Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

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.

I'm not sure that I agree with this.

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.

So every single piece of evidence gets treated in isolation? Might it not be the case sometimes that taking the pieces of evidence individually one could reasonably give the defence the benefit of the doubt, but taken together one might decide not to.

If an alleged witness says he saw something suspicious but is contradicted by other witnesses, the defense gets the benefit.

Again, you seem to be breaking the case down arbitrarily here. There a bunch of different issues in the case. None of them that I can immediately think of need to be proved individually beyond reasonable doubt to convict. The knife evidence could be well below this threshold, as could the bra clasp, as could the witness statements, as could our own impressions of the interrogations and their subsequent statements.

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.

Nonsense. There are other threads were people debate Bigfoot. People talking it over endlessly proves nothing.

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

By the same token we should teach the controversy on homeopathy as well.

 

[RoseMontague]

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

For God's sake Jim, I'm not a rocket surgeon.

I consider Raffaele making a statement to Judge Matteini at the first Magistrate's hearing as being a statement made in court. I did like the Cheshire Cat reference.

 

[Kestrel]

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

It's a perfect storm between who are skeptical of authority and those who see being skeptical as taking the side of the authorities.

 

[bobc]

Anyone who has the slightest awareness of body language can see what is happening: Amanda is being positioned for the photo at the choice of the policewoman holding her arms from behind, not her own choice. You can see the policewoman's right hand in particular gripping Amanda's arm quite forcefully. If you did this to someone in other circumstances it would constitute physical assault.

This isolated picture doesn't say anything about guilt or innocence, and is no more than a trivial illustration of power and powerlessness; but the responses here from Draca and Bucketoftea are almost more revealing than the photo itself. They will believe anything they choose to about police behaviour in this case.

I think that is pretty ironic - and also very revealing. It is clear if you watch the court videos, Amanda is not being tightly held, nor being posed for the cameras. She is being gently guided towards her seat, as she has been in all the court videos I've seen.

How you get from there to police assault I've no idea. In a lot of cases, the convicted murderer would be behind a screen or cage. Amanda's treatment seem remarkably fair to me.

 

[Justinian2]

[...]
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.[...]

Thomas Junta of Reading, Massachusetts was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2002 after he beat up Michael Costin which led to Costin's death. Costin was the informal referee of a pick-up hockey game involving the men's sons. The fight was witnessed by about a dozen children, including Junta's son and Costin's three sons. They saw the final blows struck.

Junta is now out of prison.​

Why do you think the Italian system is giving them considerably more favorable treatment? You're forgetting that there are 50 different states in the USA and some of them dwarf Italy. All of the states are different. California economically would be the fifth largest nation in the world - if it was a nation.

 

[Justinian2]

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 must 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?

I agree.

 

[Chris C]

Technically contamination has been admitted to when Massei reasoned that some of the alleles on Sollecito's alleged partial profile wasn't his.

Pretty much. They have ordered an independent review. Which means they will retest it.

 

[bobc]

It's a perfect storm between who are skeptical of authority and those who see being skeptical as taking the side of the authorities.

Right... so anyone accused of any crime by the authorities is probably innocent... because authorities is BAD. That isn't skepticism, that is the peculiar brand of anti-authoritarian paranoia typical of the US.

To be honest, I had hoped for a decent level of skeptical inquiry on this topic at JREF, but have been disappointed. Basically it's just the players from the pro and anti groups in a continual game of naysaying, held apart by some frazzled moderators.

 

[Malkmus]

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?

Nice post, Bob. I think the answer to your question can be explained just by reading this last page of posts alone. But I think you answered your own question rather aptly with your second sentence. What I believe it comes down to for those convinced of guilt is incredulity towards key parts of the case: particularly Amanda's placing Patrick at the cottage the night of the murder, and Rafaelle's purported lies (his explanation of the knife for example). It doesn't matter that there might be an innocent explanation for such things, they are certain that these things were done out of willful deception. And I believe a big reason for that incredulity comes simply from the mantra of "I would never have done that if I were in their shoes" that they've told themselves. Once they've convinced themselves that they would never possibly emulate the behavior of either Amanda or Rafaelle, the rest of the evidence, no matter how weak, helps rationalize that decision.

