Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

An alibi, that is supported solely by the accused isn't an alibi. It's not having an alibi.

It's supported by the computer evidence.

They also provide an alibi for each other and this is not a trivial thing. You can't completely get around that by saying "Okay, well, if they vouch for each other than we'll just say they both did it together". You have to make a case that it's credible for them to have done so and to have stuck to their stories for all this time.

Massei/Mignini did this by fantasising that all three of them stabbed Meredith as part of some sort of group rape gone wrong but that story is all sorts of crazy and I haven't seen any better ones.

Running times don't matter, only human interaction matters. As for the Stardust thing. It's crap for Amanda and Raffaele, but it isn't an alibi and we don't know what time it would have turned out they actually watched it, if indeed they did. For a long time I hoped that the data was recoverable, but my recent reading indicates that this possibility is theory only.

Sorry, but I place a good deal of weight on a verifiable alibi given immediately, especially when the police after having been told about the alibi proceed to destroy the evidence that could have confirmed it before destroying the hard drive itself just to make sure.

If, hypothetically, they'd claimed that alibi and then Raffaele and Amanda had destroyed the hard drive to make it impossible to check I would be very, very suspicious of their actions to say the least. By exactly the same token when Raffaele and Amanda state their alibi and hand the relevant evidence over to the police, who then write over it and destroy the hard drive for good measure, I am equally very, very suspicious of their actions.

They don't need "time sensitive evidence". Nice to have, but they don't need it. All they need is to prove involvement in the murder. It doesn't really matter when the murder happened, so long as they can prove involvement.

On the contrary if Amanda and Raffaele can prove they were somewhere else when the crime was committed, then any other "evidence" that purports to show that they were involved in the murder must have some other explanation - error and outright falsification being the obvious ones.

If they weren't there when Meredith was murdered, the DNA on the bra clasp either isn't Raffaele's or wasn't deposited at the time of the murder, for example. Nothing about that evidence precludes the possibility that the DNA got there before or after the murder.

The problem with coming up with a pro-guilt story is, as I said, the reasons for the murder taking place will necessarily not pass the "sniff test" because they will be many thousands to one, if not twns or hundreds of thousands to one against. Also we do not agree on the facts of the case that this theory is supposed to fit. If it is supposed to agree with the facts as agreed with the pro-innocence people then I suspect coming up with a narrative will be hard work. It isn't even really necessary to fit all the evidence in the prosecution case.

Here is a one out of a thousand stories that might have happened:

A thousand stories, none of which are remotely plausible, does not add up to a case. Especially when there is a plausible, consistent story that explains all the evidence: that Rudy did it, and the Perugia police made a complete dog's breakfast of the case.

Meredith let's Rudy in. Things are fine at first, but very quickly go down hill. Amanda and Raffaele turn up (for one of a hundred reasons). Meredith wants to call the police an get Rudy arrested for sexual assault. Amanda and Raffaele try to calm things down, maybe they think she's over reacting. Meredith is hysterical and has to be restrained to prevent her calling the cops and is now accusing Amanda and Raffaele who are now convinced that she is over reacting. Rudy restrains Meredith while Amanda and Raffaele discuss what the heck they're going to do. Meredith breaks free, runs for the phone in her room and the whole thing ends with Rudy and a knife in Merediths room. After that, Rudy leaves, Amanda and Raffaele decide that the best thing to do is cover up what little evidence of them there is, make it look like somebody broke in and hope for the best. Between Amanda and Raffaele entering the house and the murder is only 20 minutes.

Again the odds of this being what happened are low, and the prior probability of these events occuring and a million to one against. If it wasn't an incredibly unlikely event kids would be getting murdered all over the place.

That's not a logical argument: "It's okay for my story to be incredibly implausible, because it's incredibly implausible that they did it!". The fact that your story is incredibly implausible whereas the case for their innocence is quite straightforward makes me think that there might not exactly be proof beyond reasonable doubt that they did it.

 

[Justinian2]

'''

There is the behavior of Guede in the days preceding the trial - his burglary, via breaking a second story window, within a few weeks of the murder -being walked in on while he was wrongfully occupying the office of the headmistress of a school while the school was closed - the fact that he was carrying a large knife.

Given the fact that he did break into dwellings to steal, there is the fact that he had no source of funds and needed to pay his rent. Nov1 was the day rent was due. Guede was well aware of the cottage because he played basketball with the boys who lived downstairs. He knew the upper cottage had two foreign students living there, that they likely would have cash in their dwelling to pay their rent, that the boys downstairs and the Italian flatmates would be away for a holiday.

