Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

And none of Rudy's DNA was found in the hallway leading to the front door which we know he walked through. Does that mean he didn't walk through there?

While I agree that showing videos of others doing parkour doesn't help the notion that Rudy could climb the wall, how many times does it have to be said that the scaling of the wall was never something agreed on by the court as something that Rudy was incapable of. Frankly I'm baffled why this is continuously contested.

Much like Christianity and the Bible, the people who profess belief in the Massei Report are often ignorant of much of its content, and believe devoutly in all sorts of things that aren't actually in there.

It's not enough for them to claim that some aspects of the crime scene maybe look a bit like they were staged - absolutely every aspect of it has to be absolutely ironclad proof that it was staged. The wall has to be unclimbable, the ground outside has to consist of sticky mud, the window ledge has to be too narrow for any human being to rest on, the glass must be too sharp for anybody to touch without bleeding, the floor must be covered with clothes with all sorts of debris on top of the clothes only, the drawers must be unopened, the fact that little was stolen must be proof that no robbery was ever intended, and every single fact about the scene must scream out "It's all staged! Knox did it!".

After years of this they've descended completely into a fantasy world where the actual facts have long been forgotten, and when they are reminded of them they forget them again as fast as possible.

Of course they never stop to think "If it was that obvious that the scene was staged, how did the master criminals who effected the perfect crime scene clean-up, totally undetectably, not realise this?". Much like the Illuminati in the minds of conspiracy kooks, Amanda and Raffaele seem to them to show huge flashing neon signs of conspiracy in everything they say and do... except that they are always too clever to leave any proof. Like the Illuminati believers, the guilters don't see any contradiction in this at all. To them it just shows how incredibly clever and perceptive they all are to see these clues, and proves to them the people who think they are a pack of wingnuts are either incredibly stupid or evil.

 

[treehorn]

, I think we can say with great confidence that reasonable doubt has been established about their guilt.

"We"?!

YOU.

YOU and a few others equally challenged by the seemingly simple task of applying the notion of corroboration to the evidence adduced.

Alas, it matters not what ANYONE other than the 8 triers of fact think.

They, and they alone, determine what is - and what is not - "reasonable doubt" in the context of this case.

Indeed, they are in a far better position than the rest of us to make the findings of fact in question for the simple reason that THEY are in the courtroom to see and hear, first-hand, ALL of the evidence adduced (and arguments advanced) at trial.

You, on the other hand, are probably just like me in that you: a) are not fluent in Italian; b) never set foot in the Perugian courtroom during the trial; & c) never saw/heard each and every witness, exhibit and argument advanced by counsel.

"Great confidence"?! Indeed.

 

[Diastole]

On what factual grounds are your "thoughts" (a/k/a "suppositions") based (other than your Google-powered/ lay understanding of medical conditions and their incidence)?

The last twenty-five years, spent in general practice.

 

[Dan O.]

[2] And of course the lovebirds remembered the status of Filomena door differently. I've explained why. Here's Raffaele's recollection from his Diary:

"As soon as we arrived inside the house, I left the mop in the entrance and I went towards
the other rooms so I could see what the hell had happened. I remember those moments well because I was agitated and alarmed. I think I saw Amanda take the mop bucket and
carry it to another room . The first thing I noticed was that Filomena’s room had the door wide open."

Wide open. The first thing he noticed. Do you think Raffaele was hallucinating this??? It's Amanda who was wrong ---and understandably wrong---because she'd seen the door closed when she walked past it in exiting the cottage an hour earlier, and could only presume that Raffaele had opened it while she put away the mop. Someone had been in the house. Amanda had sensed it too, but the cops dissuaded her....for the wrong reason! Perhaps, unconsciously, she'd noted that there was no key ring hanging inside the front door where any one of the residents would have hung her key when entering.

When you get a chance, find the layout of the cottage and walk through that part when Amanda and Raffaele return.

 

[treehorn]

Of course they never stop to think "If it was that obvious that the scene was staged, how did the master criminals who effected the perfect crime scene clean-up, totally undetectably, not realise this?"

Show me ONE post where I (or, indeed, any other JREF member you seek to dismiss with the ad hominem/ puerile/ pejorative term, "guilter") suggested that Knox and Sollecito are:

a) "master criminals;" and

b) "effected the perfect crime scene clean-up."

They're doing quarter century stretches precisely because they are NOT "masters" and FAILED to "effect the perfect...clean-up!"

