Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[colonelhall]

"If Raffaele's interrogation were like Amanda's,"

You mean like some people claim that Amanda's was.

However, there has never been any indication that this was the case. As far as I can see, there have been no claims made by the Sollecito camp that he was "waterboarded"

Mind you, I see that there were no clzims made in court that Knox was "waterboarded"

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

From Wikipedia:



Does this remind you of the pseudoscience used to detect Amanda's and Raffaele's DNA by using equipment in a way in which it was not designed to be used?

Doesn't Stefanoni's lab remind you of a lab for paranormal investigations?

The e-gram for Rep. 36 is not just random noise. It shows a profile that is quite clearly a match with Meredith Kercher, but quantity is minuscule, a few trillionths of a gram. It becomes pseudo-science at the point where someone asserts that this faint reading proves the knife was the murder weapon. That conclusion is not consistent with the wounds on the victim's neck, and it is not consistent with common sense.

 

[RWVBWL]

Rudy Guede's prison term:

http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=29

GOOGLE Italian to English translation:

Sentencing Rudy Guede has now been finally judged, but still hopes to be able to prove his innocence

"We will carry out the mandate entrusted to us by our client, Rudy Hermann Guede. Lawyer Valter Biscotti lawyer Nicodemo Gentile made a visit to their client, in the narrow prison Mammagialla of Viterbo and Rudy has repeated them to be "in the cell from innocent." "We are sure - they explain criminal unison - if there is anything we can do, both at the European Court of Human Rights, a road a bit 'hard for the truth, but also in terms of revision (as required by Italian law court in the case of new events that occur after the sentence became final, ed), if the arrival of new facts. " The Court of Cassation (First Section) has been rendered and is final. If there will be news Rudy will have to remain in jail, for a total of 16 years. But three years and one month the Ivorian former basketball player has already discounted them (he was arrested on 20 November 2007, in Germany, Koblenz) and thus are missing less than 13. A deal in his pocket - as regards the period that will actually spend in prison - but you can discover details that escape a first, cursory analysis. "The law provides that every four years deprivation of liberty, the State a bonus. In practice, therefore - said Biscuits, arguing his statements - if Rudy, as he has done to date, will behave like a model prisoner, he will serve 16 years instead of 12. To this figure should remove the 3 already spent in jail, such as custody and are expected and so it falls to 9 years. So our client has served the sentence that was imposed in the autumn of 2017. " But not enough: there's more. The law is meeting the prisoners behave well in prison. So when a prisoner has served half the sentence that was imposed, it can access a range of benefits including the most important and most coveted by those who are behind bars, is the institution of parole. It means, in a nutshell, the prisoner, who behave well, out of prison during the day and went to work and get back in the cell in the evening until the following morning. This is because the law, you know, points to the rehabilitation of prisoners into society. I mean - explain the lawyer and the lawyer Biscuits Gentile - having seen their already discounted more than three years, three and a half years (half of 2014, roughly) Guede could return, at least, semi-freedom. And in that year, Rudy was born in 1986, was 28 years and could start a new life

28 years old and he can start a new life? WHAT THE HECK?!?
RIP Meredith Kercher...

 

[platonov]

platonov,

The fact that you have referred to cartwheels at least twice recently is yet more evidence of the paucity of actual facts or arguments at your disposal. I am going to suspend briefly my general rule that your arguments are not worth my time to discuss. I accept Amanda's account of her interrogation and note that it is similar to both what I know of specific coercive interrogations and also what I know from reading about them in general. You did not answer my question; therefore, there is no point in discussing this matter further unless you do.

halides1

No its evidence of the repetitive nature, which I have referred to many times (often with links) of the 'arguments' [baseless assertions and 'evidence by anecdote'] which are being put forward and the fact that you and others still have no evidence to back them up.

The fact you ignored the point/argument on alibis I did put forward is not surprising - Rose Montague's and London John's responses speak for themselves.