I think what they might say in answer to a statement such as We don't send people to prison based on what we guess they might possibly have done is to look at something like the Scott/Laci Peterson case where much of the evidence was circumstantial. The problem with a case such as that one is that the person convicted there had already dug his hole before the police were ever involved and even before the murder itself. Despite numerous attempts to draw similarities between this case and others to show that others have been convicted on similar grounds (and justly so), it always fails. While, conversely, attempts to argue against the incredulity using anecdotal evidence that innocent people can and have acted similarly to Amanda and Raf in other cases are written off for various reasons - but usually just because of, once again, incredulity.

 

[RoseMontague]

Right... so anyone accused of any crime by the authorities is probably innocent... because authorities is BAD. That isn't skepticism, that is the peculiar brand of anti-authoritarian paranoia typical of the US.

To be honest, I had hoped for a decent level of skeptical inquiry on this topic at JREF, but have been disappointed. Basically it's just the players from the pro and anti groups in a continual game of naysaying, held apart by some frazzled moderators.

Good time for you to start us out on the correct path then. Give us your theory of the case or what topic you are interested in discussing.

 

[Bob001]

...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...

Actually, I would say it is wildly unreasonable to doubt the truth of the Holocaust, but it might be reasonable to doubt whether specific evidence proves that some particular person accused of being, say, a death camp guard is guilty as charged. And I have seen no reasonable, plausible evidence to support a claim that the Apollo landings were faked, that Jesus was resurrected in the 1960s or that Bigfoot roams the earth in a space suit. "Reasonable" and "plausible" hinge on what adults know about the world we live in, and I would say that believing these two spoiled college students conspired with a known thug to commit a Satanic sex-murder based on the flimsy evidence produced by a prosecutor afflicted with a severe case of Satan-on-the-brain falls into the Holocaust-denier, Apollo-hoax end of the spectrum.

 

[katy_did]

The message of the pictures the defense has on the screen at the courtroom shots at the link to follow is one that speaks to the police handling of the evidence in this case, if I am not mistaken:

http://www.daylife.com/search/photos/7/grid?q=Amanda+Knox

Thanks for that link, some of those pictures the defence showed in Court are ones I haven't seen before. I'm shocked by the state of Meredith's room when they went back to collect more evidence on Dec 18th - here and here, for example (and Amanda's room too). Looking at those pictures, the idea that they could go back and collect evidence without it having been compromised is just laughable, IMO. If Raffaele were a total stranger who'd never visited the house before, it might be different. But he was a frequent visitor in the week or two leading up to the murder. I can't believe that the police would on the one hand be so careless with Meredith's possessions within the room, while on the other be so careful to avoid possible contamination from outside it. Previously I haven't been sure what the independent experts would decide on the bra clasp evidence, but having seen those pictures, if part of what they're assessing is the way the evidence was handled before being collected and possible contamination at that time, I don't see how they can do other than express doubt about its reliability. But we'll see.

 

[nopoirot]

Is there any undisputed evidence to refute the inference that Raf and / or Amanda, having somehow made it possible for Guede to get at Meredith, realized they faced a spectacular scandal, and tried to cover their tracks? No? I thought not.

This case isn't going to turn on voodoo forensics and problematic witnesses. The judge can go either way with that. Judges are hardly the captives of of evidence, argument and law. They try to get to the bottom of things. This judge is already asking himself "WTF?"

I expect Raf might well find absolution if, on appeal, he recants and claims he was only trying to protect Amanda. It was, after all, the (duck) manly thing to do.

Amanda changed her statement only to say that she could not clearly recall what she had said earlier: that she had been a virtual accomplice to murder.

Raf and Amanda were cozened into perjuring themselves by "police lies"? Please.

Perhaps it bears mentioning that what the court does with this and what we make of Raf's and Amanda's conduct are two separate issues. Not being charged with the responsibility of deciding whether they should remain incarcerated, we are at liberty to consider any relevant and persuasive evidence, admissible in court or not.

 

[babycondor]

Do you see the contradictions here

No. Please explain the contradictions you are seeing.

