Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[TomCH]

So, the glass distribution is appropriate for a rock that has been thrown from the outside.

The room, based only on evidence from the broken window and the distribution of glass, appears to have been broken into by throwing a rock from the outside. However, this cannot be said conclusively to be true, because it is impossible to distinguish from a well constructed simulation.

Therefore, the window, and the distribution of glass, are useless in an attempt to demonstrate the break in was faked.

Is that your position?

No, rather it's useless in an attempt to demonstrate that the rock was thrown from outside rather than smashed from within.

Besides, can anyone here throw a 10 pound rock with any accuracy?

If I were to throw a rock to break a window, it would be 1 lb. or less (just measured a few chunks of granite lying around the house).

And, unlike the scrawny Rudy, I'm built like a shot-putter. (well, the national sport here IS throwing rocks)

 

[moodstream]

I would sum up four or five objections.

1. The first: my statement this is possible, was made without taking in account the distance between the grid and the window. In fact looking back at the wall I see them as too distant. A person 1,80 high cannot stand on the grid and reach the window latch.

2. You cannot talk about a dry day. You are talking about November in Perugia. And night time. You would find nothing dry on soil. Humidity was 70% in average during Nov 1. and 90% during Nov 2. Even less dry in that pit.

3. Police witnesses testified not only about the lack of prints and soil inside, but also about the grass and soil being completely moist.

4. The locution "only some testimonies" is a kind of self deceit. A trial would rest, legally, ultimetely on testimonies. Documents different from testimonies afe hold in hight esteem by internet bloggers, but in reality they don't exist without testimonies. A "visible" document - like a photo or video - can be fabricated, can be a fake. Any document would require the confirmation of a testimony. You cn't bring a video in the trial, for example, without a witness testifying at what time and date the video was recorded, who was there, and so on. Everything rests on testimonies. Experts reports and documents do not exist by themselves without a witness questioned about them. You simply cannot have "solid records" independent from testimony, you can never have this material as a topic of discussion alone in an Italian trial.
The police docmented there were no shoeprints. Whatever you "prefer" to see, you cannot just decide to dismiss witness reports and investigators reports as if they didn't exist.

5. Photo documentation showing no trace of soil inside the house is available. Youd detect crmbles that I easily identify with white paint (not with whitewash), then you identify rock powder (which could be from the stone, but doesn't change anything logically). But there is no soil. There is no trace of grass. Photo documentation also shows the soil was not covered with rich vegetation: there was a surface of black, soft earth (this can been assessed in a picture taken that day from beneath) together with a kind vegetation (stellaria, amaranthus, etc.) that would show the marks of steps. There is no trace of removal of broken glass from the window sill, and this is an issue, you think of a person who has crawl or pull himself across the window sill.

One problem is the lack of independent testimony. The closest we have are the photos and they do not appear to align with the police testimony. Moreover, the testimony we do have from the police is of an antidotal nature. It’s possible, even likely, the memory of the police officers could be influenced by a desire of the officer’s superiors to produce the conclusion the break in was staged. By November 6th, this was a necessary conclusion for them, to continue to hold AK/RS.

There is nothing to indicate that the theory of a staged break in was ever more than a rough conclusion drawn from initial observations, later fleshed out simply by asking the officers to file statements in support. There is no empirical objective study of the area outside the window for footprints, glass, damage or marks on the wall, or the necessity of such, nor the impossibility of other means of entering from the outside via that window. In short, they did not scientifically shut off that possibility, or even demonstrate its improbability. Within the room, the only objective study, provided by Sargent Pasquale indicates the break in was not staged.

I have like Katody walked immediately after very heavy rains over grass and vegetation covered soil and found that by the next day no trace of my steps remained. You of course have the opposite view. The point is, they are just viewpoints and do not express the results of objective independent evaluation.

 

[moodstream]

No, rather it's useless in an attempt to demonstrate that the rock was thrown from outside rather than smashed from within.

Except for the word no, your statement it's useless in an attempt to demonstrate that the rock was thrown from outside rather than smashed from within seems to restate mine: the window, and the distribution of glass, are useless in an attempt to demonstrate the break in was faked. Perhaps I should tack on the phrase faked or not.

 

[moodstream]

As to your first two sentences, no. ToD was not a issue in RG's trial. I.e. RG was not trying to establish an alibi based on his being able to show he was somewhere else at the time death occurred, so the exact time of death was not a significant issue in his trial.

I am sure that forensic pathologists for the state and for AK and RS had formulated their conclusions before RG's trial.

As to the last sentence--"One crime, one set of facts."--that was the way the events unfolded, but that is not the way we know it. The people involved are either not not talking, or to the extent they are, they are not telling the truth. So reconstruction is necessary. We like to think it is like the little plastic things on Star Trek that would be inserted into a viewing machine to take us back to past events to observe as if we were actually there. But it's really more like Rashomon.

I am sorry, I don’t know what you are saying about star trek and so on. The state investigated the crime. The victim died once at a certain time. The state prosecuted the crime with two TOD’s, as though the victim died twice nevertheless. I have never heard of that before. One crime, one set of facts.