Even on this issue your response is to modify your original claim which referred to RS & AK and come back with 'I believe Amanda'. Hardly a killer argument & guess what .....We knew that already
[ETA You also ignored colonelhall's response - your opinion vs RS own words; no contest apparently]

I have no wish to argue semantics with you - that's what much of this thread is already about.But I will give you an idea of where my notion of evidence differs from yours.
On the issue of the Dec 17 'appearance' which I started with on this thread.......
- You and others went (eventually after much obfuscation) with what C Dempsey thought or Frank S opined.
- I on the other hand went with what AK herself said on the stand.

You certainly have (and usually exercise) the option of ignoring my arguments - That doesn't mean I have to refrain from asking you [or Dan O for example] to back up yours.

 

[RoseMontague]

The e-gram for Rep. 36 is not just random noise. It shows a profile that is quite clearly a match with Meredith Kercher, but quantity is minuscule, a few trillionths of a gram. It becomes pseudo-science at the point where someone asserts that this faint reading proves the knife was the murder weapon. That conclusion is not consistent with the wounds on the victim's neck, and it is not consistent with common sense.

I believe this is how Stefanoni felt as well and it is the reason that in 2008 she falsely stated the sample tested positive for quantification and it was on the order of a few hundred picograms. When both of these statements were proven false and taken with the negative test for blood on the blade, the fact that the knife would have to have a partner knife to complete all the wounds, the fact that no reason was shown for Amanda to carry the knife and no reason to return it to the drawer, it adds up to a result coming from Meredith's DNA but not from the knife. From the standpoint of forensics, genetics, and common sense the result obtained makes no sense without contamination having occurred at some point in this process, mostly likely in the lab or in the machine.

 

[Justinian2]

The e-gram for Rep. 36 is not just random noise. It shows a profile that is quite clearly a match with Meredith Kercher, but quantity is minuscule, a few trillionths of a gram. It becomes pseudo-science at the point where someone asserts that this faint reading proves the knife was the murder weapon. That conclusion is not consistent with the wounds on the victim's neck, and it is not consistent with common sense.

Random noise isn't quite what I said. A radio signal is typically below background noise. However, the information is repeated for thousands of cycles. It is the repetition that allows the signal to be recoverable.

Six trillionths of a gram is the quantity of DNA in a single human cell.

No wonder they couldn't reproduce this result! This amount of DNA could be picked up from a cough or sneeze droplet. Perhaps from a fingerprint. Perhaps the two shared clothes, lipstick, underwear or a toothbrush. Perhaps they shared bathrooms. Perhaps there was lab contamination. Perhaps the DNA was from a hair on a comb or brush they shared. Perhaps it was the dirty lab gloves. Perhaps it was deliberate. Perhaps it was the storage vessel.

How does the prosecution rule out all of the above? They can't. That's why it's still pseudo science of the type engaged in by paranormal investigators.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks LondonJohn for pointing this out,
It's kinda nice to see others,
this time a chemistry professor at Meredith's former university, speak up too about this injustice.

Heck, even another regular follower of this case, a guy with an Italian background that I have always thought was very intelligent from reading his posts under the name of Al-Fakh Yughoud has voiced his strong doubts about this case too. That was interesting to read last night.

Have a good one, LJ!
RWVBWL

Even when Al-Fakh was firmly on the side of guilt, he seemed like a reasonable poster and provided a lot of good information and insight on the case. Machiavelli does as well (in my opinion) and I regret not seeing Machiavelli's opinions on the latest appeal hearing.

 

[babycondor]

...
Arguing for months, possibly years about DNA, homeless people, luminol etc. is very well, but surely, these two would hardly convince any court of their innocence with stuff like this.

They are (or ought to be) presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecution's job to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt*, its version of events, based on a preponderance of evidence, which includes not only statements made by the accused and witnesses, but also physical evidence.

I agree with you that we cannot take anything Amanda or Raffaele said as true, or for that matter, false. They were stoned. They were shocked by Meredith's murder. They were scared. They were young and naive. They were lied to by the police. Small wonder that their statements are rife with inconsistencies and failures of recall. This does not prove their guilt. It only proves they are human.

