Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

I think this is a mischaracterisation.

The way I remember it, the conversation goes:

A: The distribution of glass proves the break-in was staged! Masssei 51! Plus the rock proves staging, the clothes prove staging, everything is proof it was staged!

B: Let's take this one step at a time. Massei is making **** up. You would not expect large chunks of glass to fly backwards any distance from a low-velocity tock impact. Some glass would fall vertically down, and it's consistent with the damage to the window that Rudy removed additional pieces and put them on the sill to widen the gap.

A: No human being would ever do so without chucking glass to the ground below. It defies everything we know about human nature.

B: Now you're making **** up.

A: But how can the glass be only on top of the clothes? Ha ha!

B: We have Filomena's statement that it wasn't.

A: Okay well in that case the rock couldn't possibly have gone sideways and landed on a bag on some clothes unless it was staged.

B: The rock could have deflected off the shutters and gone sideways, and we only have Filomena's possibly flawed recollection that the room was absolutely clean in the first place. There's no proof at all that the clothes by the bag weren't there before the break-in.

A: Well in that case the distribution of glass proves nothing either way!

B: Well I guess it doesn't, if we postulate superhuman staging skills such that they could pick up and put down the glass so as to create the illusion of a break from outside But even if we give you that as a freebie, then it's still not evidence for or against guilt.

A: Okay, well, do you admit that none of this proves beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't staged?

B: Sure.

A: Aha! You admit that the crime scene is compatible with staging! I win!

B: So we proved you wrong about the claim that all the glass was on top of the clothes, we proved you wrong about all the other "giveaways" in the room that supposedly proved the crime scene was staged, we proved Massei wrong about the distribution of glass, there is no positive evidence whatsoever left that the Lone Wolf theory is incorrect and you win because we can't disprove the staging theory, if we allow you to assume supernatural staging skills?

A: Exactly. I win.

B: Well, you win in the sense that you haven't been proved beyond reasonable doubt to be wrong on that one point. We'll talk about the time of death later. But we've established now with certainty that Massei's case was a load of old cobblers and since it was a major plank of the case that resulted in Knox and Sollecito's conviction, you're just admitted that their conviction was unsafe, right? They were convicted on false premises and they shouldn't be in prison right now, right?

A:....

 

[tsig]

Absolutely. All the long time posters/bloggers/commentators know this. Anybody who says different either needs to broaden their sources of information, or is deliberately misleading people.

Some questions do make you wonder about the questioners' diligence.

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

Frank Sfarzo was there, and he heard "Forte, Raffaele." End of story.

Who, exactly, is "Frank Sfarzo"?

 

[Mary_H]

1) <snip>
4) The "prison diaries" of the 3 accused/ convicted are one of the most astounding aspects of this case. There is, in ANY jurisdiction you can name, NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PRISION. NONE.

Every detainee is advised of this fact. By the police. By the warden. By their own counsel. Repeatedly.

There isn't a self-respecting lawyer on the planet, in either the civil or common law systems, that would advise a client to keep a "prison diary"! It utterly vitiates an accused's greatest asset: The Right to Remain Silent.

Anything an accused says in prison, to anyone other than their lawyer, can, and often will, be recorded and used in evidence. Similarly, anything written can be confiscated and used in evidence.

That these 3 accused/ convicted chose to IGNORE the advice of their expensive counsel in order to engage in these transparent, self-serving attempts to manipulate the proceedings is FASCINATING to me!!!

Strange, then, that you, Halides, would now intimate that the POLICE were somehow 'corrupt' for "leaking" the diaries!

The only reason you or I have even heard of these diaries is the direct result of one thing, and one thing only: The will of the 3 accused to manipulate (their families, their friends, their own lawyers, the police, the judges, the prosecutors, the jury pool, the media, the general public and, best of all, ONE ANOTHER.)

I, for one, am glad that the accused have chosen (presumably out of a deadly combination of hubris and ignorance) to largely ignore their right to remain silent because these "diaries" have helped to bring us all a lot closer to the truth.

Quite a coincidence that all three defendants "chose to IGNORE the advice of their expensive counsel." And that all three had "the will to manipulate" their lawyers and everyone else. I guess the press just got really lucky in this case. I wonder if any other prison inmates in Italy keep diaries. I have a feeling they do.

I, too, am glad the accused kept diaries "because these 'diaries' have helped to bring us all a lot closer to the truth." It's almost as if that's what their lawyers they had in mind.