Then there is the hard evidence. Fingerprints and shoeprints, facts which Guede accepts as correct. Unlike DNA, which has a magic bullet quality, especially when the prosecution refuses to release the raw data their conclusions are drawn upon, fingerprints and shoe prints are easier for a jury to see the validity of with their own eyes.

*Now that you are enlightened, surely you will abandon your position.

I didn't make the quote that you attributed to me. I have seen the data you have just described and I also believe that it is true.

Guede has more proof against him than many of the incarcerated.

 

[Solange305]

Solange305,

You are not mentioning the Duke lacrosse case. The prosecutor (Nifong), DNA analyst (Meehan), and at least one cop (Gottlieb) were corrupt or at least unethical (Meehan). A couple of the early court rulings were heavily tilted toward the prosecution. And the defendants were wealthy (to answer a point you raised previously). See the book Until Proven Innocent for the whole story. I think that Durham, NC would make a good sister city for Perugia.

I think Massei is biased and not very logical. I think Stefanoni is not an objective or talented forensic scientist. That is not the same as being corrupt, although I do not rule out corruption, either. I am not sure why you have chosen to believe the prosecution's expert witnesses in preference to the defense's expert witnesses.

Halides, I knew you would bring that up, especially when I posted about police and prosecutors usually not railroading rich well-connected people, and it's a fair point you make. However, if I'm not mistaken, they were not found guilty by a judge or jury. In this case, that is another factor that you would have to convince me of, that the judge and jury are naive or corrupt enough themselves to be led by these corrupt prosecutors and cops.

I have heard the argument that they are technically not guilty yet, but still, they were found guilty in some sense, although not finalized, and they are still in prison after three years.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What aspects of the evidence against Guede cannot be discounted using allegations of some combination of corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, and conspiracy?

Once these sorts of claims are made part of the acceptable dialogue, darkly alluded to or outright but without any substantiation, it is quite impossible to establish the quality of any court case in a venue such as this one.

We could choose nearly any trial, and assign partisan roles to the participants in this thread at random, and develop an equally vigorous debate about guilt or innocence. It would be an interesting exercise in dialogue and rhetoric, but little more than that.

Funny, I'm sure this one has been asked and answered several times.

The evidence against Rudy was found before he was identified as a suspect, there's plenty of it putting him right in the murder room, and so far as I am aware no serious doubt has been cast on any of it.

It would be a very good trick to draw Rudy's fingerprint on the wall in Meredith's blood, or for that matter to insert his DNA in her vagina before he was caught, and based on their incompetence at everything else somehow I don't think the Perugia police possess superhuman skills in those areas.

The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele was found after the police had staked their reputation on their guilt, none of it puts them in the murder room apart from the bra clasp which has all sorts of problems with its handling and with the interpretation of the resulting data, and very large chunks of the case made in court and the claims leaked to the press have been demolished by skeptical examination.

 

[moodstream]

It should be pointed out that the knife that was picked by "intuition" was the only one in the draw that could have been involved in the murder, unless one supposes ordinary table knives might have been used. There may have been other knives in the kitchen, but if there are nobody has a photo.

As for contamination, is it very likely? That depends a lot I would have thought about what you believe the odds are of the knife being involved in the crime. Ones expectation about the outcome of what Steffanoni did would not be to find DNA connected with the crime on an innocent knife. Perhaps contamination unconnected with the crime wouldn't be a huge surprise, but contamination connected with the crime doesn't seem to be high on the list of expected outcomes.

The knife was found in a drawer with other knives. My understanding of how evidence is contaminated in a crime lab involves prior use of the machinery to test other evidence, in this case involving Meredith's DNA ( the last Andrea Voigt article at Seattle PI deals with this a little).

The strongest argument against the 17.5 cm knife making the lethal cut 8 cm deep is that this cut is not simply the insertion of the knife and withdrawal. The cut moves along the side of the neck and repeatedly reaches a depth of 8 cm. That would be fine if the blade were also 8cm. However, it seems to me self evident that a human being, particularly in the circumstances of the crime, could not stab some to the exact same depth repeatedly, ever in real (non test) environment, and certainly not in quick succession as happened here.

There would have to be variation in the depth of the cut. Refusing to accept that is just refusing to accept the obvious to avoid the obvious conclusion, I think.

What Massei thinks is so that the knife, which, lodged in her neck, created a kind of butchering in the affected tissues, and at the same time, a small withdrawal from the weapon (defensive action) coincided with an opposite action of approach by the person who was attacking her and holding her, causing the additional incision. which does not explain why the depth would be the same. I also don't see how a smooth blade would make this serrated type of action.