The evidence adduced appears to be entirely consistent with the notion that they had some rather cunning ideas here and there but that, in general, their execution of these ideas was poor (as one would expect from first-time killers/ cleaners impaired by a combination of alcohol and street drugs).

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
Alas, it matters not what ANYONE other than the 8 triers of fact think.

They, and they alone, determine what is - and what is not - "reasonable doubt" in the context of this case.

Indeed, they are in a far better position than the rest of us to make the findings of fact in question for the simple reason that THEY are in the courtroom to see and hear, first-hand, ALL of the evidence adduced (and arguments advanced) at trial.<snip>

But are they doctors?

 

[treehorn]

The last twenty-five years, spent in general practice.

I think I heard from you once before.

Are you retired?

I ask because I have 2 brothers that are doctors, currently practicing, and (as I think I mentioned to you once before) they both find Lowe's claims laughable.

Surely you, if you are being honest about your credentials, would know that Lowe is ignorant not only of the staggering number of medical conditions/ scenarios that could account for a delayed emptying of stomach contents, but of the absurdity of attempting to suggest that the physiological processes in question can be expected to unfold with the mathematical precision of a Swiss watch.

Of course, this is to say nothing of the fact that he appears to be willfully blind with respect to the limitations of the data set we are working with here.

Alas, as a GP, I don't expect that you've had any experience with the tying of ligatures/ the displacement of alimentary matter during autopsy, correct?

Or can you offer us some insight in this regard?

 

[treehorn]

But are they doctors?

Are YOU?

Wait. Don't bother.

I know the answer.

 

[Mary_H]

Show me ONE post where I (or, indeed, any other JREF member you seek to dismiss with the ad hominem/ puerile/ pejorative term, "guilter") suggested that Knox and Sollecito are:

a) "master criminals;" and

b) "effected the perfect crime scene clean-up."

They're doing quarter century stretches precisely because they are NOT "masters" and FAILED to "effect the perfect...clean-up!"

The evidence adduced appears to be entirely consistent with the notion that they had some rather cunning ideas here and there but that, in general, their execution of these ideas was poor (as one would expect from first-time killers/ cleaners impaired by a combination of alcohol and street drugs).

treehorn, many guilters have attributed "master criminal" plans and talents to Amanda and Raffaele. It's the only way to explain some of the evidence.

Only extremely clever murderers would put the murder weapon back in the kitchen drawer and use it for meals for three days, knowing it's the last weapon police would suspect. Only extremely clever murderers can clean up the DNA of two people and leave the DNA of one. They are the only ones who would set up a series of phone calls that make it look like they were looking for the missing victim, when they really weren't. Amanda obviously had something subtle in mind when she took the police officer into the bathroom and showed him the blood. And who among us can understand the brilliant strategy that went into framing Patrick while Rudy went on the lam?

All of these accusations have been made against the defendants, if not here, then in other threads. As you well know, since you've been around for awhile.

 

[treehorn]

Knowing that a condition such as gastroparesis would have easily explained the whole later TOD proposed by the prosecution, don't you think such a condition would have been documented in the Massei report, or noted during the trial? Or do you think Meredith had such an unusual condition and no one thought to mention it ever. I would say since there's no mention of any sort of digestive system irregularity mentioned anywhere by anyone during the trial or judge's report that it's safe to say there's no proof that Meredith had any such thing. This would be akin to arguing that Rudy could never have climbed up to the window because possibly he had a torn ACL. Inventing medical conditions that are heretofore unreported is completely pointless.

The translation of the Massei ratio does not include transcripts of the experts' testimony, nor does it contain any of the reports, sworn statements, exhibits, etc., that are referred to in the ratio.

I simply do not know what the details may be in this regard. (Are you any different? Are you fluent in Italian? Were you in the courtroom when the medical evidence was adduced?)

I'm not asserting that there was (or was not) any evidence adduced in respect of a particular medical condition.

However, I am asserting that we all ought to stick to known facts and recognize informational lacunae where they exist.

Suppositions are pointless (and boring).

 

[treehorn]

treehorn, many guilters have attributed "master criminal" plans and talents to Amanda and Raffaele.

Me?

Who?

Citation please.

 

[Mary_H]

Me?

Who?

Citation please.

Tell you what. I will cite some examples when you provide the conviction record for Amanda's noise/rock-throwing incident in Seattle. You know where to find it, don't you -- Seattle Municipal Court website?