*N.B. "In 2006 the highly discussed law n.46 introduced the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ( prova “al di là di ogni ragionevole dubbio") in the Italian Criminal Procedure Code. The law does not define the standard but just states it." http://www.bepress.com/gj/vol9/iss4/art5/

 

[RoseMontague]

halides1

No its evidence of the repetitive nature, which I have referred to many times (often with links) of the 'arguments' [baseless assertions and 'evidence by anecdote'] which are being put forward and the fact that you and others still have no evidence to back them up.

The fact you ignored the point/argument on alibis I did put forward is not surprising - Rose Montague's and London John's responses speak for themselves.

Even on this issue your response is to modify your original claim which referred to RS & AK and come back with 'I believe Amanda'. Hardly a killer argument & guess what .....We knew that already
[ETA You also ignored colonelhall's response - your opinion vs RS own words; no contest apparently]

I have no wish to argue semantics with you - that's what much of this thread is already about.But I will give you an idea of where my notion of evidence differs from yours.
On the issue of the Dec 17 'appearance' which I started with on this thread.......
- You and others went (eventually after much obfuscation) with what C Dempsey thought or Frank S opined.
- I on the other hand went with what AK herself said on the stand.

You certainly have (and usually exercise) the option of ignoring my arguments - That doesn't mean I have to refrain from asking you [or Dan O for example] to back up yours.

I am not sure what point you are even arguing here platonov, but I see my name listed so I am going to butt in anyway. It seems you are fussing at halides for believing AK over RS and colonelhall and then you proceed to give an example that you believe AK over Dempsey and Frank S. Are you saying I didn't agree with AK?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Random noise isn't quite what I said. A radio signal is typically below background noise. However, the information is repeated for thousands of cycles. It is the repetition that allows the signal to be recoverable.

Six trillionths of a gram is the quantity of DNA in a single human cell.

No wonder they couldn't reproduce this result! This amount of DNA could be picked up from a cough or sneeze droplet. Perhaps from a fingerprint. Perhaps the two shared clothes, lipstick, underwear or a toothbrush. Perhaps they shared bathrooms. Perhaps there was lab contamination. Perhaps the DNA was from a hair on a comb or brush they shared. Perhaps it was the dirty lab gloves. Perhaps it was deliberate. Perhaps it was the storage vessel.

How does the prosecution rule out all of the above? They can't. That's why it's still pseudo science of the type engaged in by paranormal investigators.

I agree with you.

 

[RWVBWL]

The tide is turning!

Thanks for mentioning this Maxim article Charlie Wilkes,
Being a fan of Maxim for many years, I've enjoyed many a good read in their articles, along with checkin' out the gals. Heck, 1 of my sister friends was a "Hometown Hottie" and I've often used some of the poses of the Maxim models when I've shot surfer gals posing. Meredith Kercher herself could've been a "Hometown Hottie", and you know what, there is nothing wrong with that!

I have some high-brow reading to suggest: the January issue of Maxim. There's a great article about John Douglas:

You may not realize it, but you already know who John Douglas is: he has been portrayed in a number of feature films. He was the model for Scott Glenn's Jack Crawford character in The Silence of the Lambs. Dennis Farina brought him to life in Manhunter, Harvey Keitel portrayed him in Red Dragon, and HBO is currently developing a series based on Douglas' first book, Mind Hunter, to be produced and directed by David Fincher. In 1990 Douglas himself was profiled on a CBS series, Top Cops. The executive producer, Sonny Grosso, a highly decorated NYPD detective whose real-life casework was the basis for The French Connection, says of Douglas, "I don't think I could do what he does. Very few can. But I'm damn glad he is out there doing it."

This legendary crime fighter has an opinion about Amanda Knox as well:

"Amanda is innocent - I'm convinced of it," says Douglas. "The Italian police completely contaminated the crime scene. Besides, behavior reflects personality, and there is nothing in Knox's past behavior to indicate she is a murderer."

The fact that Maxim, a mens magazine with sex appeal is now publishing an article where the interviewee, John Douglas is stating that he believes Amanda Knox is innocent helps show, to me at least, that many very intelligent, smart folks have viewed the evidence used to convict this young woman and her boyfriend of a few days and have found it lacking.

