Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

some perspective

Halides1,

Thanks for the explanation. So, do you think that this story deserves the outrage we have seen by some in this thread?

Amazer,

I have always seen the police convoy as a symbol of tunnel vision on the part of ILE. It is just a part of even this aspect of the case, just as hanging the photo of Amanda on the wall in Rome. This incident is one reason that I believe a change in venue would have promoted justice. However, the outrage in the last thirty five pages has come from Machiavelli, odeed, and to a lesser extent Kermit. When confronted by each new fact, they doubled down their bet that the story was wrong, and in one case pulled a "fact" out of thin air. i would draw your attention to how personal their attacks have become. Their reaction is illuminating.

 

[Kaosium]

With the ongoing confusion you have over various interrogations/interviews and what was taped or recorded and when etc etc & Given that this information is available to you on or via this forum your positive review of a book you haven't read is hardly a ringing endorsement

Oh, I wouldn't worry overmuch about Dempsey's version, it's when the movie is made you'll have a coronary and that will be the end of dear old Platonov. I mean the real movie, not the cable channel special, the one based off Grisham's book with the big budget, enough to show Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy (using Patrick as a character would 'confuse audiences') dragged through the streets of Perugia to be jeered and spat upon by the howling throng whilst being pelted with rotten tomatoes and cabbages.

I know Hollywood.

Lets see the appeal docs and sort out the 'non-existent knife' story
- In english please, like Dempsey my Italian isn't up to the job.
.

My Italian is no better than yours, so we'll have to stick with what we both can read. I suppose you could put these through a translator, but from what I've seen from that program and what it does with Italian it would come out looking more like Coptic:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Amanda_Knox_Appeal.pdf
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Raffaele_Sollecito_Appeal.pdf

Here's something from your old friend, Nick Pisa:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...ng_She_Had_No_Motive_To_Kill_Meredith_Kercher

(note: that might be the longest URL I've ever posted)

In his sentencing report, Judge Giancarlo Massei allowed the jury to consider a second knife was probably used for the murder but Knox's lawyers will argue that it was never even mentioned in court.

The 200-page defence report, which claims there was no murder motive, says: ''The existence of a second knife was never mentioned during the trial.

''To justify the injuries on the poor victim that could not have been inflicted by the knife seized, in an additional arbitrary way, a second fantasy knife was introduced.''

They apparently never mentioned the actual murder weapon in the trial, probably overlooked while they spent so much time trying how to imagine how the one in Raffaele's drawer the whole night got to the murder scene and back. Here's another article on it:

http://news1.capitalbay.com/news/amanda_knox_appeal_murder_conviction.html

"They have also seized on the trial judge’s inclusion of a mystery second knife in his ruling which he said was the one which inflicted the fatal wounds on Miss Kercher.

Such a weapon was never found - the only knife discovered at the scene did not match the injuries on the victim’s body.

‘The existence of a second knife never came up in the trial,’ Knox’s lawyers write.

‘To justify the injuries on the body of the poor victim that may not have been inflicted by the available knife entered into evidence cannot be done by arbitrary additions like introducing a fantasy knife.’ "

I guess since the prosecution pretended the 'Double DNA Knife' that made them look 'beyond stupid' was the murder weapon, they neglected to introduce the concept of the real knife that inflicted the wounds. Apparently Massei cribbed it in at the end, but that might not be good enough for the Italian courts.

It would truly be poetic justice if the prosecution lost major points because of that 'murder weapon' and then lost it due to an independent DNA analysis that Nick Pisa in the first article thinks they're going to get.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

With respect to the highlighted section, I wish you had told odeed this a while ago, because it would have saved me some time. It was his claim I was refuting. With respect to Ms. Dempsey's making up a story, you have made a claim, now let us see your evidence.

No, only Candace Dempsey has to give evidence of the (umpeteenth) fictional detail of her story. She puts forward a story, she (and you) are accusing the police of unprofessional behaviour.
You two, and only you, should give evidence of something you claim, since this is information is just unsupported by any source. If there is no evidence of it, then no evasive post of yours can conceal the fact that you just make false accusations, by definition a false accusation being an accusation that cannot be backed by any significant element, and if there is no source present at the time who ever witnessed what you claimed, then you are putting forward made up facts.

You quoted an AP video about cars leaving a police station. So what is your position about the video showing cars leaving police station? Does this support anything? Does it make sense to cite shots of this footage to support Candace's claim?

