Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Charlie Wilkes]

Spoken with true religious conviction.

What I find preposterous is the level of certainty. If AK's appeal is successful, the so-called "guilters" would, I believe, concede that she was innocent. If it goes the other way, you guys will just not give up.

I hardly think the guilters will concede anything, ever.

If you look at the case as reported in December 2007, it seemed quite strong - they had a murder weapon, they had bleach receipts dated the morning after the murder, they had a partial confession, they had CCTV footage of Amanda entering the premises around the time of the murder. Raffaele's bloody shoe prints were found at the crime scene. The book Amanda claimed to have been reading at Raffaele's apartment on the night of the murder was actually found at the cottage where the murder took place. The clothes Amanda was seen wearing on the day of the murder were missing. It sounded like an open-and-shut case.

But, in the intervening period, a great deal has changed. The murder weapon doesn't fit the wounds on the victim's neck. The bleach receipts don't exist. The "confession" was typed up by someone besides Amanda, in Italian, and no recording or transcript exists to prove what was said. The shoe prints turned out to be Rudy's, not Raffaele's. The CCTV footage could be anyone. The book turned out to be right where Amanda said it was. And the clothing turned out to be right where she said as well - strewn across her bed, eventually hauled in and tested for blood with negative results.

In short, the case has fallen apart. All that remains are a few remnants of highly contested evidence. But I don't see any corresponding adjustment in the opinion of those who think Amanda is guilty. In fact, the tone of their commentary has grown steadily more hostile and uncompromising, and it is aimed not only at Amanda, but at her entire family. Here's something I saw a few days ago:

I sometimes feel like strangling Edda and Curt and Chris Mellas and the whole rotten lot of them. It´s not that I have a desire to kill them or even hurt them; it´s just that I have this inexplicable urge to wring their necks.
What I´m trying to say is that -- ah, yes, that´s it -- I wish they could somehow or other turn into rubber chickens, and then I could strangle them one at a time while their limp rubbery bodies flap back and forth. And I would bounce them against the wall, the ceiling and the floor. I would smack these rubber chickens upside the head and also not forget to give a good walloping to their bottoms. Yes, I would do all this and more. And then when I started to tire, I would let my cat have a go at them.
Oh, the delight.
Oh, the pleasure it would bring.

Do you really think these are the words of someone who will acquiesce to being wrong if Amanda wins her appeal?

 

[Kaosium]

Spoken with true religious conviction.

What I find preposterous is the level of certainty. If AK's appeal is successful, the so-called "guilters" would, I believe, concede that she was innocent. If it goes the other way, you guys will just not give up.

I dunno if they will, the odd thing is it takes a religious conviction to maintain a belief in guilt once you actually start going through it piece by piece. All you have to do is look at what is considered 'evidence' of their guilt.

Part of what happened is initially a lot of mistakes, 'poetic license' and the prosecutor seeding the papers with 'suspicion' made them look ultra-guilty. It turned out none of that was true. But a lot of people seemed to come to an early conclusion they were guilty. My road was a lot easier, as so much of that crap had been thoroughly debunked. The actual evidence left is scant and contrived, it's easy to go through it piece by piece and find out it's all trash.

If you just drive by and never bother to go through it all you never see how weak the case actually is, and how suspiciously the police and prosecutor acted to get even that level of 'evidence.'

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for the background. I wasn't paying any attention to bylines when I googled about, and got a lot of things out of chronological order. I'd read somewhere he wasn't exactly the favorite of some, but recent articles where I noticed his byline didn't seem unfair, even trending towards what should be the objective position: 'There's something rotten in the state of Umbria.'

Incidentally, regarding the Mail, do you suppose publishing that piece linked earlier means they plan to shut up about the case completely to spare the family the pain of ever reading about it?

In answer to the question.........not a chance. Here's a comparative example: in the aftermath of the death of Diana, many newspapers in the UK piously announced that they would never again use paparazzi photos obtained against the wishes of the subject. They were, of course, merely pandering to public revulsion at the role the paparazzi pack might have played in the Paris car crash. Naturally, within a few months, these sorts of pap photos started finding their way into the papers again. And today things are just as bad in that department as they ever were - maybe even worse.

