Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[lane99]

lane99,

As far as I know, this sample was positive for luminol. However, in other instances where luminol was positive, Stefanoni checked with TMB and did not obtain a positive reaction (I am not sure about this stain). Both luminol and TMB are presumptive tests for blood. Unless a confirmatory test comes back positive, one cannot conclude that a substance was blood.

If that's right, the case against Knox is that much weaker than I had previously thought.

I had been under the impression that it was confirmed (and uncontested) that it was blood.

Thanks, halides1.

 

[platonov]

I don't know too much about this case but the whole nature of your debate is slightly ranty.

The behavior of a nut job is not going to look normal, but that doesn't automatically make her guilty.

I prefer the forensics evidence. So when people raise questions that ask "If she's innocent why is she not blaming RG" is completely irrelevant to me.

Not so much 'ranty' as descriptive ! (and predictive , but not uncannily so)
Have you noticed the thread length, its at ~ 34,000 posts and you are making arguments that were dismissed as nonsense dealt with ~ 34,000 posts ago[ +/- 3000]

In response to a link to actual testimony you respond with a 'rant' (if I may borrow your term) about how an article in a downmarket (YMMV) magazine is biased.

But if direct testimony is not to your taste (apparently its not), fine : Lets hear your arguments on forensics.

PS On the "If she's innocent.." - You made the argument that 'she didn't want to look bad' - its a little unfair to now blame others for pointing out its ridiculous.

ETA I've managed to restrain myself, so I hope that deals with the 'ranty' issue

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the ordinary kitchen knife

I prefer the forensics evidence. So when people raise questions that ask "If she's innocent why is she not blaming RG" is completely irrelevant to me.

truethat,

I found that argument about RG to be irrelevant also. About the knife, Barbie Nadeau wrote in the article you cited, "According to multiple witnesses for the defense, the knife is compatible with at least one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but it was likely too large for the other two." Barbie leaves out the fact that any sharp knife (large or small) could have produced one of the three wounds. She also neglects to mention that the blade of the knife was tested for blood and found to be negative. This is one of two facts that point to contamination as a likely source of Meredith's DNA, the other being the fact that the sample is in the low copy number range in terms of how much DNA was present.

 

[platonov]

Randi has now barred my calls - Thanks.

truethat,

I found that argument about RG irrelevant also. About the knife, Barbie Nadeau wrote in the article you cited, "According to multiple witnesses for the defense, the knife is compatible with at least one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but it was likely too large for the other two." Barbie leaves out the fact that any sharp knife (large or small) could have produced one of the three wounds. She also neglects to mention that the blade of the knife was tested for blood and found to be negative. This is one of two facts that point to contamination as a likely source of Meredith's DNA, the other being the fact that the sample is in the low copy number range in terms of how much DNA was present.

So ...
"what the co-accused in a murder case [albeit one with 2 separate trials] 'say' about each other"
is irrelevant but
"how an article in a downmarket (YMMV) magazine is biased"
is not.

My powers of 'prediction' grow ever stronger.

 

[Solange305]

I would be very happy for a pro-guilt poster to prove me wrong by presenting a coherent pro-guilt narrative that makes sense of the facts, but nobody has even made a decent attempt.

Kevin, the problem is that we don't agree on the "facts". All the narratives we have given are shot down by your assertion that Meredith died hours earlier, or that the dna on the bra is faulty, etc. So I think it's unfair to say that we haven't offered a narrative, we have. You just don't agree with it.

What I would like to see, and of course this is only a request, not a demand, but I would like to see a narrative from you guys that explains why a police force and a justice system would falsify evidence and dna just to send two innocent young adults to jail. Not just any innocent young adults, but one who's father is wealthy and somewhat powerful, and another who is American and bound to be supported by many from her home country. They had the supposed murderer within weeks, the public would have been satisfied, its not like there was pressure to "catch the killer who is on the loose", they had the killer soon afterward. Anything is possible, but it's going to take a lot for me to believe that.

 

[capealadin]

Are you saying you really don't know the difference between lying and false? I find that very hard to believe. Here is an example:

At 9:07, you wrote, "I'm going out."
At 9:23, you wrote, "See you later."
At 9:38, you wrote, "By the way..."
At 9:41, you wrote, "Halides, keep up..."
You posted again at 9:42, 10:14, 10:32, 10:35, 10:39, 10:45 and 10:47.

Have you gone out yet? If not, were you lying? Not to my way of thinking.

How is that lying? Maybe , changing my mind. Maybe, my leaving DELAYED. Lying, and false, though, have completely different connotations. Let's not get petty, here, Mary. Lying and false, without an extra word (confession). Let me know the diff, yeah?

