Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Depends what question you think it's addressing. Knox and the case had been discussed at length on the forum. The poll tells you what members of the JREF with an interest in the original thread thought of Knox and her innocence or guilt, and to an extent how they were feeling about the thread as well. Answering that kind of question I don't see that the poll is particularly improper or biased. As for non-randomised self-selected, sure that's the kind of survey it is. What are the randomised non-self selected polls that you guys are referring to? Most people don't know enough to comment one way or the other on the case. Those that do are already a self-selected group.

I agree with your penultimate sentence. The only valid poll (if it were important, which it isn't) would be to pick a sample that was representative of the population (e.g. US/UK city/country), and to ask an unbiased question such as "Do you believe that Amanda Knox, who's currently appealing a conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, should be convicted or acquitted by the appeal court?" The available options would be "convicted", "acquitted", "undecided", "don't know enough to give an answer".

Like you, I guess that around 75-80% of people would give the last response. But this would be the only way to gauge public opinion with any sort of accuracy whatsoever. It wouldn't interest me as a worthwhile exercise anyway. I'm reminded of Superhans' response to Jeremy talking about public opinion on the most excellent TV comedy "Peep Show":

"People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people, Jeremy."

 

[bucketoftea]

To all,

The bra clasp should not have been handled with gloves, but rather with disposable instruments. One serious potential source of contamination that does not get mentioned frequently is the post-PCR DNA, which is in very high concentration. Judging by Charlie's DNA results table, there would be a great deal of Meredith's DNA in the lab, both pre- and post-PCR.

They use disposable gloves, too, you know.

 

[bucketoftea]

I agree with your penultimate sentence. The only valid poll (if it were important, which it isn't) would be to pick a sample that was representative of the population (e.g. US/UK city/country), and to ask an unbiased question such as "Do you believe that Amanda Knox, who's currently appealing a conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, should be convicted or acquitted by the appeal court?" The available options would be "convicted", "acquitted", "undecided", "don't know enough to give an answer".

Like you, I guess that around 75-80% of people would give the last response. But this would be the only way to gauge public opinion with any sort of accuracy whatsoever. It wouldn't interest me as a worthwhile exercise anyway. I'm reminded of Superhans' response to Jeremy talking about public opinion on the most excellent TV comedy "Peep Show":

"People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people, Jeremy."

Love the quote. Love Peep Show. Did you know that Christmas Eve is Peep Show night? 4 or More 4, not sure.

 

[shuttlt]

LondonJohn,

Since I've never seen the families accounts, I've no idea what's going on with the campaign. For all I know the campaign generates enough donations to pay for itself, the again perhaps not. Perhaps there is a gamble that if she's acquitted the whole thing will pay for itself and then some. I've no idea.

Also, I disagree with your analysis of point 2. Oprah doesn't seem to have been bothered about waiting for her to be acquitted. Neither do most of the vocal US commentators. In any case, if she's acquitted, left to themselves, people might still wonder whether perhaps she didn't do it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Love the quote. Love Peep Show. Did you know that Christmas Eve is Peep Show night? 4 or More 4, not sure.

Yes - I'm excited, but I'm going to have to Sky+ it all because I am busy on Christmas Eve evening. I'm pretty sure it's on C4 (but enough of this cos it's OT and will get moved to other places.......)

 

[shuttlt]

"People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people, Jeremy."

back at you

 

[Chris C]

Hasn't Hellmann also reserved judgement on testing the pillowcase stain until the results of the knife and bra clasp come back?

In any case, I suspect that any mother of a teenage boy living at home would be able to tell with one look (and one bend of the fabric) exactly what that stain might be.......

Yes, Hellmann wants to put off any testing until those results come back. I think mainly because if the dna is ruled not sollecito's or knox's then he will just throw the case out. I think the further testing is reserved if the lab can't disproved the prosecutions claims on the items, because there would be no need for further testing if there is no murder weapon and/or bra clasp to place knox/sollecito in the room.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

Since I've never seen the families accounts, I've no idea what's going on with the campaign. For all I know the campaign generates enough donations to pay for itself, the again perhaps not. Perhaps there is a gamble that if she's acquitted the whole thing will pay for itself and then some. I've no idea.

Also, I disagree with your analysis of point 2. Oprah doesn't seem to have been bothered about waiting for her to be acquitted. Neither do most of the vocal US commentators. In any case, if she's acquitted, left to themselves, people might still wonder whether perhaps she didn't do it.