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

What has your research into the small intestine shown? Have you confirmed what I told you some time ago, that the protein elastin is a major component? I hope your research into this matter has been less error-prone that your research into Amanda's private life, which even you must by now admit was flawed.

Being doctors, my brothers are hard to get a hold of on the phone for any length of time.

I'm looking forward to hassling BOTH of them for more information when we get together for Christmas - I also hope to get at least one functional Medline password out of the pair.

Alas, I'm not contesting whether 'elastin' is a component. I'm simply reminding Lowe that, in direct contravention of his own sanctimonious insistence on citations, he offered NOTHING in support of his claims about the ease of displacement of alimentary matter during autopsy.

As such we have nothing but his LAY suppositions in respect of the matter which are, well... completely worthless.

As for "error prone...research into Amanda's private life," I don't know what to say anymore.

You are clearly choosing to believe that a professional journalist for Newsweek is a liar and, if I recall correctly, your grounds for this belief are based on unnamed and/or (to be kind) 'unreliable' sources working with incomplete information.

Can you be more specific about the "errors" you are attempting to ascribe to me?

 

[Kaosium]

I think I heard from you once before.

Are you retired?

I ask because I have 2 brothers that are doctors, currently practicing, and (as I think I mentioned to you once before) they both find Lowe's claims laughable.

Surely you, if you are being honest about your credentials, would know that Lowe is ignorant not only of the staggering number of medical conditions/ scenarios that could account for a delayed emptying of stomach contents,

Could you ask your brothers what some of them are? That way they could be evaluated and taken into account. Every time I can recall him posting about this he is quite specific about the conditions he is taking into account. Off the top of my head it goes something like 'a healthy young woman with no known medical conditions consuming a small to moderate meal with no or little alcohol.'

but of the absurdity of attempting to suggest that the physiological processes in question can be expected to unfold with the mathematical precision of a Swiss watch.

From what I have been able to gather what he and others find curious is the lack of food in the duodenum when it's pretty well known what time she ate that meal. Thus the official time of death is so far outside that range it is scientifically impossible under the conditions he stipulates.

If you have a couple brothers who are doctors, why don't you ask them what could cause that? The one suggested by the Massei Report sounds like it amounts to a golf ball sliding through a garden hose.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
Alas, I'm not contesting whether 'elastin' is a component. I'm simply reminding Lowe that, in direct contravention of his own sanctimonious insistence on citations, he offered NOTHING in support of his claims about the ease of displacement of alimentary matter during autopsy.

As such we have nothing but his LAY suppositions in respect of the matter which are, well... completely worthless.

As for "error prone...research into Amanda's private life," I don't know what to say anymore.

You are clearly choosing to believe that a professional journalist for Newsweek is a liar and, if I recall correctly, your grounds for this belief are based on unnamed and/or (to be kind) 'unreliable' sources working with incomplete information.

Can you be more specific about the "errors" you are attempting to ascribe to me?

In posts 11937, 12115, 12136, 12162, 12166, 12543, 12549, 15557, 12566, 12567, 12573, 12578, 12612 and 12625 and others, you claimed or alluded to your claim that Amanda Knox has a criminal record as a result of a conviction for "residential disturbance." You didn't base your knowledge about this subject on anything Barbie Nadeau had written -- you repeatedly claimed to have seen the record.

Many of these posts also contained your LAY suppositions that Amanda was showing signs of antisocial personality disorder, all without any citations, documentation or any other kind of support whatsoever for your remote diagnosis.

And I'm sure halides1 has more where that came from.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I think I heard from you once before.

Are you retired?

I ask because I have 2 brothers that are doctors, currently practicing, and (as I think I mentioned to you once before) they both find Lowe's claims laughable.

Surely you, if you are being honest about your credentials, would know that Lowe is ignorant not only of the staggering number of medical conditions/ scenarios that could account for a delayed emptying of stomach contents, but of the absurdity of attempting to suggest that the physiological processes in question can be expected to unfold with the mathematical precision of a Swiss watch.

Of course, this is to say nothing of the fact that he appears to be willfully blind with respect to the limitations of the data set we are working with here.

Alas, as a GP, I don't expect that you've had any experience with the tying of ligatures/ the displacement of alimentary matter during autopsy, correct? Or can you offer us some insight in this regard?[/QUOTE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have your brothers had experience with the tying of ligatures at autopsy as it relates to the displacement of ailimentary matter? If not, by your own standards you might as well not "hassle" them at Christmas.