 

[Solange305]

This is one of two facts that point to contamination as a likely source of Meredith's DNA, the other being the fact that the sample is in the low copy number range in terms of how much DNA was present.

I still can't get over him lying about that in his diary though, saying he pricked Meredith while cooking. That is just bizarre, Im sorry.

 

[capealadin]

capealadin, what is it about this concise response by halides1 that you object to? Can you offer any concrete, forensic evidence to the contrary?

"The pro-guilt commenters often talk about Amanda’s or Raffaele’s multiple versions. In reality both had two basic versions of what happened, what they said on the night of November 5th-6th and what they said before and after."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6639255&postcount=19338

Mary: The truth does not change. 2 versions were one too many. If you can't remember anything, maybe you can't remember killing someone. I know, loss of memory can be............fatal.

 

[platonov]

How is that lying? Maybe , changing my mind. Maybe, my leaving DELAYED. Lying, and false, though, have completely different connotations. Let's not get petty, here, Mary. Lying and false, without an extra word (confession). Let me know the diff, yeah?

Or - given my unimpeachable feminist credentials, I'm allowed to say this - isn't it just possible that capealadin is a female human and therefore 'time of departure' is a vague & undefined concept at best.

 

[capealadin]

I don't know if you've noticed but this isn't a courtroom.

If I have a question (that I don't know the answer to) why wouldn't I ask it here?

Anyone here who thinks they have the answers to all the questions there may be is probably fooling themselves.

Nobody has all the answers. However, what was your question?

 

[capealadin]

Did you really mean to say this?

Why?

What on earth is the point of a discussion in which people aren't permitted to ask questions they don't the answers to?

Yes, I do. In a discussion, you are permitted to ask questions, but......don't get huffy when the answer is not to your liking. Got it?

 

[capealadin]

There was no need for the prosecutor to appeal the sentence as Rudy got the maximum (30 years) in the first trial. Rudy did appeal that and got awarded the mitigation reduction at the appeal level. The process at the supreme court level may be different. Rudy has already appealed and will be heard shortly. I am interested in knowing if the prosecution can appeal at the supreme court level. That is the pertinent question at hand.

The prosecutor CANNOT appeal a verdict in a fast track trial. Get it?

 

[capealadin]

Rudy was there. Period.

During the crime? Guede's DNA was all over the murder room and the body. Guede's palmprints was found in the murder room. The evidence that Guede was in the murder room is very solid.

The bra clasp was the only link of RS to the Murder room. The clasp was LCN DNA, handled poorly in a possibly contaminated lab. The evidence that RS was in the murder room is the probability that the LCN DNA was correct, multiplied by the reliability of the lab, multiplied by the contamination factor, multiplied by the prossibility the police framed AK and RS. Even if this last factor is only 2 percent, it still exists and diminishes the probability that the bra clasp evidence is valid. The evidence that RS was in the murder room at all is very slim.

I had a good time in Peru. I know you missed me.

So, Rudi's DNA was everywhere. Hardly any of Amandas. And, she LIVED there. Cleanup? She had just showered, changed clothes, boogied. No DNA in HER ROOM. As RW like to say.....HMMMMMMMMMM

 

[capealadin]

The problem is that so far none of the pro-guilt posters have even managed to come up with one that passes the sniff test.

The problems none of them have managed to solve are these:

Firstly, the arguments against the Massei time of death are scientifically irrefutable. Meredith can't have died at 23:30 with 500mL of chyme in her stomach from a 18:00 meal, no food matter in her duodenum, and identifiable vegetable fibres and cheese in her stomach. It's as crazy as saying a four metre tall man did it.

Secondly, once you accept the earlier time of death then Nara becomes irrelevant and Curatolo is either irrelevant or actually proves that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. If you abandon Curatolo entirely Amanda and Raffaele have an uncontested alibi for the actual time of death, and if you don't abandon Curatolo then Curatolo is their alibi witness.

Without Curatolo to contradict their alibi we have evidence that the prosecution accepted at their first trial that Amanda and Raffaele were at home until 21:10. We have defence documents to show that someone opened a Naruto file at 21:26, which if watched would run until 21:49. We have the fact that Amanda and Raffaele claimed to have watched Stardust after that, and that they made this claim before the police destroyed the evidence that could have proved or disproved this alibi. We also have defence documents that purport to show that Raffaele's computer was in use throughout the entire time from Meredith's earliest possible time of death (21:05 or so) to the latest possible time of death (maybe 22:00) and even on past the pants-on-head irrational Massei time of death (23:30).

