Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Indeed and experts have been known to make mistakes.

However, based on other 'arguments' they have presented on simpler issues I'm very happy to take any theories (pertaining to this case) originating from LJ or KL as likely to be nonsense - they might not be complete nonsense obviously [they need to be 'examined' on their merits] but its a fair starting point for a skeptic to take.

It that's ad hom* so be it. So far in these matters this approach has proven accurate.

* I don't believe it is - past form has to count for something.
Nor is it the 'internet' - its a couple of posters on this thread whose record speaks for itself. See the 'broken window' perplexity, the bathroom 'hokey-cokey', the 'screensaver' logs misunderstanding, the Macavity problem etc etc etc and various examples of selective quotation, refusal to answer direct [perhaps leading] Q's and incredulous interpretations.

.

No, it's definitely ad hom.

What is "the Macavity problem?" You're the only one on this thread who has ever mentioned that name. Maybe one of these days you'll let us in on your private joke.

 

[LondonJohn]

Fine, but it would be wrong to think the odds purely relating to these issues of time of death can be translated directly and simply into odds of guilt or innocence.

I absolutely agree. But there's a reason why the prosecution (and the court) went for an 11.45pm time of death. And that's because it seems (on the face of it) to knit together other parts of the narrative*. If the time of death were instead shown to be some time around 9.30pm, large chunks of the narrative upon which they were convicted start to fall apart.

*Although, amazingly, the court accepted that there was a fair pre-amble to the three-way murder scenario, which necessitated Knox, Sollecito and Guede entering the house "shortly after 11pm" for an 1130-11.45 murder - yet this is totally at odds with the witnesses in the broken down car opposite the house, who testified that the house remained in quiet darkness with no entries or exits for the whole time they were parked there between 10.30 and around 11.40)

 

[Machiavelli]

The array of questions put to Nara Capezzali revealed she was unsure of the actual date on which she allegedly heard the scream. Witnesses can be both credible and mistaken. For that reason, the judge should have concluded that her testimony was unreliable.

Date is a matter of memory precision, and it is very frequently mistaken , not meaning the witness is unreliable. Human brain may process routinary information (like date and time) differently from direct memory information. For sure many of us would remember plenty of significant moments and experience in our lives, being absolutely sure of details, and we may get wrong on the date (even on the year). This is not what makes a witness unreliable.

Certainity about the date is a kind information which, on the other hand, could be deduced from elements different from the witness testimony and not affect his/her credibility, like for example fro other witnesses.
On Nara we have contemporaneous corroboration, because she reported of the scream to her friends, and we also have her memory of the fact she had been sure it was the day of the murder, albeit two years later she explained she didn't recall exactly the date of the murder (1. or 2. November), explaining she had not been willing to think about it.
This is not an unreliable witness.
Also the date is not really questionable: her memory of hearing the scream is followed by the police frenzy in the area the following day and then by the news about the murder. So the memory of this scream remains anchored by following shocking news.

Moreover there is one important element: the kind of scream heared by Nara. A witness mistake would imply she heared some other scream around the same days, the day before or the day after the murder. But the scream is of a kind she heared only once in her life, and possibility to mistake it with something else is unrealistic.

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed and experts have been known to make mistakes.

However, based on other 'arguments' they have presented on simpler issues I'm very happy to take any theories (pertaining to this case) originating from LJ or KL as likely to be nonsense - they might not be complete nonsense obviously [they need to be 'examined' on their merits] but its a fair starting point for a skeptic to take.

It that's ad hom* so be it. So far in these matters this approach has proven accurate.

* I don't believe it is - past form has to count for something.
Nor is it the 'internet' - its a couple of posters on this thread whose record speaks for itself. See the 'broken window' perplexity, the bathroom 'hokey-cokey', the 'screensaver' logs misunderstanding, the Macavity problem etc etc etc and various examples of selective quotation, refusal to answer direct [perhaps leading] Q's and incredulous interpretations.

.

I don't really care if your arguments are ad hominem. They probably are, but that only serves to reveal the paucity of your own arguments about the issue at hand. What's stopping you from - in your words - examining these theories on their merits? If you can convincingly show that Kevin or I have either misinterpreted the science or are just plain wrong, I'll be happy to abandon my position on this subject - and I suspect Kevin would agree. As I see it, you're currently adopting an obstructionist (and exceptionally unsceptical) approach of simply claiming that we're probably wrong because either a) none of the experts in the first trial made these arguments, or b) we're simply incapable of assimilating and understanding the science and medicine involved, because we're not gastro specialists or forensic pathologists ourselves.