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 !

Thank you for that reminder that the human species has made at least some progress since the Middle Ages.

 

[platonov]

Actually, I would say it is wildly unreasonable to doubt the truth of the Holocaust, but it might be reasonable to doubt whether specific evidence proves that some particular person accused of being, say, a death camp guard is guilty as charged. And I have seen no reasonable, plausible evidence to support a claim that the Apollo landings were faked, that Jesus was resurrected in the 1960s or that Bigfoot roams the earth in a space suit. "Reasonable" and "plausible" hinge on what adults know about the world we live in, and I would say that believing these two spoiled college students conspired with a known thug to commit a Satanic sex-murder based on the flimsy evidence produced by a prosecutor afflicted with a severe case of Satan-on-the-brain falls into the Holocaust-denier, Apollo-hoax end of the spectrum.

You made this argument - not me

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?
Its this kind of 'logic' [and this] that has kept the thread going.

 

[Antony]

I think that is pretty ironic - and also very revealing. It is clear if you watch the court videos, Amanda is not being tightly held, nor being posed for the cameras.

I'm not talking about any "court videos", but about the still picture shown in the Telegraph report in which Amanda is clearly seen being held in a position to allow a photograph to be taken.

She is being gently guided towards her seat, as she has been in all the court videos I've seen.

Is she supposed to be blind or something? Why does she need to be "gently guided" to her seat? She can walk into court unaided, and all that anyone needs to do is say "sit here, please" - without the visible manhandling that is shown on the photograph we're discussing.

How you get from there to police assault I've no idea.

I didn't say it was "police assault". I said "in other circumstances, this would be considered physical assault". Are you arguing this is not the case?

 

[platonov]

No. Please explain the contradictions you are seeing.

Better if you work them out yourself.

If you can't then my input won't be helpful.

 

[platonov]

Is there any undisputed evidence to refute the inference that Raf and / or Amanda, having somehow made it possible for Guede to get at Meredith, realized they faced a spectacular scandal, and tried to cover their tracks? No? I thought not.
This case isn't going to turn on voodoo forensics and problematic witnesses. The judge can go either way with that. Judges are hardly the captives of of evidence, argument and law. They try to get to the bottom of things. This judge is already asking himself "WTF?"

I expect Raf might well find absolution if, on appeal, he recants and claims he was only trying to protect Amanda. It was, after all, the (duck) manly thing to do.

Amanda changed her statement only to say that she could not clearly recall what she had said earlier: that she had been a virtual accomplice to murder.

Raf and Amanda were cozened into perjuring themselves by "police lies"? Please.

Perhaps it bears mentioning that what the court does with this and what we make of Raf's and Amanda's conduct are two separate issues. Not being charged with the responsibility of deciding whether they should remain incarcerated, we are at liberty to consider any relevant and persuasive evidence, admissible in court or not.

Is this what's known as proving a negative ?

(or reversing the burden of proof if you prefer)

 

[RoseMontague]

You made this argument - not me

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?
Its this kind of 'logic' [and this] that has kept the thread going.

Those on the innocent side certainly feel there is reasonable doubt and those on the side of guilt do not. In terms of the courtroom the jury would have hung many moons ago or in Italy given a majority decision. But it is not the courtroom and the debate and discussion continue.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Thanks for that link, some of those pictures the defence showed in Court are ones I haven't seen before. I'm shocked by the state of Meredith's room when they went back to collect more evidence on Dec 18th - here and here, for example (and Amanda's room too). Looking at those pictures, the idea that they could go back and collect evidence without it having been compromised is just laughable, IMO. If Raffaele were a total stranger who'd never visited the house before, it might be different. But he was a frequent visitor in the week or two leading up to the murder. I can't believe that the police would on the one hand be so careless with Meredith's possessions within the room, while on the other be so careful to avoid possible contamination from outside it. Previously I haven't been sure what the independent experts would decide on the bra clasp evidence, but having seen those pictures, if part of what they're assessing is the way the evidence was handled before being collected and possible contamination at that time, I don't see how they can do other than express doubt about its reliability. But we'll see.

From an emotional standpoint, this one speaks volumes (at least to me.)