It doesn't, in my opinion. But what is your position on it: do you think, instead, this video is evidence of Candace claim of parade and is it evidence of unprofessional behaviour by the police?
Or you don't?
If you don't, do you acknowledge that no sources support Dempsey's claim, and Candace Demspey is the only source in support of herself?
In my opinion, you just believe Candace Dempsey, without feeling the need of a reason for this.

 

[Malkmus]

Amazer,

I have always seen the police convoy as a symbol of tunnel vision on the part of ILE. It is just a part of even this aspect of the case, just as hanging the photo of Amanda on the wall in Rome. This incident is one reason that I believe a change in venue would have promoted justice. However, the outrage in the last thirty five pages has come from Machiavelli, odeed, and to a lesser extent Kermit. When confronted by each new fact, they doubled down their bet that the story was wrong, and in one case pulled a "fact" out of thin air. i would draw your attention to how personal their attacks have become. Their reaction is illuminating.

Yes, exactly, I was just going to say that all the "outrage" and reason this has become a hot button is because of those you listed getting all bent out of shape over the story. What's surprising to me is that they latch on to Dempsey's version only. But you can easily remove her story from the equation and the story is the same if you're only relying on the multiple other news sources you cited. All the hand-waving, thumbs-upping, siren blaring, premature bragging that the case was solved exist without Dempsey's version.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, only Candace Dempsey has to give evidence of the (umpeteenth) fictional detail of her story. She puts forward a story, she (and you) are accusing the police of unprofessional behaviour.
You two, and only you, should give evidence of something you claim, since this is information is just unsupported by any source. If there is no evidence of it, then no evasive post of yours can conceal the fact that you just make false accusations, by definition a false accusation being an accusation that cannot be backed by any significant element, and if there is no source present at the time who ever witnessed what you claimed, then you are putting forward made up facts.

You quoted an AP video about cars leaving a police station. So what is your position about the video showing cars leaving police station? Does this support anything? Does it make sense to cite shots of this footage to support Candace's claim?

It doesn't, in my opinion. But what is your position on it: do you think, instead, this video is evidence of Candace claim of parade and is it evidence of unprofessional behaviour by the police?
Or you don't?
If you don't, do you acknowledge that no sources support Dempsey's claim, and Candace Demspey is the only source in support of herself?
In my opinion, you just believe Candace Dempsey, without feeling the need of a reason for this.

LondonJohn is getting bored by the endless discussion of this miniscule part of the case. LJ believes that there is ample other evidence that the police acted in various improper ways (the press conference on the 6th November and the Knox photo in Giobbi's hallway in Rome are examples with cast-iron proof), and is personally perfectly willing to say that there was no triumphalist behaviour in any motorcades if that will mean we can get onto discussing more important things.

LJ would also like to ask Machiavelli if he can supply his working for the 93.6% answer that he gave to an earlier statistical question. He thanks Machiavelli in advance for his help.

.

 

[odeed]

odeed,

I have given you ample time to back down gracefully from your erroneous and disingenuous claims, as anyone who was interested in having a serious conversation would have done. Until you do, I won't be responding further.

Since this originally started with my asking for proof of the claim from LondonJohn of the often repeated claim from Candace Dempsey that the three were "paraded" around Perugia after they were arrested, it is not my burden to provide evidence to refute it, and of the supposed evidence posted so far, I have provided an explanation why this evidence has so far not met the burden of proof and this is why I believe the story to be false.

Therefore, it is a lie to say that I have made any "erroneous and disingenuous claims" in regards to this matter since it was not my claim in the first place. In fact it is the second time I have witnessed you being dishonest in this matter, the first time was when you tried to claim that changing the word "approach" to "leave" from a news article would make this story true.

 

[platonov]

Oh, I wouldn't worry overmuch about Dempsey's version, it's when the movie is made you'll have a coronary and that will be the end of dear old Platonov. I mean the real movie, not the cable channel special, the one based off Grisham's book with the big budget, enough to show Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy (using Patrick as a character would 'confuse audiences') dragged through the streets of Perugia to be jeered and spat upon by the howling throng whilst being pelted with rotten tomatoes and cabbages.

I know Hollywood.