Instead, how about this: come back to the thread with either some solid evidence from literature that our theories are wrong or misplaced, or quote from a recognised expert in the field that our theories are wrong or misplaced. Various people on this thread have discussed this issue with medical professionals - all of whom appear to confirm the position supported by all the available literature. If you find a dissenting voice or a dissenting research project, then bring it here, and we can have a debate. Until then, you've got nothing to work with except your own stubborn and unsupported naysaying.

 

[Mary_H]

Date is a matter of memory precision, and it is very frequently mistaken , not meaning the witness is unreliable. Human brain may process routinary information (like date and time) differently from direct memory information. For sure many of us would remember plenty of significant moments and experience in our lives, being absolutely sure of details, and we may get wrong on the date (even on the year). This is not what makes a witness unreliable.

Certainity about the date is a kind information which, on the other hand, could be deduced from elements different from the witness testimony and not affect his/her credibility, like for example fro other witnesses.
On Nara we have contemporaneous corroboration, because she reported of the scream to her friends, and we also have her memory of the fact she had been sure it was the day of the murder, albeit two years later she explained she didn't recall exactly the date of the murder (1. or 2. November), explaining she had not been willing to think about it.
This is not an unreliable witness.

Let's keep all these great arguments in mind when discussing Amanda's trouble with phone calls, the time she ate dinner, etc.

Also the date is not really questionable: her memory of hearing the scream is followed by the police frenzy in the area the following day and then by the news about the murder. So the memory of this scream remains anchored by following shocking news.

Moreover there is one important element: the kind of scream heared by Nara. A witness mistake would imply she heared some other scream around the same days, the day before or the day after the murder. But the scream is of a kind she heared only once in her life, and possibility to mistake it with something else is unrealistic.

I can guarantee you that by the time she testified at trial, Nara could no longer recall the exact sound of the scream she thinks she heard. Nonetheless, if she actually heard the eerie scream she thinks she heard, someone else would have heard it, too. Curatolo and other people were outside -- why didn't they hear it?

Meredith had neither the time nor the lung power to scream when she was attacked.

 

[platonov]

If the folks from the Innocence Project, or similar do turn up to testify it would settle a lot of my doubts about their reliability.

By the way, is there still all sorts of secretive nonsense about the Innocence Project and how it was they came to write their petition? That got very odd.

That doesn't carry much weight with me* - You think Italy doesn't have defence experts for hire and the RS defence team couldn't find them. Look into the background of RS's father for starters or Introna or Bongiorno.

* It may be a Foaker staple that all Italians are corrupt bungling fools but I don't buy it and Italian courts dont either.

Indeed its far from clear what the role of the Innocence Project, as opposed to Hampikian, is in this case. Perhaps halides1 could explain.

.

 

[Machiavelli]

1) Imprecision on timing

2) The fact that she says she woke up to hear the arguing and the scream - leading to the very real possibility (as Mary pointed out) that this could all be the artifact of a dream

I really can't see your scenarios as realistic. You assume it is natural for a human being to mistake noist they wake them up and subsequent a screams, with experience of a dream.
This kind of confusion is not normal.
If noisy people awake you (note: early at 22:00) you will definitely be annoyed or worried and not inclined to think it was a dream.

3) The fact that she says two people were arguing loudly in Italian before the "scream" - either she or Capezzali (or both) are mistaken, since Capezzali's account claims very precise hearing skills yet makes no mention of this pre-scream loud arguing

This is in fact the interesting detail in Monacchia's testimony. If this was not heared by Nara, this doesn't make her testimony inconsistent. On the contrary. As Nara woke up she was in another room, she heared the scream after she went into the dining room: there has been a change in location, while minutes earlier she was still asleep in another room. So she provides us with information that does not imply any pre-scream silence.

4) The fact that the prosecution apparently did not obtain testimony from her parents as witnesses - people whom Monacchia apparently went to question about the "scream" immediately afterwards, who would possibly be the only people able to provide contemporaneous corroboration of Monacchia's story

This is not an argument against, as I said, it is only an argument if you already deem the witness not credible. Notice that noboy prevented the defence from calling her parents to testify, in order to establish they shared no memory with her.

5) Yes, the sheer time in between her hearing this and her testifying in any way, shape or form about it. Even with the best will in the world, a person's mental ability to remember in detail something whih happened a year previously is subject to all sorts of errors and post-hoc revisionism.

Well, I think either you believe the person is an impostor or a fantasizing charachter prone to produce memory revisionism, or you think the witness is normally sane. If a person is mentally normal, non suffering of hallucinations, and a balanced personality, his/her memories will be just memories and not subject to this kind of revisionism. We are talking about the experience of hearing people argueing and then a very loud scream. Something that by human instinct draws the mind awake in a state of awareness and consiousness. These kind of memories tend to remain very clear.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let's keep all these great arguments in mind when discussing Amanda's trouble with phone calls, the time she ate dinner, etc.