 

[treehorn]

"difficulties with the law" + "violate the rights of others" = sociopathy? maybe

Tell you what. I will cite some examples when you provide the conviction record for Amanda's noise/rock-throwing incident in Seattle. You know where to find it, don't you -- Seattle Municipal Court website?

YOU want to bring THIS up AGAIN?

Okay. HEre it is:http://web1.seattle.gov/courts/cpi/

Just click on "DEFENDANT" and enter Knox's name.

(Do you know that's about the 8th time I've seen someone provide this link to you, Mary. You never seem to tire of the game.)

Last I remember, you called me "learning disabled" for using the term "conviction" in respect of the Municipal Court of Seattle's FINDING/ "DISPOSITION" that the VIOLATION/ "INFRACTION" had been "COMMITTED" ("DISPOSITION CODE: C") by Knox.

So, enlighten us, Mary: When a citizen is issued a CITATION by POLICE for VIOLATING the SEATTLE MUNICPAL CODE, and pursuant to that citation the MUNICIPAL COURT FINDS the INFRACTION to have been "COMMITTED" by the "DEFENDANT" and IMPOSES a PENALTY by way of FINE, what would YOU call it, if not a "CONVICTION"?!

Before answering, consult the Court record (Case #202557635), note that the COURT RECORD indicates that there was no "PLEA" (to wit, no payment/ acceptance of guilt without appearing before the court), but, INSTEAD, a "DISPOSITION" by the court (to wit, a FINDING BY THE COURT that the INFRACTION had been "COMMITTED").

My Yale-educated Criminal Law professor would call this a "conviction."

So, too, would my Harvard-educated Evidence Law professor.

Ditto for my 1L Civ Pro Prof (I think he went to Harvard as well...maybe it was Cambridge...or was that his undergrad? My memory is getting hazy.)

In fact, now that I think of it, I'm sure I heard a few more profs refer to results of this kind as "convictions" somewhere or other along the way.

And I know, for a fact, that both my Bar Association and the law firm I work for call this state of affairs a "conviction": Coming out of law school, my classmates and I had to list "EVERY CONVICTION ...UNDER ANY STATUTE" that we'd ever received "INCLUDING TRAFFIC CONVICTIONS" in order to be considered for admission to the Bar/ hired by our respective firms.

I know you don't think much of me, Mary, but do you really think my incredibly brilliant law professors, my Bar Association and my rather wealthy employers are "learning disabled"?

(I can't wait to write my old profs with news of Mary's learned counsel !!!)

 

[shuttlt]

No, but in the absence of any credible positive evidence whatsoever to challenge their alibi, and in the absence of any credible reason why they might have abandoned Naruto, headed to Amanda's together, high-fived Rudy as they walked through the door and stabbed Meredith to death immediately afterwards (even a 21:30 time of death is improbably late) I think that their claim to have been at home watching it is a strong one.

Now you're being silly. They might have watched it, they might not.

I think it gains additional weight from the fact that they claimed watching Stardust as their alibi for later that night before the police destroyed that evidence.

It's weird that this isn't resolvable. I'm sure I've read that you can open up the disk, scan the magnetic field and infer the previous states of the bits. That was, so I thought, why all those data erasing programs write random bits over your data multiple times. I wonder whether this is in fact too costly, or in some other way impractical.

While it would be fun to completely extinguish The Guilt of the Gaps theory, and prove beyond all doubt that it is absolutely impossible that Amanda and/or Raffaele murdered Meredith, I don't think we'll ever quite do it. The seriously deranged guilters will always be able to find a six or seven minute window where they can pretend to believe that Amanda grabbed a kitchen knife, ran down the street with it, burst into her house, high-fived Rudy, stabbed Meredith to death and than ran home again.

I think if you can get it down to anything like 6 or 7 minutes, your job will be done.

However if we've got to the stage where you have to push the time of death as improbably late as you possibly can, then postulate Amanda and Raffaele pitching in to rape and murder Meredith as soon as they get through the door (with no preparatory drug-fuelled sex orgy as fantasised by Mignini), I think we can say with great confidence that reasonable doubt has been established about their guilt.

If we've got to that stage, then I agree.

 

[treehorn]

In posts 11937, 12115, 12136, 12162, 12166, 12543, 12549, 15557, 12566, 12567, 12573, 12578, 12612 and 12625 and others, you claimed or alluded to your claim that Amanda Knox has a criminal record as a result of a conviction for "residential disturbance." You didn't base your knowledge about this subject on anything Barbie Nadeau had written -- you repeatedly claimed to have seen the record.