As does the recent interview in The Umbria Journal, with Professor Michael Krom of Leeds University,
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediac...ocente-leeds-giustizia-ma-no-a-innocenti.html
where Meredith Kercher herself went to school, who is now publicly stating that he too believes in the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.


Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Hmmm, it appears to me that the tide is turning!
RWVBWL

 

[Onofarar]

<snip>"

I would welcome any statistics you can present that bear upon the matter, but my impression was that this is a side-effect of the fact that people are often murdered by their lovers or family. It wouldn't surprise me at all if housemate-on-housemate murder was very infrequent since housemates can just move out if a relationship turns dangerous.

Child abuse, spouse abuse and elder abuse are all relatively common. Housemate abuse I've never even heard of. Maybe it's a real problem that I am just ignorant of, and I repeat that any statistics you can find would be appreciated, but I'm not buying it on a "surely".

Any statistics regarding household occupants murders would have to be filtered first for spouse vs spouse, sibling rivalry and other family animosity related issues which resulted in murder. Plus, while I don't have statistics to cite; my experience in my part of the world is that most housemate/roommate murders are due to one of two factors: (1) drugs (2) romantic relationships - i.e. Person A kills Person B because B is a romantic rival for Person C.

 

[platonov]

Humpty Dumpty

I am not sure what point you are even arguing here platonov, but I see my name listed so I am going to butt in anyway. It seems you are fussing at halides for believing AK over RS and colonelhall and then you proceed to give an example that you believe AK over Dempsey and Frank S. Are you saying I didn't agree with AK?

I am saying your argument here was not very effective - nor is this one, they are on a par

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thanks for mentioning this Maxim article Charlie Wilkes,
Being a fan of Maxim for many years, I've enjoyed many a good read in their articles, along with checkin' out the gals. Heck, 1 of my sister friends was a "Hometown Hottie" and I've often used some of the poses of the Maxim models when I've shot surfer gals posing. Meredith Kercher herself could've been a "Hometown Hottie", and you know what, there is nothing wrong with that!



The fact that Maxim, a mens magazine with sex appeal is now publishing an article where the interviewee, John Douglas is stating that he believes Amanda Knox is innocent helps show, to me at least, that many very intelligent, smart folks have viewed the evidence used to convict this young woman and her boyfriend of a few days and have found it lacking.

As does the recent interview in The Umbria Journal, with Professor Michael Krom of Leeds University,
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediac...ocente-leeds-giustizia-ma-no-a-innocenti.html
where Meredith Kercher herself went to school, who is now publicly stating that he too believes in the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.


Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Hmmm, it appears to me that the tide is turning!
RWVBWL

The tide is turning in the media and among the public, but it is going to take a hell of a lot of pressure to get these innocent people out of prison. Hellman is not interested in getting at the truth. He is interested in protecting the reputation of the Italian judiciary. But his calculation of how best to do that may depend on the volume and tone of the message he gets from the media.

 

[Onofarar]

<snip>

We look for the truth from the convicted criminals appealing; so far we have not seen anything close to it coming from the convicted pair of murderers.

You see what you want to see. I just love these purported statements of fact without any reference to anything. I believe such statements are therefore just opinions of little use to us here.

 

[platonov]

Any colour you like as long as its black

They are (or ought to be) presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecution's job to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt*, its version of events, based on a preponderance of evidence, which includes not only statements made by the accused and witnesses, but also physical evidence.

I agree with you that we cannot take anything Amanda or Raffaele said as true, or for that matter, false. They were stoned. They were shocked by Meredith's murder. They were scared. They were young and naive. They were lied to by the police. Small wonder that their statements are rife with inconsistencies and failures of recall. This does not prove their guilt. It only proves they are human.

*N.B. "In 2006 the highly discussed law n.46 introduced the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ( prova “al di là di ogni ragionevole dubbio") in the Italian Criminal Procedure Code. The law does not define the standard but just states it." http://www.bepress.com/gj/vol9/iss4/art5/

Do you see the contradictions here

That they are human is a given - were it not the Italian penal code would not apply. The medieval trials of animals are a thing of the past !