I can guarantee you that I do keep these in mind when I consider Amanda's testimony. And that's why I don't believe her. Keeping in mind the essential difference between imprecision and inconsistence, I find Amanda's recolletion totally different from Nara's, and I find evidence she is making up a fictional story.

I can guarantee you that by the time she testified at trial, Nara could no longer recall the exact sound of the scream she thinks she heard. Nonetheless, if she actually heard the eerie scream she thinks she heard, someone else would have heard it, too. Curatolo and other people were outside -- why didn't they hear it?

Meredith had neither the time nor the lung power to scream when she was attacked.

You can guarantee me that you can tell me what Nara said about the features of the scream she heared?

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)

It also bothers me that AK was singled out for a civil suit. IIRC the civil damage award against AK was $33 million Euros. No suit was fiiled against Rudy (yes I realize his criminal trial was held separately), why not after all his life story should be worth something? - maybe TWO CENTS! hmmm..
(..)

The Kerchers were civil parties towards all defendants in the case and contended a civil trial against all three defendants. The demand of refunding is not against Amanda Knox, it is against anyone who is found guilty and it is to be shared among all those who are found guilty of the crime.
The judge ruled the payment of 7 million euros refund shall be divided among all three defendants in equal parts.

The request of refunding is obviously not aimed to obtain this sums. It is aimed to prevent the three from earning money from selling books or media shows about the story. And also it is a way to create a condition on their possible release from prison in terms of justice. If they are released and receive benefits for admitting their crime, they will also have to admit a debt towards the victim's family valid during their whole life.

 

[Machiavelli]

I seem to remember reading that these shutters had been closed on the night of the murder, but that Knox opened them when she returned the following morning. I will try to find where I might have read that.

Yes, try to find it!

 

[bucketoftea]

Let's keep all these great arguments in mind when discussing Amanda's trouble with phone calls, the time she ate dinner, etc.

I do. But Amanda only had to remember the night before and the same morning. (That is when the questions were first asked of her.)

I can guarantee you that by the time she testified at trial, Nara could no longer recall the exact sound of the scream she thinks she heard. Nonetheless, if she actually heard the eerie scream she thinks she heard, someone else would have heard it, too. Curatolo and other people were outside -- why didn't they hear it?

I can guarantee you that Nara certainly could still recall the sound, and testified so under oath. I can still hear the sickening thud of a dog being struck by a car that I witnessed over 40 years ago. It's a common pheomenon.

Someone else heard it, too, and they testified so under oath, as well. Others like Curatolo were in another location entirely acoustically speaking, and there would have been other noise around them. (laughter? scooter passing by?)

Nara's windows were single glazed and her apartment's position relative to the cottage gives it an amphitheatre effect. It was also a cold night. Sound travels very well on a cold night.

Meredith had neither the time nor the lung power to scream when she was attacked.

That would have been when the attack was over. There would have been time for a scream before the final wound.

 

[platonov]

The Lancet is still pressed for space

I don't really care if your arguments are ad hominem. They probably are, but that only serves to reveal the paucity of your own arguments about the issue at hand. What's stopping you from - in your words - examining these theories on their merits? If you can convincingly show that Kevin or I have either misinterpreted the science or are just plain wrong, I'll be happy to abandon my position on this subject - and I suspect Kevin would agree. As I see it, you're currently adopting an obstructionist (and exceptionally unsceptical) approach of simply claiming that we're probably wrong because either a) none of the experts in the first trial made these arguments, or b) we're simply incapable of assimilating and understanding the science and medicine involved, because we're not gastro specialists or forensic pathologists ourselves.

Instead, how about this: come back to the thread with either some solid evidence from literature that our theories are wrong or misplaced, or quote from a recognised expert in the field that our theories are wrong or misplaced. Various people on this thread have discussed this issue with medical professionals - all of whom appear to confirm the position supported by all the available literature. If you find a dissenting voice or a dissenting research project, then bring it here, and we can have a debate. Until then, you've got nothing to work with except your own stubborn and unsupported naysaying.

Nonsense

Your google 'theories' about ToD have already been dealt with on this thread, with much less ceremony than their exposition required, before I even started posting. Indeed I have already posted on them and their ramifications.
Your love of repetition is only matched by my disdain for same.

As I said to shuttlt - why don't you link to the best refutations [if any exist - think Popper ] and save him/others all the trouble.
For anybody who cant wait for your link, the post on the top of page 455 already referenced [or go directly to Massei] should serve as a starting point.