 

[treehorn]

What's the big deal about anonymity, treehorn? You seem to be overlooking the fact that you are anonymous, while the person you are debating here is not. His name and credentials can be found on his website: http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/

If it is so important to you that sources not be anonymous, would you prefer we disregard every personal opinion you have presented in this forum?

Mary,

Anonymity is fine when one is merely advancing an opinion.

However, when one is purporting to offer a fact (at odds with the evidence adduced at trial), the source must be not only be named but reliable and credible.

Unless, of course, you don't care about being persuasive.

 

[platonov]

"Wrong Way' Corrigan" - Not quite.

I think this is a mischaracterisation.

The way I remember it, the conversation goes:

<snip>

<snip>


....

This is a nonsensical argument.

The 'pattern' (location in the horizontal plane) of the glass 'inside'* the room proves little either way, even leaving aside the later disturbance by Filomena (and possibly the stagers).

The fact that the glass was on the inner half of the cill and on top of the clothes - along with the other evidence (or lack thereof) showed clearly that the break-in was staged.

But to be fair this is a slightly better argument than the one in which the 'large' rock was thrown out thru the window pane into the back 'garden'

* taking the room boundary in this case as the inner face of the external wall.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mary,

Anonymity is fine when one is merely advancing an opinion.

However, when one is purporting to offer a fact (at odds with the evidence adduced at trial), the source must be not only be named but reliable and credible.

Unless, of course, you don't care about being persuasive.

Treehorn,

What are you claiming was at odds with evidence from the trial?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The staged video disputing the staged break in seems to have the inner shutters unlocked or perhaps the lock was forced, hard to say from the video

http://video.sky.it/?videoID=28470121001#video

Well, if Meredith's window works the same, then Rudy wouldn't have to put his hand thru the glass at all to reach the latch, 1/2 the window is already open.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fact versus opionion

Is this another one of Frank S' facts as opposed to opinions ?
[Not that I'm overly concerned with the actual topic at hand]

I'm still not quite clear on the distinction [which you made earlier]

platonov,

If you are saying that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion, then I am unable to help you.

everyone else,

Frank made it clear what he heard, and it was not an obscenity, in either English or Italian.

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

What are you claiming was at odds with evidence from the trial?

Approximately 95% of everything coming out of the mouths of the relatives and PR people of the accused/ convicted.

Closer to 100% in the case of your "Mark Waterbury" and your "Frank Sfarzo."

Who ARE these people?

 

[treehorn]

Frank made it clear what he heard, and it was not an obscenity, in either English or Italian.

Why is some anonymous Perugian amateur, blogging under a 'stage name' and posing for pictures with the step dad of the accused, more "credible" than a professional journalist with Newsweek?

 

[Machiavelli]

But you didn't point inconsistency, only incredulity. On the other hand, there are real inconsistencies in "guilt" theories.

What I presented is just one scenario out of others possible. It is consistent internally and with the evidence. But of course I don't know how he did it exactly, he could do it like this also:

(.. )

No, I don't consider it consistent because the (first) 13 points I made remain still to me. (I have also another 3 or 4 points in addition).
The question of incredulty and inconsistency i see it as total difference. I don't see any distinct definition by which you should dismiss my "incredulty" and not consider thay depend from aspects of reality that lack consistency. I don't see in fact any reason why I should credulous or dupe, open to accept any sequence of improbable scenarios and do as if this belief was perfectly normal. It is not normal to believe an undeterminate series of unrealisic events.

Those observations that might be interpreted differently - like for example the white crumble of varnishing in place of whitewash - are also independant from each other. I have intrinsic reasons for each point, reasons that do not depend from my idea that the defendants are guilty (albeit I have this idea also independently from the issue of Filomena's window). I take in account that some of these conclusions regarding a single piece could have a more or less reasonable chance to be a wrong assessment. But I am not ready to consider as reasonable that all conclusions are wrong on all elements. It is the accumulation of elements that creates a critical mass. And reasonable doubt on proving single parts of the scenario - like the staged break in - are not even needed.

Some objections, moreover, are totally inconsistent in my view, like the idea that Filomena window could be a "logical" point of entry on the arguments you brought forward. Or that the sweater fell from the top of the paper bag. I don't see these arguments about the staged break in as disproven.

About inconsistencies, I have never seen and cannot imagine somebody trying to put together the inconsistencies I see in Amanda's declarations, for example. I think all these claims about false memory and coercion fail to explain the actual facts and are inconsistent on so macroscopical and diffuse level that, to me, gullibility on these stuttering attempts goes beyond belief. The lack of possible explanation for the luminol footprints is also devastating, as well as the lack of any reasonable explanation for the bra clasp, and the evidence of cleanup and alteration of the bathmat print, and the features of the bathmat print bring a further element against.