 

[shuttlt]

Kaosium,

What you describe may be the history of the case amongst some groups. Readers of the Daily Mail perhaps? On the original JREF thread that really is not how it happened. Most of us, myself included came to the story as blank slates when the OP appeared. A lot of work got put in to trying to understand the case. By no means all the people who put in a lot of work were convinced of her innocence. Fiona would be a classic example of a good analytical poster, who did the leg work and was not convinced. Perhaps in the past few months things have become clearer that were not clear then?

 

[lionking]

If you just drive by and never bother to go through it all you never see how weak the case actually is, and how suspiciously the police and prosecutor acted to get even that level of 'evidence.'

How on earth do you know I just "drive by"? Or that I have never gone "through it all"? This is quite an arrogant and offensive suggestion.

Just because I'm not part of the dozen or so regulars here doesn't mean I haven't followed this thread from the beginning (I have) or read extensively about the case (I have).

 

[Kaosium]

How on earth do you know I just "drive by"? Or that I have never gone "through it all"? This is quite an arrogant and offensive suggestion.

Just because I'm not part of the dozen or so regulars here doesn't mean I haven't followed this thread from the beginning (I have) or read extensively about the case (I have).

Very well then, what do you consider evidence of Amanda and Raffaele being involved in the murder?

 

[Withnail1969]

How on earth do you know I just "drive by"? Or that I have never gone "through it all"? This is quite an arrogant and offensive suggestion.

Just because I'm not part of the dozen or so regulars here doesn't mean I haven't followed this thread from the beginning (I have) or read extensively about the case (I have).

Do you believe Antonio Curatolo saw disco buses on the night of Thursday Nov 1st 2007?

 

[Fine]

Well I'll give you an example of Massei's reasoning.
Audiometric tests to establish whether Nara Cappezalli could have heard the scream and sounds of people running on leaves which she claimed to hear 300 metres away through her closed double glazed windows were denied by the court, because why would she just make it up?

________________________

Thanks for the "example," but 300 meters is pure fiction. Massei didn't say this. The actual distance between Nara's window and Meredith's bedroom is 65 to 70 meters. See the post by Jools, and the one that follows by Yummi, at PMF, HERE

///

 

[billyryan]

I also believe its possible that its Meredith's own body fluids, however I think its highly unlikely. They knew the stain was there and had no evidence to link Knox or Sollecito to the room. Who here actually believes they didn't test it? I mean you have a possible semen stain and no evidence to link Knox or Sollecito to the room. Why would they not test it? If they are willing to LIE about not testing the luminol prints for blood, then they are willing to LIE about not testing the stain. They even made statements that they didn't test it because there was no way to date it. All you have to do is read between the lines, most likely it was tested and it wasn't Guede's or Sollecito's. Therefore they had no way to link it to someone else, because they dont have dna samples from anyone.

Beyond a shadow of doubt the stains on the pillow were tested,if as some of the guilters are hoping that they are just holloween makeup,it would long since have entered the public domain
Having already being caught lying on the witness stand,in relation to the testing of the luminol prints for blood,if the appeal judge forces Patrizia Stefanoni to release the the electronic data that underlies the dna test results.What is left of the prosecution case could very quickly implode from within

 

[lionking]

Very well then, what do you consider evidence of Amanda and Raffaele being involved in the murder?

I'm not going to go over what others have posted. I was prompted to comment by what I saw to be criticism of the article by Meredith's father and the (persistent) certainty of those proclaiming AK was wrongly convicted. When the MA demands I respond in a way that suits you, I will comply.

 

[Withnail1969]

________________________

Thanks for the "example," but 300 meters is pure fiction. Massei didn't say this. The actual distance between Nara's window and Meredith's bedroom is 65 to 70 meters. See the post by Jools, and the one that follows by Yummi, at PMF, HERE

///

Thank you for the correction. I picked up 300 metres from somewhere but can't recall where. Probably someone mixing up metres and feet?