You can stick with your experts and your faith in the court all you want, I want to see someone demonstrate the cutting action as described by Massei.

 

[shuttlt]

Working up from the facts works for me. One more fact we can include is that Rudy left a dump in the other bathroom. I think this is undisputed (even if no one wants to give it the sniff test).

Any narrative will involve arbitrarily making up events as there are insufficient facts. It was claimed that there were no "guilty" narratives. I have provided a guilty narrative. What is wrong with it and why could it not have happened approximately as I indicated (with an added trip to the toilet... maybe that's why Rudy said he needed to come in).

 

[Solange305]

Actually, a perusal of your posts to this thread would reveal that a far stronger case for non-substantive one-liners can be made for yourself than either platonov or pilot padron. For example, here are some of your contentless posts just from this week:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Yes, let's not forget about her!

That last one was especially bad, he tried to make a joke about platanov's typo of window (he put widow). When no one really noticed the first time (probably since it wasn't funny), he turned around and made ANOTHER joke about it.

 

[moodstream]

I didn't make the quote that you attributed to me. I have seen the data you have just described and I also believe that it is true.

Guede has more proof against him than many of the incarcerated.

That was meant to be a reply to quadraginta. Sorry.

 

[shuttlt]

The knife was found in a drawer with other knives. My understanding of how evidence is contaminated in a crime lab involves prior use of the machinery to test other evidence, in this case involving Meredith's DNA ( the last Andrea Voigt article at Seattle PI deals with this a little).

Sure, I agree.

The strongest argument against the 17.5 cm knife making the lethal cut 8 cm deep is that this cut is not simply the insertion of the knife and withdrawal. The cut moves along the side of the neck and repeatedly reaches a depth of 8 cm. That would be fine if the blade were also 8cm. However, it seems to me self evident that a human being, particularly in the circumstances of the crime, could not stab some to the exact same depth repeatedly, at all probably, but not in quick succession as happened here.

I must confess, the knife wounds are probably the single piece of evidence I'm weakest on. But I agree with you here.

There would have to be variation in the depth of the cut. Refusing to accept that is just refusing to accept the obvious to avoid the obvious conclusion, I think.

I agree. It's odd. My memory was that it was the pro-Amanda folks who were arguing for single knives that had to slide back into the same wound, perhaps I'm wrong.

What Massei thinks is so that the knife, which, lodged in her neck, created a kind of butchering in the affected tissues, and at the same time, a small withdrawal from the weapon (defensive action) coincided with an opposite action of approach by the person who was attacking her and holding her, causing the additional incision. which does not explain why the depth would be the same.

I'd have to reread the evidence, but I'm inclined to agree with you on the face of it.

You can stick with your experts and your faith in the court all you want, I want to see someone demonstrate the cutting action as described by Massei.

I'll have to reread before commenting. It sounds like a decent enough argument though.

 

[Withnail1969]

Any narrative will involve arbitrarily making up events as there are insufficient facts. It was claimed that there were no "guilty" narratives. I have provided a guilty narrative. What is wrong with it and why could it not have happened approximately as I indicated (with an added trip to the toilet... maybe that's why Rudy said he needed to come in).

OK, here's one thing that's wrong. In your narrative, IIRC, Amanda and Raff happen to wander back to the cotttage and then for some reason decide to assist Rudy, who is already inside, in an attack on Meredith.

But Curatolo states that they were standing around at the basketball court for 2 hours prior to entering the cottage. What on Earth were they doing that for?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Sure, I agree.

I must confess, the knife wounds are probably the single piece of evidence I'm weakest on. But I agree with you here.

I agree. It's odd. My memory was that it was the pro-Amanda folks who were arguing for single knives that had to slide back into the same wound, perhaps I'm wrong.

I'd have to reread the evidence, but I'm inclined to agree with you on the face of it.

I'll have to reread before commenting. It sounds like a decent enough argument though.

I really do think Massei and Mignini were reaching for ways to try to put a knife into the hand of all three of the accused in their story so that they could hold all of them guilty of the murder more or less equally.

The idea that more than one knife was needed to inflict the wounds seems to be a product of trying firstly to shoehorn in the kitchen knife, and secondly trying to make up a third knife so everyone could have a knife.

Whether you think all three of them were in on it or none of them, either way I see no reason to believe more than one knife was used, that being the knife that left the bloodstain in the murder room.