My Italian is no better than yours, so we'll have to stick with what we both can read. I suppose you could put these through a translator, but from what I've seen from that program and what it does with Italian it would come out looking more like Coptic:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Amanda_Knox_Appeal.pdf
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Raffaele_Sollecito_Appeal.pdf

Here's something from your old friend, Nick Pisa:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...ng_She_Had_No_Motive_To_Kill_Meredith_Kercher

(note: that might be the longest URL I've ever posted)



They apparently never mentioned the actual murder weapon in the trial, probably overlooked while they spent so much time trying how to imagine how the one in Raffaele's drawer the whole night got to the murder scene and back. Here's another article on it:

http://news1.capitalbay.com/news/amanda_knox_appeal_murder_conviction.html


I guess since the prosecution pretended the 'Double DNA Knife' that made them look 'beyond stupid' was the murder weapon, they neglected to introduce the concept of the real knife that inflicted the wounds. Apparently Massei cribbed it in at the end, but that might not be good enough for the Italian courts.

It would truly be poetic justice if the prosecution lost major points because of that 'murder weapon' and then lost it due to an independent DNA analysis that Nick Pisa in the first article thinks they're going to get.

You appear to have misinterpreted my post again

I dont doubt your faith in (or your knowledge of) Hollywood - It's touching [as is the belief in Moore & Dempsey] but movies wont spring the pair from prison.

It certainly seems to have coloured your view of this case, as it has others here who are also disappointed that this 'movie' doesn't finish with the explanatory flashback scene showing precisely how the murder happened and then the pretty heroine free & vindicated. But this is the real word.

On the defence docs (further confusion), the request was very simple 'Fully translated docs in english please'
If you had looked a little harder you would have found english 'summaries' on IIP before settling for 5 line media reports. Your research skills are slightly wanting in this regard.

But on this I am happy to stick with my earlier claim that the 'knife' argument* is very weak (and a sign of weakness) on the part of the defence. Time will tell.

You do realise that the defence teams are actually working to overturn the verdict but their claims may not be accepted by the appeal court. Your own use of the word 'apparently' should give you a clue [in fact 2 clues] in this regard.

*Not to be confused (as KatyDid seemed to do earlier) with the argument on the 'kitchen knife' forensics which is obviously vital (necessary but not sufficient) to the defence.

ETA Your reliance on short media pieces & the erroneous description of a 'journo' as a friend of mine may help explain why your ideas about this case are subject to embarrassing corrections from time to time.

.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

LondonJohn is getting bored by the endless discussion of this miniscule part of the case. LJ believes that there is ample other evidence that the police acted in various improper ways (the press conference on the 6th November and the Knox photo in Giobbi's hallway in Rome are examples with cast-iron proof), and is personally perfectly willing to say that there was no triumphalist behaviour in any motorcades if that will mean we can get onto discussing more important things.

LJ would also like to ask Machiavelli if he can supply his working for the 93.6% answer that he gave to an earlier statistical question. He thanks Machiavelli in advance for his help.

.

 

[katy_did]

*Not to be confused (as KatyDid seemed to do earlier) with the argument over the 'kitchen knife' forensics which is obviously vital (necessary but not sufficient) to the defence.

.

Erm, what now? I don't remember saying anything about the 'kitchen knife forensics', except to say that the defence mention Amanda's capacious knife-carrying bag in the same section as they discuss the second knife. And I wouldn't have thought that qualifies as 'forensics'. Are you confusing me with someone else?

 

[odeed]

LondonJohn is getting bored by the endless discussion of this miniscule part of the case. LJ believes that there is ample other evidence that the police acted in various improper ways (the press conference on the 6th November and the Knox photo in Giobbi's hallway in Rome are examples with cast-iron proof), and is personally perfectly willing to say that there was no triumphalist behaviour in any motorcades if that will mean we can get onto discussing more important things.

LJ would also like to ask Machiavelli if he can supply his working for the 93.6% answer that he gave to an earlier statistical question. He thanks Machiavelli in advance for his help.

.

In what way was the press conference on the 6th November 2007 improper?

Listening to Nick Pisa report on it, http://video.sky.com/home/related/11489/ITALY+Meredith+Kercher+3+arrested+pisa+phono/true there does not seem to be anything improper said at the time, in fact it seems that the police did not even give out the names of the arrested at the time.

As for the picture hanging in the Giobbi's hallway, I agree that it was improper.