To set against that alibi evidence we have exactly nothing from the prosecution in terms of time-sensitive evidence that proves that they were in the murder house around the time of death. They have luminol results that could have gotten there any time and are ambiguous to boot, they have DNA on a bra clasp and a knife that could have gotten there any time and were not handled satisfactorily to boot, but nothing that contradicts the alibi evidence except Curatolo, who (as I said earlier) exonerates Knox and Sollecito if you believe him.

So we've got strong evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were at home at the time of the murder, a dearth of evidence in the murder room, absolutely no evidence of blood on their clothes, or of missing clothes, no remotely plausible motive, no remotely plausible story about how they teamed up with Rudy to sexually assault and murder Meredith in the tiny possible windows you can open up by disputing the computer evidence, no positive evidence of a staged break-in, no positive evidence of a clean-up, and in fact no remotely coherent pro-guilt narrative.

This is why people like Capealadin are reduced to repeating "Why haven't they done X!? From my totally uninformed perspective I am super incredulous! If you can't explain this they are guilty somehow, it's good enough evidence for me!". Tabloid psychology, trivia and uninformed incredulity are all the pro-guilt side have left.

I would be very happy for a pro-guilt poster to prove me wrong by presenting a coherent pro-guilt narrative that makes sense of the facts, but nobody has even made a decent attempt.

As you say, " from your totally UNINFORMED * Uninformed is right on, Kevin. Their guilt was explained...400 pages, I believe. Verdict? Guilty. And, they were INFORMED. Like me, they were REDUCED to asking questions. They were answered by the evidence...and, the unanimous verdict was......GUILTY.

 

[capealadin]

Or - given my unimpeachable feminist credentials, I'm allowed to say this - isn't it just possible that capealadin is a female human and therefore 'time of departure' is a vague & undefined concept at best.

QUITE SO, as Halides likes to say.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, the problem is that we don't agree on the "facts". All the narratives we have given are shot down by your assertion that Meredith died hours earlier, or that the dna on the bra is faulty, etc. So I think it's unfair to say that we haven't offered a narrative, we have. You just don't agree with it.

If you can't provide a narrative which is consistent with the scientific facts, then my job is done. I've demonstrated that your belief in the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is faith-based and irrational.

If you want to keep holding that faith-based belief, I can't stop you.

What I would like to see, and of course this is only a request, not a demand, but I would like to see a narrative from you guys that explains why a police force and a justice system would falsify evidence and dna just to send two innocent young adults to jail. Not just any innocent young adults, but one who's father is wealthy and somewhat powerful, and another who is American and bound to be supported by many from her home country. They had the supposed murderer within weeks, the public would have been satisfied, its not like there was pressure to "catch the killer who is on the loose", they had the killer soon afterward. Anything is possible, but it's going to take a lot for me to believe that.

You're asking the wrong question, I believe. We've cited multiple cases (the Norfolk Four, Stefan Kizsko) of police doing exactly that. So the fact that you find it strange that police sometimes do so is irrelevant. Police do it sometimes, and our job is to figure out whether or not they did it in this instance.

However to answer the question you did ask: Speaking broadly, a serious historical problem in policing in the UK and Australia seems to have been that when you get a police force who aren't all that bright, arresting criminals who 90% or more of the time are guilty of what they have been arrested for, they can develop a culture of faking evidence ("verballing" was rife in the UK and Queensland in some periods), beating suspects, fabricating evidence and so forth very easily, and it's often hard to tell the difference in outcomes between a corrupt force working this way and a clean force doing their job properly. Either way the crims go down, so it's only when the police get caught red-handed setting up an innocent person that they get sprung.

I suspect that something similar happened to police culture in Perugia - lacking any checks on them, a culture developed of assaulting and browbeating suspects, twisting evidence to suit the prosecution, producing verbal statements of convenience, possibly falsifying DNA evidence, leaking damaging slime to the media and so on. Similar things happened in the seventies and eighties in Australia in some parts of the police force.

So in a culture of police bending the rules, there's a worst-case scenario of a prosecutor going off the deep and the police enabling him in his fantasy. Mignini decides early on that it was a three-way killing because the man is just not stable (as was documented in the Monster of Florence case, despite Machiavelli's cherry-picking of irrelevant factoids to try to whitewash the nutter's reputation), the police buy into his story and start finding "facts" that support it, they browbeat an internalised false statement out of a vulnerable young woman, they haul in Lumumba, and for a minute they really think they've cracked the case of the century.

Then the forensic evidence starts coming in and it's an "Oh ****" moment for them. No sign of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room, no positive evidence of a staged break-in, no positive evidence of a clean-up, an alibi backed up by unimpeachable computer evidence that places Amanda and Raffaele at Raffaele's house on the night of the murder, over a dozen witnesses supporting Lumumba's alibi including an international professor who travels back to Perugia to get him out of prison... it's not looking good at all. Every bit of their case is garbage and they have nothing to go on to find the real killer.