 

[Justinian2]

I think he [withnail] must be Justinian's younger brother.

That December 17th post is the last post that referred to me in PMF. Jeez, has the PMF finally realized that Amanda and Raffaele may NOT be guilty? Their joviality is gone...

 

[Bob001]

"Reasonable doubt" beyond doubt...

I haven't looked at this interminable thread much recently, but the continuing disputes seem to come down to this: To believe that Knox and Solecito are guilty, you have to interpret every ambiguity about physical evidence, collection methods, witness claims, their own statements and everything else in whatever manner puts them in the worst possible light. But that's not the way the system is supposed to work. "Reasonable doubt" means that if it is reasonably plausible that the physical evidence was mishandled or misinterpreted, the defense gets the benefit. If a suspect's statements could reasonably be interpreted in multiple ways, especially in circumstances where the interrogation is in a language that the suspect doesn't speak well and where there is no recording or transcript, the defense gets the benefit. If an alleged witness says he saw something suspicious but is contradicted by other witnesses, the defense gets the benefit. We don't send people to prison based on what we guess they might possibly have done. The fact that these minute details can be debated in itself supports a "not guilty" verdict. If this case was proven beyond reasonable doubt there would be nothing to debate. Why are there hundreds of pages of posts here?

 

[platonov]

'Teach the controversy'

I haven't looked at this interminable thread much recently, but the continuing disputes seem to come down to this: To believe that Knox and Solecito are guilty, you have to interpret every ambiguity about physical evidence, collection methods, witness claims, their own statements and everything else in whatever manner puts them in the worst possible light. But that's not the way the system is supposed to work. "Reasonable doubt" means that if it is reasonably plausible that the physical evidence was mishandled or misinterpreted, the defense gets the benefit. If a suspect's statements could reasonably be interpreted in multiple ways, especially in circumstances where the interrogation is in a language that the suspect doesn't speak well and where there is no recording or transcript, the defense gets the benefit. If an alleged witness says he saw something suspicious but is contradicted by other witnesses, the defense gets the benefit. We don't send people to prison based on what we guess they might possibly have done. The fact that these minute details can be debated in itself supports a "not guilty" verdict. If this case was proven beyond reasonable doubt there would be nothing to debate. Why are there hundreds of pages of posts here?

By this logic (which is on a par with the rest of your post) the holocaust was a hoax and the Apollo moon landings were faked by a resurrected Jesus or Bigfoot.

Next.

 

[bobc]

I haven't looked at this interminable thread much recently, but the continuing disputes seem to come down to this: To believe that Knox and Solecito are guilty, you have to interpret every ambiguity about physical evidence, collection methods, witness claims, their own statements and everything else in whatever manner puts them in the worst possible light. But that's not the way the system is supposed to work. "Reasonable doubt" means that if it is reasonably plausible that the physical evidence was mishandled or misinterpreted, the defense gets the benefit.

That is tautology, by definition reasonable doubt relies on reasonable interpretation of the evidence. But you haven't actually set a standard for what is reasonable. The question is what is reasonable? This is a subjective question, which is why the legal process tries to present the evidence to a sample of the population who are believed to represent "the reasonable man or woman".

You imply that if anyone can raise an objection, then there must be doubt. I have seen a lot of objections raised, but I haven't seen many that are what I consider reasonable. Of those, none really cast doubt on the correctness of the verdict IMO.

Picking over details that were never admissible evidence is entertaining but never likely to lead anywhere. The best that can be second-hand is to review the due process of the legal system, and under the Italian system Knox and Sollecito get considerably more favorable treatment than they would in the US.

I'm still waiting for the "killer defense" that the FOA were promising ever since the prosecution stood up. It's like the global warming skeptics, they keep rehashing the same points, but fail to find any real holes in the science.

If this case was proven beyond reasonable doubt there would be nothing to debate. Why are there hundreds of pages of posts here?

You can ask the same question for most of the threads at JREF! Evolution is proved beyond reasonable doubt, yet there are interminable posts on that subject.