 

[platonov]

Erm, what now? I don't remember saying anything about the 'kitchen knife forensics', except to say that the defence mention Amanda's capacious knife-carrying bag in the same section as they discuss the second knife. And I wouldn't have thought that qualifies as 'forensics'. Are you confusing me with someone else?

OK - your earlier response seemed to conflate the separate but related issues. How are we doing on the translated docs ? I'd like to see if the defence case is as weak as I 'think' on this issue and am curious about where halides1 got his quote.

.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

_____________________

I think Hendry got this wrong. (See first LINK, above.) Reading the Italian caption to the respective photographs (in the Scientific Report) shows the cops found these blood traces to be evidence that some articles in Meredith's room had been moved or removed, ....NOT that Amanda and Raffaele were trying to hide blood evidence (which would be stupid). Maybe someone fluent in Italian will clarify this matter.

///

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry100.html

Indeed I would welcome a good translation. What I have is from Google:

The area under the bed

An examination of images made during the inspections and emerged in the area underneath the headboard of the bed, the presence of traces of blood substance that, because of their location, possible to determine with certainty that some objects have been manipulated.

The action of the attacker can be traced to an activity aimed at the misuse of criminal investigations or the need to explore and / or remove some items from the crime scene.

Then they show a photo from Nov 3 with this caption:

The paper and plastic bags in the area below the bed

Followed by a Dec. 18 photo with this caption:

Traces of blood substance found on the slats of the network and the area below the bed

I read "an activity aimed at the misuse of criminal investigations" to mean staging.

 

[katy_did]

OK - your earlier response seemed to conflate the separate but related issues. How are we doing on the translated docs ? I'd like to see if the defence case is as weak as I 'think' on this issue and am curious where halides1 got his quote.

.

No, I didn't mention the 'kitchen knife forensics' at all.

How are you getting on with the learning Italian? I can read the documents already, so don't need the translations to make a judgment on the weakness or otherwise of the defence case...

 

[platonov]

No, I didn't mention the 'kitchen knife forensics' at all.

How are you getting on with the learning Italian? I can read the documents already, so don't need the translations to make a judgment on the weakness or otherwise of the defence case...

No but you mentioned the kitchen knife - sophistry wont cut it.

As to the defence docs, why all the secrecy ? I don't doubt your linguistic skills but credibility is a different matter. We have already seen 'issues' even when full english translations are available - see my earlier exchanges with halides1 for but one example.
In any case I have already stuck my neck out without seeing the full translations - Time will tell.

.

 

[Chris C]

I'm astounded at how major newspapers can print headlines that are probably libelous. Take, for example, this headline from the New Zeland Herald:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10690102&ref=rss

Convicted killer Knox faces months of appeal hearings
This headline states that Knox is a convicted killer; not a woman convicted of killing a friend.

Other headlines that were written more correctly were:

Amanda Knox begins murder conviction appeal in Italy. This is correct because it doesn't say that Amanda Knox is a killer, just that she was convicted of killing her friend.

Student appeals sex-killing verdict This is semi-correct in that it suggests that a student is apealing a verdict, not that Amanda was guilty of killing anyone. It still is incorrect in that it falsely assumes the verdict was for a 'sex-killing' when, in fact, NO motivation was given for the killing by the Massei report [I believe].

With the appeal, more and more newspapers are getting the headlines correct. Now they write that Amanda was Convicted and appealing rather than the incorrect headline that reads something like The Killer is Appealing her conviction

Seriously? Is Knox not a convicted killer? Isn't Mignini convicted also. Regardless of how much you believe in Knox's innocence, at some point you have the except the fact that she is a convicted killer untill she proves her innocence. How many people have the innocence project eventually proven where innocent for crimes they where convicted of such as rape and murder. Yet up until the point where they where finally proven innocent they where still a convicted rapist or murderer.

 

[katy_did]

No but you mentioned the kitchen knife - sophistry wont cut it.

LOL.

I didn't confuse anything, and you were mistaken in your interpretation of my posts. As you know.

As to the defence docs, why all the secrecy ? I don't doubt your linguistic skills but credibility is a different matter. We have already seen 'issues' even when full english translations are available - see my earlier exchanges with halides1 for but one example.
In any case I have already stuck my neck out without seeing the full translations - Time will tell.

.