This is the point at which honest cops might have blown the whistle, outed Mignini as deranged and tried to salvage the situation. That didn't happen. So things started to happen to salvage the situation the other way, to save face by getting a conviction regardless.

The hard drives get fried - there goes the proof of their alibi. Rudy is arrested and like a murderous Lego block he is slotted into exactly the spot in their story that they had originally marked out for Lumumba. Stefanoni makes a highly irregular trip in person to Perugia to rustle up some new evidence and hey, presto! Raffaele's DNA is found on a bra clasp... or at least some peaks on a graph look like peaks on his graph, and that's good enough right? The knife is tested and retested until Amanda's DNA shows up, without any of the precautions and replication normally used to prevent false results from contamination, and the logs that could tell us whether Amanda's DNA was floating around that lab that day are concealed from the defence. A series of outright lies are leaked to the public about Harry Potter books and bleach receipts and so forth to poison the jury pool.

Remember Meredith died on the 2nd of November, and police arrested Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba on the 6th. Rudy wasn't even on the police's radar until the 19th, and Lumumba wasn't released until the 20th. There was a solid fortnight when the police had been telling the public "case closed, we solved this, we have all three murderers, we're good" when in fact they had three innocent people that they were railroading and no idea who the real killer was.

Why didn't they just admit when they bagged Rudy that they had been completely wrong, that all three of their initial suspects were totally innocent, that they'd browbeaten a false statement out of Amanda, arrested Lumumba based on nothing but the false statement they elicited and generally made complete asses of themselves? Because people don't do that. In fact the community you've chosen for yourself over at PMF is an excellent case study of people's resistance to changing their minds in the face of new data, if the new data is not what they want to hear and changing their minds would mean an embarrassing about-face. People don't like to be embarrassed, and given the choice of embarrassment or railroading two totally innocent young people into murder convictions the Perugia justice system took the path of least embarrassment.

So the very short summary of a very long question is - you want to know why they stuck to their beliefs in the face of irrefutable contrary evidence? It's the same reason Michael/Fulcanelli will never stop preaching his faith. It's the reason you decided to believe that we were lying to you about the facts of this case, rather than accept that the facts about the case were not as you wanted them to be. Most people don't change their minds when they are proved wrong, they just get angry and defensive and stick to their guns even more tightly.

The people who don't do that - the people who proportion their beliefs to the available evidence and change their beliefs when new evidence is found - are called skeptics.

 

[Matthew Best]

Yes, I do. In a discussion, you are permitted to ask questions, but......

... but you have to know the answer before you do so? Sorry, that seems idiotic.

 

[treehorn]

I suspect that something similar happened to police culture in Perugia - lacking any checks on them, a culture developed of assaulting and browbeating suspects, twisting evidence to suit the prosecution, producing verbal statements of convenience, possibly falsifying DNA evidence, leaking damaging slime to the media and so on. Similar things happened in the seventies and eighties in Australia in some parts of the police force.

You "suspect"... I thought you were the resident champion of "evidence-based argument."

On what grounds are you claiming that "a culture [(of corruption)] developed[,]" in Perugia, in advance of this particular investigation?!

What do you consider "checks"?

Are you asserting that Italian prosecutors, judges (professional and lay) do not act as "checks" on police conduct?

Did you not take note of the constitutional rights afforded the accused during the OPEN trial?!

They were even entitled to a few 'extra' rights that are not available to YOU in your common law jurisdiction!

Are constitutional rights not "checks" on corrupt agents of the state?!

On what grounds are you asserting that the citizens of Italy, a democratic G8 nation, are subject to a constitution that is 'writ in water'?

 

[Mary_H]

How is that lying? Maybe , changing my mind. Maybe, my leaving DELAYED. Lying, and false, though, have completely different connotations. Let's not get petty, here, Mary. Lying and false, without an extra word (confession). Let me know the diff, yeah?

capealadin, my post was very short -- how did you happen to misread it so drastically? I hope you will read this one more carefully.

I said you were not lying, to my way of thinking, not that that you were lying.

You gave at least two reasons why your statement that you were leaving ended up being false for the time period during which you were first expecting to leave -- one reason might have been that you changed your mind, another reason might have been that you were delayed.

Can you think of any reasons why Amanda's confession turned out to be false without also being a lie?

 

[Mary_H]

Mary: The truth does not change. 2 versions were one too many. If you can't remember anything, maybe you can't remember killing someone. I know, loss of memory can be............fatal.

Have you absolutely closed your mind to the reality that people can be forced into making false statements?