PS Kevin Lowe has already withdrawn his ToD argument, see post - I tried to warn him that he had misinterpreted the fairly simple appeal doc claims but to no avail.

PPS I am disappointed that you claim I don't bring anything to the debate - didn't you yourself modify your bathroom 'hokey-cokey' theory after I (others had mentioned it) highlighted the fact it suffered from failing to note the existence of showers in bathrooms.

.

 

[Kaosium]

The request of refunding is obviously not aimed to obtain this sums. It is aimed to prevent the three from earning money from selling books or media shows about the story. And also it is a way to create a condition on their possible release from prison in terms of justice. If they are released and receive benefits for admitting their crime, they will also have to admit a debt towards the victim's family valid during their whole life.

How would this apply if she was released and went back to the US?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

LondonJohn,

That is an interesting analysis of the time of death that I don't think was available 6 months ago, or at least I haven't seen in that level of detail before. Clearly any arguments against innocence/in favour of guilt must address it. Presumably the Judges report covers the other perspective?

From reading the Massei report it looks like Massei was well aware that this was a huge hole in his story. My interpretation of the affair is that Knox and Sollecito's defence lawyers, not being experienced in these kinds of case as LondonJohn explained, simply didn't realise that they had a knock-down argument on this point. The defence dropped the ball.

Massei was well aware that a 23:30 time of death was absolutely incompatible with the state of Meredith's stomach contents.

He was also aware that the only stab at a fairy story the prosecution had made on that front was to suppose that if Dr Lalli had not tied off Meredith's duodenum and bowel before examining them then conceivably Dr Lalli might have accidentally and unknowingly squeezed the contents of Meredith's duodenum all the way down the length of her bowel to the very end, thus creating the illusion that there was nothing in her duodenum at the time of death.

He was also aware that this fairy story was rubbish, because Massei had seen the autopsy video and Dr Lalli did tie off Meredith's bowel into segments before examining it because for his sins he wasn't a total incompetent.

So Massei came to a very curious conclusion: He wrote that "Besides this, the alimentary remnants in the small intestine must also be considered, and thus, as hypothesised by Professor Umani Ronchi, it would be possible to think that these remnants could have been found in the duodenum either because of an imperfect apposition of the ligatures, or because of an apposition of the ligatures that took place with such manner and timing as to make it impossible to avoid a sliding of material from the duodenum to the small intestine. The fact [that the] duodenum [is] empty is not [necessarily] fully reliable."

So imagine you've got an elastic tube four meters long. You've got a golf ball at one end of it. You are going to get some lengths of string and tie them tightly around the tube at various points to stop things sliding along it. Massei's argument is that "it would be possible to think" that it is possible to tie those knots tightly around the tube in such a way that not only can the golf ball slide all the way along the tube, but that it's impossible to avoid this happening.

This is frankly just utterly bizarre - it's like arguing "To commit this crime Amanda would have had to walk through multiple doors that had been nailed shut... but maybe they were nailed shut in a special way that actually sucked Amanda right through them! It would be possible to think this, therefore we can assume it happened".

I don't think there's any other point in the Massei report where it's so crystal clear that Massei was assuming guilt a priori and then making whatever other bizarre assumptions he needed to make in order to get to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were guilty.

I'd like to think that if the defence had thumped the table about this issue with due diligence the original trial might have had a different conclusion, but lacking a time machine we'll never know. Certainly by any definition of a fair trial that I would consider acceptable the Massei report's conclusions on this issue will not stand in a fair appeal.

 

[Justinian2]

I think Meredith's father has a legitimate complaint in the way the press has sensationalized this case and Amanda Knox.

He certainly has a right to state his opinion on Amanda's guilt. His argument seems to be that she was found guilty as the reason and even states an opinion that his family believes Amanda is "unequivocally, culpable". He gives no reasons for this opinion other than the verdict of the court.

I don't blame the Knox family for speaking out on behalf of their daughter.
It is also a fact that the Kercher's hired a lawyer to represent their interest in this case and this lawyer argued passionately for the guilt of Amanda Knox, before the verdict was rendered. My opinion is that the Kercher's were wrong to take this position and the verdict of the court is also wrong. I see the Kercher's as supporting those in authority that have found Amanda and Raffaele guilty and I do not find fault in the Knox family for giving the Kercher's the cold shoulder. I am certain that the Kercher's did what they thought was the best to see that Meredith got justice in this case. In my opinion, they have taken a position supporting a wrongful conviction and are continuing to do so.

The Kercher family demands an expression of sympathy, yet they haven´t given one either.
It´s OK to reply to me...