Can you provide examples where the TOD, or any evidence, was altered to benefit the prosecution’s theory in any set of trials where multiple defendants are tried for the same crime, but in separate trials?

 

[katy_did]

If she requested to make an additional statement, then I think saying she was denied a lawyer is misleading. That's all I mean.

The statements were "voluntary", but I don't think that's the same thing as saying she "requested to make an additional statement" (or "demanded" to make one, thus causing poor Mignini to be dragged from his warm bed, a version I've heard on occasion). I believe the statements being "voluntary" is a legal issue: the police and the prosecutor knew they weren't allowed to question Amanda further without her obtaining a lawyer, which would have been inconvenient from their perspective; so they tried to get around it by asking her to make further declarations but informing her that, legally, these would be "voluntary" statements.

In her testimony, Amanda states that she was asked to make further statements:

LG: All right, I've finished the subject of the night in the Questura. When you made your first declaration, it was without the pubblico ministero. Then he came. Can you tell us if there was some discussion about a lawyer? If you remember, and whatever you remember.

AK: So, before they asked me to make further declarations--I really can't tell you what time it was, I was lost after hours and hours of the same thing--but at one point I asked if I shouldn't have a lawyer? I thought that, well, I didn't know, but I've seen things like this on television. When people do things like this they have lawyer. They told me, at least one of them told me that it would be worse for me because it would prove that I didn't want to collaborate with the police. So they told me no.

And after all, it makes far more sense that the police would ask Amanda to make further statements than it does that Amanda herself would demand to go back into what is unlikely to have been a pleasant tea-and-biscuits interrogation: they had a statement from her as a witness, but not as a suspect, and the witness statement couldn't be used against her; Mignini hadn't been present at the first interrogation, and was no doubt keen to question Amanda first-hand; and why wouldn't they want to question her again, bearing in mind that the first statement has little detail beyond "I remember in a confused way that he killed her"?

That someone in Amanda's position would demand to be heard again makes far less sense than that the police wanted to question her again, knew they couldn't legally do so without a lawyer, and so looked for a way to get around it.

 

[katy_did]

The other problems associated with this case are the lack of documents and/or the translation of documents. I like having the documents (obviously) and I get frustrated when much of this is not available or I don't have a good translation of them. I am still trying to find a copy of the complete additional appeal filing by Raffaele's lawyers on the computer information, for example.

I'd be very interested to see that information too. If anyone can get hold of it, I think it's probably you, Rose.

 

[quadraginta]

No, rather it's useless in an attempt to demonstrate that the rock was thrown from outside rather than smashed from within.

Except for the word no, your statement it's useless in an attempt to demonstrate that the rock was thrown from outside rather than smashed from within seems to restate mine: the window, and the distribution of glass, are useless in an attempt to demonstrate the break in was faked. Perhaps I should tack on the phrase faked or not.

What you are saying here, in essence, is that you agree with Tom's point, which is that it would be possible to break the window from inside the room in a fashion which is indistinguishable from it having been done from outside the room.

I pointed this out quite some time ago, when Professor Kevin, WFA (World's Foremost Authority) was wearing his Physics Expert hat. It is important to note that this has been in response to assertions that the distribution of the glass proved beyond all question that the rock must have been thrown from outside the building. Agreeing as you have that it does not merely moves the goal post ... in a rather disingenuous fashion.

 

[Malkmus]

Again, is it normal practice to tape these things?

Man, the discussion has just gone through a time tunnel to last April.

Are you saying it's like a time tunnel because you know that it has been pointed out time and time again that what was strange about the lack of recording was that Mignini is quoted as saying that he recorded every other interrogation, including the witnesses and roommates? And that his reasoning for why Amanda's wasn't recorded is bogus and reeks of nonsense?

 

[Malkmus]

What you are saying here, in essence, is that you agree with Tom's point, which is that it would be possible to break the window from inside the room in a fashion which is indistinguishable from it having been done from outside the room.

Then what's the point here? If it's indistinguishable that the rock could have been thrown from the inside or outside then it is meaningless as proof of evidence against AK and RS. The only argument that matters is proving that the rock could not possibly have been thrown by someone from the outside and created the damage found inside the room.

 

[RWVBWL]

tsig - what are you getting at ?

The blood in the room showed the break-in was staged after the attack.

Hi Platonov,
Sorry this reply to your post is a day late, but hey, the surf was pumping yesterday!

Do you believe Amanda Knox when she stated that she found the door wide open when she came home in the late morning to grab a quick shower and change of clothes on Nov. 2, '07?

If so, does this scenerio then sound plausable?
On a cold November night, with the front door unlocked and open,
doesn't that suggest the slight possibility that anyone else could have came into the girls apartment after Meredith Kercher was brutally stabbed to her death too?
And were there not many un-attributed fingerprints found in the residence also?