I have absolutely no idea about their finances either. But the length of time and the amount of legal work mean that they must have spent a staggeringly large amount on legal fees. I've heard that they've had assistance from media outlets for air fares and accommodation etc, in return for interviews. And as you say I guess it's likely that they may have campaign donors too.

Regarding your second para - there are three explanations for the attitudes of media commentators such as Oprah: 1) They've examined all sides of the case in depth, and they truly believe in Knox's innocence; 2) They are unsure of Knox's innocence, but are putting a "down-payment" on lucrative access to Knox if she's acquitted by ingratiating themselves to the family at this point; 3) They've been "nobbled" by the expensive PR operatives.

I believe that (1) or (2) are more likely than (3). I might be wrong, of course.

 

[TomCH]

I think that Guede managed to turn Meredith's Italian phone off fairly quickly, and messed around trying to turn off her UK for only a couple of minutes before giving up and deciding to leave it switched on and concentrate on getting out of the cottage.

Why even bother?

Smash it or remove the battery if you want to turn it off, why play around?

It's hardly rocket science!

 

[Chris C]

My opinions differ from yours though, TomCH.
Maybe that is because I own cheap phones, as I bet Rudy Guede did too.
Mine is a pre-paid cheapie, very easy to find the on/off button, unlike that Sony of Meredith Kercher's.

I doubt Rudy Guede had a nice cell phone with a yearly mobile contract for service,
if you get my drift, since it also seems he was having job issues, opps, I mean lack of a job issues back in Oct/Nov '07,
even before the current global economic recession, depression, meltdown...

Take it easy,
RWVBWL

Rudy didn't own phones, he stole them. If i remember correctly when he was caught with the stolen computer, he was also caught with a stolen phone. If I also remember correctly at the time of the murder, Rudy didn't have a phone either.

So not only did the broken window match Rudy's break in MO but stealing phones matched it also.

 

[shuttlt]

By the way, did anybody get back to me on where I went wrong on whether Stefanoni could or couldn't have seen the material in the scratch?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6678856&postcount=22089

I read back the past few pages and I couldn't see a response.

 

[Chris C]

Filomena called her boyfriend to go along because he could get there quicker. Nothing troubling about that, is there?

Filomena would have been fine. She's innocent. No scratches on her neck or missing earrings, no aberrant social behaviour, no demonstrable lies, not even any of her DNA mixed with the victim's..not even in her own room, by golly, that was Amanda's. No wonder the police were not interested in her.

How do you know her DNA isn't mixed with Meredith's? Did they take a DNA sample from Filomena?

 

[shuttlt]

3) They've been "nobbled" by the expensive PR operatives.

Would this include Oprah really not caring whether she is innocent or guilty, but innocent is the story she was offered and innocent fitted in with her show better in any case. Oprah hasn't made her name as an investigative journalist after all.

 

[The Third Man]

I don't recall lack of signal ever having been mentioned as an issue at the girls' cottage before. In addition, Meredith's room does not appear to have been obscured from base stations by high buildings density: it's unlikely that the signal - given that the house was within a coverage area - would have dropped in and out. Another reason might be congestion on the particular base station, but this would almost certainly be a very temporary occurrence.

Regarding the earlier calls, this is what Massei says:

The memory of the Sony Ericsson mobile phone showed


* I've redacted Meredith's mother's full mobile number - I can't believe that Massei didn't do so.

This indicates that the call to the Abbey Bank number was registered by the network but not by the handset - which lends weight to it having been speed-dialled.

Regarding the call to the police, it's not necessary in this scenario that Meredith ever got as far as even punching in the emergency number (112 or 118). She might merely have announced that she was going to do so, and might have gone back into her room to pick her phone up off her bed or table. Guede might then have intercepted her and ripped her phone away before she had a chance to even dial the number.

And lastly, regarding the possible explanation that Guede didn't want an incoming call alert to draw attention to him on his journey home: I don't believe he have visible blood on him. He himself claims to have had "wet trousers", which I think is probably a true reference to the fact that he's washed the blood off his trousers in the small bathroom after the murder. But I think it's reasonable to suggest that he still didn't look entirely "normal", and this (together with a general desire not to be seen at all) might have made him anxious to be as inconspicuous as possible. A loudly ringing phone could only potentially serve to draw attention to him, at which point people might have noticed his wet trousers and/or general demeanour.