 

[tsig]

I would imagine that the defence teams are far more aware of a) the importance and b) the "provability" of this issue than they were at the time of the first trial. Facetious remarks such as those by Platonov that the defence teams should fly people like us over to be their new "experts" indicate to me that Platonov either doesn't understand the science here, or (s)he is in denial of it.

I suspect that the defence teams will have instructed one or more internationally-respected forensic pathologists to testify that Meredith almost certainly died by 9.30pm, and certainly before 10pm. I have little doubt that they will be able to back up their personal professional opinions with all the available research literature. If that's the case, we will then see how the new prosecutor chooses to reconcile this with all the other parts of the prosecution's original case. I'm guessing that he won't find that task very easy...

I don't think it works that way.

 

[Mary_H]

I can guarantee you that I do keep these in mind when I consider Amanda's testimony. And that's why I don't believe her. Keeping in mind the essential difference between imprecision and inconsistence, I find Amanda's recolletion totally different from Nara's, and I find evidence she is making up a fictional story.

We are separated by a cultural divide, because I find the opposite to be true. Given what is written in the Massei report, their is no logic, only personal choice, in attributing credibility to Nara.

Returning to November 1, she stated that, having gotten up to go to the bathroom, when she was near the window of the dining room she heard ‚a scream, but a scream that was not a normal scream‛ (page 16, hearing on March 27, 2009).

She specified that she had never heard such a scream before, if not perhaps in films ‚but it wasn’t even like that because films don’t do anything to me whereas this gave me goose bumps‛ (page 85).

[89] In spite of some inaccuracies in the presentation, especially in reference to the time when the newspaper kiosk posters published news of the homicide, it is held that the deposition of the witness is reliable with regard to the scream and to the noises then heard on the iron staircase and in the square in front of the house in Via della Pergola.

Several times in the course of her own deposition Mrs. Capezzali spoke of a special scream, heart-rending to the point that after she heard it she could not get back to sleep; a scream the likes of which she had never heard before. If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it.

The fact that other people, who were heard on this point, stated that they did not hear any such scream, does not detract from the reliability of the statements of Mrs. Capezzali, having declared that she had heard a scream when she had woken up to go to the bathroom.

It is also held that the indication given by Mrs. Capezzali at some points of her deposition, according to which the day after she heard the scream she is supposed to have seen the posters with the news of the murder, should not weigh upon the reliability of the deposition and on the exactitude of her memory relating to the scream and its date. In fact, Mrs. Capezzali specified and made clear that at night there was the scream and in the morning there was the finding of dead girl. (page 51) It is therefore to be held that the strong impression made by the scream heard that night and the succeeding discovery of the lifeless body of the girl, with the significance given to the event by the newspapers for days and days, catalyzed the attention of Mrs. Capezzali, making it difficult for her to reconstruct the precise sequence in regard to the newspaper posters which continued to give news of the murder.

Brother.

Machiavelli: You can guarantee me that you can tell me what Nara said about the features of the scream she heared?

? I didn't say that. My claim is that after eighteen months, no one can remember exactly the tones of a scream they heard, even if they think they can. It's irrelevant, though, because all she needed to do was say she heard a scream. It didn't matter what it sounded like, because no one else claimed to have heard a similar scream.

 

[tsig]

Indeed and experts have been known to make mistakes.

However, based on other 'arguments' they have presented on simpler issues I'm very happy to take any theories (pertaining to this case) originating from LJ or KL as likely to be nonsense - they might not be complete nonsense obviously [they need to be 'examined' on their merits] but its a fair starting point for a skeptic to take.

It that's ad hom* so be it. So far in these matters this approach has proven accurate.

* I don't believe it is - past form has to count for something.
Nor is it the 'internet' - its a couple of posters on this thread whose record speaks for itself. See the 'broken window' perplexity, the bathroom 'hokey-cokey', the 'screensaver' logs misunderstanding, the Macavity problem etc etc etc and various examples of selective quotation, refusal to answer direct [perhaps leading] Q's and incredulous interpretations.

.

You forgot 2 girls, one bra. That was about 3 pages.

 

[Justinian2]

delete

 

[tsig]

Let's keep all these great arguments in mind when discussing Amanda's trouble with phone calls, the time she ate dinner, etc.




I can guarantee you that by the time she testified at trial, Nara could no longer recall the exact sound of the scream she thinks she heard. Nonetheless, if she actually heard the eerie scream she thinks she heard, someone else would have heard it, too. Curatolo and other people were outside -- why didn't they hear it?

Meredith had neither the time nor the lung power to scream when she was attacked.

How do you know that?