I just ask this for there are many unanswered questions about what really happened that night.
And with a front door left open, well it adds to the possibilties, I suppose...
RWVBWL

 

[quadraginta]

Then what's the point here? If it's indistinguishable that the rock could have been thrown from the inside or outside then it is meaningless as proof of evidence against AK and RS. The only argument that matters is proving that the rock could not possibly have been thrown by someone from the outside and created the damage found inside the room.

Nice evasion.

The point was being made in response to claims that it was not possible for the window to have been broken from inside the room.

It is blatantly disingenuous to then move the goalpost to a fallback position that the distribution of the glass was never claimed to establish anything and pretend that this was the assertion being responded to.

This is a good example of the sort of tag team "There is no past." strategy often employed by the more rabid Knox partisans.

Defender A claims, "The distribution of the glass proves ... ."

Respondent B says, "Nope. It doesn't, and here's why."

Defender C pops up and says, "AH HAH. You admit that it proves nothing. How can you claim it is evidence?"

This sort of transparently specious illogic is the reason that this thread has been abandoned by so many serious posters, and is primarily a source of amusement and morbid fascination for the few who remain.

 

[Justinian2]

I've seen no good DNA evidence, no murder weapon, no motive, no finger prints, no confession and no good police work to connect AK or RS to any crime. Yet the moderator of PMF - from a radio interview with a guy I'll admit was too hostile - believes that there is no possibility that Amanda is innocent.

What is the very best piece of evidence that the guilters have? Seems like their only evidence is the occasional mistake or perceived mistake that the pro-innocence people make.

A million pieces of irrelevant fact don't make a case.

Where's the beef? I open the bun and see no beef! Just some special sauce, and a few sour pickles.

What is the most solid and relevant evidence that proves guilt? Is there any evidence that's both relevant AND at least 50% reliable?

OK, I cut you a break. Is there any evidence that's over 30% reliable AND relevant?

 

[truethat]

Isn't this just an inverted version of the polices claim they initially thought she was involved because of the way she acted. You think she is innocent because of the way she acted.


What source of misinformation did you get this from? I think Dr Waterbury has claimed this. If you can find any proof I'll examine it with interest.

I could be wrong but he got 16 years and they got 26 years. All for the same crime? He's the one with the absolute connection to the scene? Why pray tell do you think his sentence is so much lower?

I'm a novice to all this so go easy. I just think it seems like common sense that he got a plea deal?

 

[truethat]

The first time I was in love with a beautiful woman, we just did what came naturally from nine until the morning.

In fact, that's what happened with the second and forth relationship too. My ex was my third relationlship. She asked me to take her home in the middle of the night so that I wouldn't hear her snore.

Of course this isn't proof, but I believe that it is natural for people newly living together to stay together at night and do the one thing that interests both. It is unnatural to break from the natural to do the unnatural. That's why the burden of proof should be totally on the prosecution to provide more than a lame theory as to why they departed from the natural and the believable.

Yes, they could have gone out for a walk or food. I don't believe that an angry murder and love making are compatible. The prosecution should have to prove the motive beyond a reasonable doubt.

Condoms perhaps?

 

[Justinian2]

Condoms perhaps?

Ha! Who needs food when you have Condoms and a beautiful woman. Cigarettes might help.

Youth, a beautiful woman, condoms, a bed, pizza, and cigarettes. That's paradise! What better motivation to stay home is there?

 

[Malkmus]

Nice evasion.

The point was being made in response to claims that it was not possible for the window to have been broken from inside the room.

It is blatantly disingenuous to then move the goalpost to a fallback position that the distribution of the glass was never claimed to establish anything and pretend that this was the assertion being responded to.

This is a good example of the sort of tag team "There is no past." strategy often employed by the more rabid Knox partisans.

Defender A claims, "The distribution of the glass proves ... ."

Respondent B says, "Nope. It doesn't, and here's why."

Defender C pops up and says, "AH HAH. You admit that it proves nothing. How can you claim it is evidence?"

This sort of transparently specious illogic is the reason that this thread has been abandoned by so many serious posters, and is primarily a source of amusement and morbid fascination for the few who remain.

Ironic that you found my post evasive since your response addressed nothing of what I said. So did I miss the post where it was proven that the rock could not have possibly been thrown from the outside?

 

[truethat]

I'm saying maybe they went out to get condoms.

 

[quadraginta]

I could be wrong but he got 16 years and they got 26 years. All for the same crime? He's the one with the absolute connection to the scene? Why pray tell do you think his sentence is so much lower?

I'm a novice to all this so go easy. I just think it seems like common sense that he got a plea deal?

Oh, goody.

Let's do this one again. It's been ages since the last time.

 

[Justinian2]

I'm saying maybe they went out to get condoms.

Maybe. I'm just saying the motivation was to get back home, not do a quickie kill of a friend.

 

[quadraginta]

Ironic that you found my post evasive since your response addressed nothing of what I said. So did I miss the post where it was proven that the rock could not have possibly been thrown from the outside?

Apparently you missed the posts which alleged that the glass distribution proved the rock must have come from outside the building. I cannot account for your inattention.