Sorry about the jumbled-up reply to your post!

Then Massei contradicts himself because he puts this later:

[353] The call at 22.00 hours to the ‚Abbey‛ number, which corresponded to an English banking institute, could not be routed because the international country code for Britain ‚0044‛, or else the symbol ‚+‛ followed by ‚44‛, had not been dialled. The number ‚08459724724‛ was therefore dialled (the memory attests to this) but [the call] could not have been successful.

 

[shuttlt]

How do you know her DNA isn't mixed with Meredith's? Did they take a DNA sample from Filomena?

Do we know of any unknown profiles which, if they turned out to belong to Filomena, would be significant? She clearly wasn't there during the murder after all.

 

[LondonJohn]

Would this include Oprah really not caring whether she is innocent or guilty, but innocent is the story she was offered and innocent fitted in with her show better in any case. Oprah hasn't made her name as an investigative journalist after all.

Absolutely it could. I'd classify that as option (3) - being nobbled by Knox's PR people.

My question, however, is this: why should Knox or her family actually care about what Oprah thinks about her (Knox's) guilt or innocence at this stage? The Perugia appeal court doesn't care what Oprah or her American viewership think - and they are they only ones who can grant her an acquittal. And if she's granted an acquittal, she'll be most of the way to rehabilitating herself with the American public without having to pay a penny. So why would the Knox/Mellas families bother paying out a penny for PR services at this point in time? It's wasted money, since it won't pay towards any possible acquittal, and an acquittal in itself will be free PR.

 

[LondonJohn]

Then Massei contradicts himself because he puts this later:

[353] The call at 22.00 hours to the ‚Abbey‛ number, which corresponded to an English banking institute, could not be routed because the international country code for Britain ‚0044‛, or else the symbol ‚+‛ followed by ‚44‛, had not been dialled. The number ‚08459724724‛ was therefore dialled (the memory attests to this) but [the call] could not have been successful.

Ah super. We can add it to the growing list of Massei contradictions. What an exemplary jurist with a special eye for detail.

 

[shuttlt]

My question, however, is this: why should Knox or her family actually care about what Oprah thinks about her (Knox's) guilt or innocence at this stage? The Perugia appeal court doesn't care what Oprah or her American viewership think - and they are they only ones who can grant her an acquittal. And if she's granted an acquittal, she'll be most of the way to rehabilitating herself with the American public without having to pay a penny. So why would the Knox/Mellas families bother paying out a penny for PR services at this point in time? It's wasted money, since it won't pay towards any possible acquittal, and an acquittal in itself will be free PR.

Off the top of my head..

1. There isn't terribly much they can do to help their daughter other than organize the PR side of things. The legal stuff is after all happening in a foreign country, in a foreign legal system, in a foreign language.

2. Perhaps they don't actually think her acquittal is particularly certain and are therefore working on acquittal in the eyes of the American public instead, or at least at the same time.

 

[LondonJohn]

Off the top of my head..

1. There isn't terribly much they can do to help their daughter other than organize the PR side of things. The legal stuff is after all happening in a foreign country, in a foreign legal system, in a foreign language.

2. Perhaps they don't actually think her acquittal is particularly certain and are therefore working on acquittal in the eyes of the American public instead, or at least at the same time.

The point is: would they be willing to pay up to a million dollars to do this? I suggest not. If Marriott were offering his services pro bono, then perhaps. But the suggestion has been that there's some sort of "million-dollar PR campaign" going on. And I'd suggest that this is a load of old nonsense. I'd suggest that however the major US TV networks are reaching their position on Knox's innocence, it's not as a result of a hugely expensive PR campaign. Who knows: maybe it's simply because.........they think she's innocent?

 

[shuttlt]

The point is: would they be willing to pay up to a million dollars to do this? I suggest not. If Marriott were offering his services pro bono, then perhaps. But the suggestion has been that there's some sort of "million-dollar PR campaign" going on. And I'd suggest that this is a load of old nonsense. I'd suggest that however the major US TV networks are reaching their position on Knox's innocence, it's not as a result of a hugely expensive PR campaign. Who knows: maybe it's simply because.........they think she's innocent?

Personally I doubt the TV networks research this stuff particularly carefully. The Daily Mail certainly doesn't.

As for the campaign, again, who knows. With movies being made and book deals there is at least the potential for somebody to make some money. Without going through peoples bin bags for the receipts I don't know how to get to the bottom of it through.