Hey, it makes no odds to me whether you can read the defence documents or not. But if you doubt my credibility and distrust the summary I gave you anyway, there's little point in me translating anything, unfortunate as your unwillingness to learn even rudimentary Italian undoubtedly is.

As for 'sticking your neck out', given your reluctance to take a positive stance on anything specific concerning the case (as opposed to the vague presumption of Knox and Sollecito's guilt) I'm not sure I would state it thusly. Perhaps I would say you've staked the tip of a pinky finger. Maybe.

 

[Chris C]

LondonJohn is getting bored by the endless discussion of this miniscule part of the case. LJ believes that there is ample other evidence that the police acted in various improper ways (the press conference on the 6th November and the Knox photo in Giobbi's hallway in Rome are examples with cast-iron proof), and is personally perfectly willing to say that there was no triumphalist behaviour in any motorcades if that will mean we can get onto discussing more important things.

Yes, Chris C agrees there is something more important to talk about.

Such as this.

But, what do you mean exactly by contamination? There is actually no reason to assume it is from a contamination of the scene after the murder, since the bra clasp is an item that could well have carried residual traces since before, or could have been touched or got dirty before the murder or during, or after the murder in the room, without implying a contamination in laboratory or by forensics. And there might be no need of external contributors in order to produce the peaks in question. If the same allele is found also in any profile (Meredith, Amanda, etc.) there is not even a reason to think about an unknown profile.
But even in the abstract case that some peaks are a trace of "contamination", this doesn't really have any implication. The fact that an item is contaminated doesn't really mean anything, this works as a magic word only for Amanda and Raffaele supporters. In practical life, many DNA samples are "contaminated" by other profiles, they may be found years later and carry also other traces, but contamination doesn't make DNA samples automatically decay from evidence status.

I must have missed your response to my questions about your claims that Meredith's bra was contaminated before Sollecito's unproven DNA appeared on the clasp.http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6596449&postcount=17258

Machiavelli, have you come up with a better theory, other than 3 other people touched only her bra clasp earlier that night before she returned home and was tragicly murderered?

Seriously though, please stop dodging the question. When concerning the bra clasp, is it Contamination or not.

 

[platonov]

LOL.

I didn't confuse anything, and you were mistaken in your interpretation of my posts. As you know.



Hey, it makes no odds to me whether you can read the defence documents or not. But if you doubt my credibility and distrust the summary I gave you anyway, there's little point in me translating anything, unfortunate as your unwillingness to learn even rudimentary Italian undoubtedly is.

As for 'sticking your neck out', given your reluctance to take a positive stance on anything specific concerning the case (as opposed to the vague presumption of Knox and Sollecito's guilt) I'm not sure I would state it thusly. Perhaps I would say you've staked the tip of a pinky finger. Maybe.

No, you are confusing your original mention of the kitchen knife issue with my response to Kaosium which dealt with his ref to 'independent DNA analysis' of same. Whether confusion or sophistry - makes no difference to me, it still wont cut it.

Again I didn't ask for your translation of anything - confusion again or sophistry ? I asked (2nd, 3rd, 4th time) where were the translated defence appeal docs from FOAK or IIP or whoever?It could hardly be simpler ! As I said, why all the secrecy ?
Your non answer is an answer in itself.

Your final point seems to personalise the issue - I am indeed not so (if at all) emotionally invested as the FOAKers. [On the case itself I have made my opinion clear].
I think this helps my argument and weaken yours - your (and others) emotional response(s) tend to confirm this.

.

 

[katy_did]

No, you are confusing your original mention of the kitchen knife issue with my response to Kaosium which dealt with his ref to 'independent DNA analysis' of same. Whether confusion or sophistry - makes no difference to me, it still wont cut it.

Again I didn't ask for your translation of anything - confusion again or sophistry ? I asked (2nd, 3rd, 4th time) where were the translated defence appeal docs from FOAK or IIP or whoever?
It could hardly be simpler ! As I said, why all the secrecy ?
Your non answer is an answer in itself.

Your final point seems to personalise the issue - I am indeed not so emotionally invested as the FOAKers [On the case itself I have made my opinion clear].
I think this helps my argument - your (and others) emotional response(s) seem to confirm this.

.

Oh, you make me laugh. I don't even know why.

 

[platonov]

Oh, you make me laugh. I don't even know why.

I think this helps my argument and weaken yours - your (and others) emotional responses seem to confirm this.

.