Many of these posts also contained your LAY suppositions that Amanda was showing signs of antisocial personality disorder, all without any citations, documentation or any other kind of support whatsoever for your remote diagnosis.

And I'm sure halides1 has more where that came from.

Show me the post where I asserted Knox had a "criminal record" pursuant to her conviction for "Residential Disturbance" under the Seattle Municipal Code.

PS I gave you the link (AGAIN) for the Court Record (above). This is becoming tiresome. Try something new.

 

[Mary_H]

YOU want to bring THIS up AGAIN?

Okay. HEre it is:http://web1.seattle.gov/courts/cpi/

Just click on "DEFENDANT" and enter Knox's name.

(Do you know that's about the 8th time I've seen someone provide this link to you, Mary. You never seem to tire of the game.)

Last I remember, you called me "learning disabled" for using the term "conviction" in respect of the Municipal Court of Seattle's FINDING/ "DISPOSITION" that the VIOLATION/ "INFRACTION" had been "COMMITTED" ("DISPOSITION CODE: C") by Knox.

So, enlighten us, Mary: When a citizen is issued a CITATION by POLICE for VIOLATING the SEATTLE MUNICPAL CODE, and pursuant to that citation the MUNICIPAL COURT FINDS the INFRACTION to have been "COMMITTED" by the "DEFENDANT" and IMPOSES a PENALTY by way of FINE, what would YOU call it, if not a "CONVICTION"?!

Before answering, consult the Court record (Case #202557635), note that the COURT RECORD indicates that there was no "PLEA" (to wit, no payment/ acceptance of guilt without appearing before the court), but, INSTEAD, a "DISPOSITION" by the court (to wit, a FINDING BY THE COURT that the INFRACTION had been "COMMITTED").

My Yale-educated Criminal Law professor would call this a "conviction."

So, too, would my Harvard-educated Evidence Law professor.

Ditto for my 1L Civ Pro Prof (I think he went to Harvard as well...maybe it was Cambridge...or was that his undergrad? My memory is getting hazy.)

In fact, now that I think of it, I'm sure I heard a few more profs refer to results of this kind as "convictions" somewhere or other along the way.

And I know, for a fact, that both my Bar Association and the law firm I work for call this state of affairs a "conviction": Coming out of law school, my classmates and I had to list "EVERY CONVICTION ...UNDER ANY STATUTE" that we'd ever received "INCLUDING TRAFFIC CONVICTIONS" in order to be considered for admission to the Bar/ hired by our respective firms.

I know you don't think much of me, Mary, but do you really think my incredibly brilliant law professors, my Bar Association and my rather wealthy employers are "learning disabled"?

(I can't wait to write my old profs with news of Mary's learned counsel !!!)

Well, I will give you credit for bouncing back, treehorn. I can't believe you finally provided a link for that record. What took you so long?

Anyway, I looked at it, and I still don't see the word "conviction" anywhere. I see the following under "Events:"

Entry Date Remarks

Oct 06, 2007 CASE CLOSED, OBLIGATIONS CLOSED FOR 90 DAYS
Jul 07, 2007 PENALTY PAID/COMMITTED FINDING ENTERED
Jul 02, 2007 CHARGE(S) FILED

Under "Hearings" it says "No records to display." I'm not sure anyone can be convicted without a hearing, but you never know... As has been asked here many times before, can we claim that everyone who has received a traffic citation also has a criminal record?

You mention there was no plea. No, the fine was paid, no questions asked, no defiance on the part of the sociopathic citee. Maybe if she had gone to court to protest the ticket, and the judge had backed the cop, maybe then you could call it something like a conviction, but I doubt it.

You were called learning disabled because you couldn't -- and still can't -- give up on the idea that Amanda did something other than sign a ticket. I don't think your incredibly brilliant law professors, Bar Association and rather wealthy employers are learning disabled, but I also don't think they know anything about the specific question we are discussing, and I think there is a strong likelihood you are not on letter-writing terms with any of them. If I'm wrong, I would absolutely LOVE to see an authentic opinion from any of them about this -- after, of course, they have read all the posts you have made on the subject, and all the replies you have received from other posters.

And, gosh, if you can cite even one other person in the past who has provided the specific link you just provided to me, I will .... do something drastic. Maybe I will even let you choose what it is.