 

[platonov]

The gospel according to Frank

platonov,

If you are saying that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion, then I am unable to help you.

everyone else,

Frank made it clear what he heard, and it was not an obscenity, in either English or Italian.

No, I am well versed on the difference between 'fact' and opinion - as was shown several times when I used the 'fact' of the court transcripts etc to completely refute arguments you made which were based on the 'opinions' of Frank S [and C Dempsey for that matter].

I was wondering was the word of Frank S literally unimpeachable or 'gospel' as far as you are concerned.
Once he opines it becomes 'fact' ? - a rather scriptural attitude, No ?

I don't think I trust even my own word to that extent

'Tis the season - Beware of leprechauns elves in bars.

 

[Kestrel]

Why is some anonymous Perugian amateur, blogging under a 'stage name' and posing for pictures with the step dad of the accused, more "credible" than a professional journalist with Newsweek?

Perhaps because Frank uses logic and evidence instead of appeal to emotion. He also attended and wrote about the entire trial. But I can see how his blog might not interest someone who is obsessed with Amanda's underwear and sex life.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

simple, really

Why is some anonymous Perugian amateur, blogging under a 'stage name' and posing for pictures with the step dad of the accused, more "credible" than a professional journalist with Newsweek?

The answer is that the so-called professional has been shown to be wrong repeatedly by several commenters on this thread--and always wrong in a way that is unfavorable to Knox and Sollecito. Frank is not anonymous; everyone who cares to look into it knows his pen name and his given name.

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps because Frank uses logic and evidence instead of appeal to emotion. He also attended and wrote about the entire trial. But I can see how his blog might not interest someone who is obsessed with Amanda's underwear and sex life.

Perhaps people don'tread him because of delusional oubursts like these:


http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/01/conviction-of-knox-and-sollecito.html


(...) On the night of December 5 2009 the world started to understand that for convicting people we don't need just indications of guilt, even if all clear, convergent, consistent. We don't need someone telling us We didn't have a reasonable doubt. We need a real proof, a logical proof, absolute and objective certainty. And we shouldn't be afraid of truth anymore. The world is ready to waive the judicial mistake, even because we have now enough technology, science, organization, and it becomes more and more difficult for crimes to go unpunished.

....

no appeal to emptions, only logic.... always precise fact reported, always precise, always on topic ... sure

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what is the basis for your claim

Approximately 95% of everything coming out of the mouths of the relatives and PR people of the accused/ convicted.

Closer to 100% in the case of your "Mark Waterbury" and your "Frank Sfarzo."

Who ARE these people?

You have not answered my question. However, your comment is as ridiculous a statement as I have heard anyone make on this thread, and that is no small feat. It is first of all utterly nonspecific; neither the names of individuals nor what they say are indicated. Do you really believe that nearly 100% of what is found at Perugia-Shock is false? If so, what is the factual basis for your claim? Have you actually read and understood what Dr. Waterbury wrote about stochastic processes with reference to LCN DNA profiling? If so, are you claiming that it is false? I cannot see the point in continuing to engage with you.

 

[platonov]

Perhaps because Frank uses logic and evidence instead of appeal to emotion. He also attended and wrote about the entire trial. But I can see how his blog might not interest someone who is obsessed with Amanda's underwear and sex life.

Hold on - are you saying that the major* appeal of [rescuing] AK is not related to her underwear or sex life.

When did this happen ?

* Obviously there are also other 'factors' - equally exalted.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why is some anonymous Perugian amateur, blogging under a 'stage name' and posing for pictures with the step dad of the accused, more "credible" than a professional journalist with Newsweek?

That is a very good point, but he's Foaker as well, so there you go. It is quite possible that Barbie just heard it wrong too, there would have been a lot of other noise at that time and it does kind of sound alike. Barbie has no reason to lie.

 

[TomM43]

A Californian legal definition of Spontaneous Utterance:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3478698
No idea if it carries the same meaning in Italy.

Spontaneous utterance is a exception to the rule against hearsay in common law jurisprudence. Hearsay is an unsworn, out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Excited utterance is a statement made immediately after an event sufficiently exciting so as to suspend reflective power, such that the statement made because it was true, rather than calculated. AK's "gift" doesn't seem to me to qualify.

It is, however, a declaration against interest, and thus admissible under common law.