening to the tapes of the call. Both thoughtful and Chandler agreed that the correct translation was bloodstain and spots of blood and the incorrect one a lot of blood. The discussion on this can be found on 4/25/10 main discussion, 10PM, PMF.

 

[Alt+F4]

I am surprised you did not see the later correction on this by the PMF translators after listening to the tapes of the call. Both thoughtful and Chandler agreed that the correct translation was bloodstain and spots of blood and the incorrect one a lot of blood. The discussion on this can be found on 4/25/10 main discussion, 10PM, PMF.

I've also read that Raffaele's Italian is very difficult to understand. Why should I doubt the transcript done by a native speaker?

 

[Dan O.]

Yes, KL's calculation is "egregiously" wrong. But how do you arrive at your 93.6% result?

First of all, he assumed that they were independent events selected at random from all possible events. But in reality, the events are not independent and the selection was through a process of cherry picking events that the prosecution could use to form a theory of guilt.

 

[RoseMontague]

I've also read that Raffaele's Italian is very difficult to understand. Why should I doubt the transcript done by a native speaker?

The PMF translators are not native speakers? Perhaps you should ask Machiavelli for a translation?

RS never says "there is alot of blood" (c'è un mucchio di sangue).
This is the phone call with the *wrong* transcript:
http://www.youreporter.it/video_Solleci ... totitolata

At 00:34, RS does not say "c'è un mucchio di sangue" (there is alot of blood). RS says"c'è (u)na macchia di sangue" (there is a bloodstain).
Also, if you listen carefully, at 00:28, RS says "c'è GOCCE" (there *IS* drops).
And the word "drops" is never in any transcript. But it's there.

It's all "drops" and "stains".


Last edited by Clander on Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total

 

[Alt+F4]

The PMF translators are not native speakers? Perhaps you should ask Machiavelli for a translation?

Ok, then why should I accept one native speaker over the other? What's the criteria? Candance Dempsey also agrees with me and she thinks Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.