Edit to add, obviously the actual distance is irrelevant to the question of whether audiometric tests should have been carried out.

Edit again - the lawyer Maori is claiming the distance is 200 metres not 70 - why should i believe a guilter like Yummi who claims the distance is 65 metres? Can you find an authoritative source to confirm this?

 

[Mary_H]

Spoken with true religious conviction.

What I find preposterous is the level of certainty. If AK's appeal is successful, the so-called "guilters" would, I believe, concede that she was innocent. If it goes the other way, you guys will just not give up.

I think you're right, lionking; we won't give up, no matter how many times Amanda and Raffaele are convicted. Like Charlie, though, I find it hard to believe that most of the guilters will ever concede. Their adherence to the guilt narrative is irrational under present circumstances; I don't see any reason to expect them to become more rational if Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted. They will just go the rest of their lives convinced they're right and everybody else is wrong, and that Amanda and Raffaele got free passes.

Hard as it is for guilters to believe, our level of certainty is intellectual, not emotional. On the one hand, there is no question Amanda is very fortunate to come from the community she comes from, with a loving extended family who have strong networks of support. With the internet, news travels fast, and like-minded people get interested in similar issues -- hence, the rest of us.

On the other hand, that is not a reason to believe that Amanda's supporters would be working for her acquittal regardless of her guilt or innocence. The craiglist killer was a medical student at Boston University; his father was a dentist, his family respectable. Presumably, he also had strong family and community support, but there was not a movement to free him because, well... most people aren't that stupid.

It would be one thing if Amanda and Raffaele's supporters all started out with their minds made up, but as you and shuttlt pointed out, a lot of work has gone into analyzing the case. As more people study it and understand it, the pool of guilters shrinks. Amanda and Raffaele's innocence is as obvious as the craigslist killer's guilt.

ETA: I agree with your comment about John Kercher: "And he has the right to put his views as widely as possible."

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

What you describe may be the history of the case amongst some groups. Readers of the Daily Mail perhaps? On the original JREF thread that really is not how it happened. Most of us, myself included came to the story as blank slates when the OP appeared. A lot of work got put in to trying to understand the case. By no means all the people who put in a lot of work were convinced of her innocence. Fiona would be a classic example of a good analytical poster, who did the leg work and was not convinced. Perhaps in the past few months things have become clearer that were not clear then?

I first got interested in it in early July, and spent a few days going through it and was unconvinced of either position myself. I'd read that the Massei report was due to be translated in a few months so I went back to not caring and came back sometime in October when the Massei report was supposedly completed.

It was an entirely different atmosphere at PMF, here, and everywhere else this gets debated, notably the comments sections of the articles I was reading. I spent a lot of time googling for info, wondering what on earth had happened to the debate, and reading the report. Since that was kind of...unsupportable...I decided to try to do it myself. Not being willing to try to defend the absurd idea of the bra clasp and the 'murder weapon' I decided to try to work with what was left and thought maybe I could produce a theory based on the idea Amanda was outside the room like I'd read was part of the 'confession.' I ended up on a pro-Amanda site, which I'd avoided being as I figured they'd be 'biased' where I discovered you reading about the interrogation. Then I went and read the diaries, and the note--and I realized what had happened, and why there was no real evidence.

I filled it in by reading more from IIP, but came here (no way I would ever have posted at PMF the way they were acting then--they've reeled it in a bit since) pretty much convinced of innocence but looking for someone to debate with who could do what I couldn't and produce a coherent theory of guilt squaring all known factors. After a while I realized why no one could, and why no one would even try: it simply can't be done. Everything is backwards, nothing makes sense going through the timeline that way.

When I found out due to SomeAlibi's 'experiment' here that the best evidence left amounted to a 'lie' that was basically not mentioning at one point that someone had answered a phone call or that they played a music file in bed, Raffaele's comic books and a nasty movie on his computer, and the footprint that looked more like Rudy's, I finally felt embarrassed I'd ever thought them guilty. The whole thing was preposterous once I really thought about it that way.