 

[shuttlt]

OK, here's one thing that's wrong. In your narrative, IIRC, Amanda and Raff happen to wander back to the cotttage and then for some reason decide to assist Rudy, who is already inside, in an attack on Meredith.

But Curatolo states that they were standing around at the basketball court for 2 hours prior to entering the cottage. What on Earth were they doing that for?

Curatolo is wrong/lying in this scenario (this would hardly be an Earth shattering shock if it turned out to be the case anyway). Doubtless there are other scenarios where he is telling the truth.

 

[moodstream]

Sure, I agree.


I must confess, the knife wounds are probably the single piece of evidence I'm weakest on. But I agree with you here.


I agree. It's odd. My memory was that it was the pro-Amanda folks who were arguing for single knives that had to slide back into the same wound, perhaps I'm wrong.


I'd have to reread the evidence, but I'm inclined to agree with you on the face of it.


I'll have to reread before commenting. It sounds like a decent enough argument though.

That is a very kind response. Thank you! The material I drew from begins on p109 and goes to 174, but most of that deals with other matters, like TOD. Adding up all the discussion about the knife together is just a few pages. The trick is, all the info is sort of interlaced, so, it takes time to pick out the relevant info.

 

[Solange305]

What we do when the experts can't seem to agree is - drum roll please - go to the literature. When we do that we find the truth, that Meredith could not possibly have died at 23:30 and it is almost certain she died very shortly after 21:00.

So, if its as easy as just going to the literature, why do we have experts testifying, or shoot, why do we have experts at all? Why not just have lawyers printing out the "literature" and passing it around to the jury? I don't think its as clearcut as you make it seem. Not to mention, is there not literature out there that says that TOD shouldnt be determined by stomach contents?

 

[quadraginta]

If a dirty cop had any intelligence they would know better than to manufacture iron-clad evidence. Since the bra clasp and knife evidence are so weak, the prosecution can simply claim the result was an error when the computer records that provide an alibi are found to be unimpeachable.

These would be the incompetent Keystone Kops, right?

Convenient how they can switch from bumbling to diabolical when it is helpful to the rhetoric, isn't it?

 

[shuttlt]

I really do think Massei and Mignini were reaching for ways to try to put a knife into the hand of all three of the accused in their story so that they could hold all of them guilty of the murder more or less equally.

Perhaps.

The idea that more than one knife was needed to inflict the wounds seems to be a product of trying firstly to shoehorn in the kitchen knife, and secondly trying to make up a third knife so everyone could have a knife.

Presumably it's also because of the outline of one knife and the DNA on another. I see no evidence for three knives, but if somebody has a scenario that they like with three knives... that's fine too.

Whether you think all three of them were in on it or none of them, either way I see no reason to believe more than one knife was used, that being the knife that left the bloodstain in the murder room.

I see no overwhelming reason to think that only one knife was involved. The DNA on the knife at Raffaele's is my chief reason for suggesting a second.

 

[Withnail1969]

Curatolo is wrong/lying in this scenario (this would hardly be an Earth shattering shock if it turned out to be the case anyway). Doubtless there are other scenarios where he is telling the truth.

And this is the point where I imagine a lot of people would start to question the whole case against Amanda and Raff. How exactly did professional witness Curatolo come to be lying or mistaken? Why didn't he or the other witnesses come forwards immediately after the murder?

 

[TomM43]

Peace

 

[Solange305]

Perhaps.


Presumably it's also because of the outline of one knife and the DNA on another. I see no evidence for three knives, but if somebody has a scenario that they like with three knives... that's fine too.


I see no overwhelming reason to think that only one knife was involved. The DNA on the knife at Raffaele's is my chief reason for suggesting a second.

Let's not forget what else makes the knife dna evidence more powerful: Raffaele lying in his prison diary to explain Meredith's dna. I don't think it's 100 percent proof of anything, but its another layer of suspicion that does not look good.

 

[shuttlt]

And this is the point where I imagine a lot of people would start to question the whole case against Amanda and Raff. How exactly did professional witness Curatolo come to be lying or mistaken? Why didn't he or the other witnesses come forwards immediately after the murder?

You seem to insist that the prosecution case be correct in all it's parts, why? Doubtless some of the evidence against them is wrong. Maybe Raffele left the DNA on the bra strap, but the knife is just bad luck at the lab. By this rational the more evidence the prosecution has, the less happy you are, because the odds go up and up that some of it is wrong. Almost certainly the true story does not fit ALL the supposed facts.

In any case, it's not as if the story can't be changed to have Curatolo seeing them when he said, if it's important. I just don't think it is.