Your milage may vary, though it would be nice to have a person to debate with who isn't just playing games or acting out, so don't change your mind too soon, if you do.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you for the correction. I picked up 300 metres from somewhere but can't recall where. Probably someone mixing up metres and feet?

Edit to add, obviously the actual distance is irrelevant to the question of whether audiometric tests should have been carried out.

Edit again - the lawyer Maori is claiming the distance is 200 metres not 70 - why should i believe a guilter like Yummi who claims the distance is 65 metres? Can you find an authoritative source to confirm this?

Actually the horizontal distance between Nara's window and the nearest cottage Window is 32 metres. The distance between Nara's window and the balcony window in front of Merediths door is 40.5 metres.

What you believe is your buisness, but wonder why you should believe someone else, someone who could be biased and interested and who you don't know who they are, and can't even recall it.

If you are sure Maori said 200 metres, then you may just just check on Google maps if such distance could be remotely near 200 metres, so you will be able to assess Maori's credibility.

On November 1. and 2. 2007 the winds in Perugia had an average might of 22-22.4 kmph (13.5 mph).

 

[Kaosium]

I'm not going to go over what others have posted. I was prompted to comment by what I saw to be criticism of the article by Meredith's father and the (persistent) certainty of those proclaiming AK was wrongly convicted. When the MA demands I respond in a way that suits you, I will comply.

Okay. Nice to see you stop by.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Spoken with true religious conviction.

What I find preposterous is the level of certainty. If AK's appeal is successful, the so-called "guilters" would, I believe, concede that she was innocent. If it goes the other way, you guys will just not give up.

I'm beginning to suspect there must be some really deep, fundamental need to follow authority amongst those who argue for the guilty side.

Lionking, I don't know how often we're going to need to explain this, but only the evidence should matter to a skeptic. As skeptics we should proportion our beliefs to the evidence, not to the opinions of some random bunch of people in Italy.

If the guilters all change their minds because the Perugia court system tells them to that would just prove they weren't good skeptics in the first place.

Good skeptics don't need to kowtow to any judicial authority, whatever it concludes.

In any case if all you have left is complaining that while we have proved that their conviction was unsound we have not absolutely proved them to be innocent, we're really not arguing over anything important any more.

 

[Onofarar]

It could very well be, it will be found out during the appeal I'm sure. It's just that I thought it possible that if she'd forgotten to launder it and the boyfriend explained it early in the investigation they might not see the need to bring attention to it.

Ok - I think we can agree that your idea and mine are possible and it really doesn't matter which is true but testing should be done to determine what that stain is and where it came from given its location. And more importantly I also think we agree on where AK and RS should be and it is NOT where they are now.

 

[lionking]

Edit. not worth it

 

[Machiavelli]

Everyone knows that the judge did not enforce the law and require all data (electronic) in regards to DNA testing by making PMs release the same to the defense. To this day this has not happen and is just one of the points the appeal will be based on.

Arguments we had and all everyone was able to see was the "too low" "too low" too low" entries made by Comode. What the defense wants and still has not obtained from the PM is the electronic results from these test and other areas where a verbal testiment is not enough proof. The court last year just accepted the testimony as fact without having all the testing results (electronic). The defense was never given thie right to review these as well.

You know, some people do not follow argumentsand demonstrations based on "everybody knows".
Halkides claims there are files being withheld not released to the defence, and there is a request to obtain them.
Is there suche claim by the defence? Is there such request?

 

[Machiavelli]

pp. 51-57 of Sollecito's appeal discusses the lack of discovery.

Yes. And this is a complaint related to the first instance trial. And it is something else.
Where is the claim there are data still not release? Where is the request to obtain other files?

There are no such claims and requests that I could find in the appeals, only the claim of late discovery. The argument of lack of discovery (late discovery) is a complaint on a point in terms rights of defence. It means they think it was not fair for them to not have these documents during their defence in real time together with the prosecution.
It is not a request to obtain further files.