Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

Your post had the effect of a dead butterfly.

That's as maybe. You still don't understand the butterfly effect or chaos theory.

Your quote made it seem as though the butterfly effect says that small effects can have a large impact in delivering future known/desired outcome. I'm not at all sure that the butterfly effect is about delivering specific desired large scale effects, rather the practical impossibility of predicting such large scale effects due to the impossibility of sufficiently understanding all the contributing factors.

If we're talking Chaos Theory, what makes you think that your posts won't somehow cause Knox to say in prison rather than being freed? Perhaps Halides will be pondering one of them while crossing the street, fail to see a car and get run over thereby preventing him making the crucial breakthrough that will free Knox.

 

[shuttlt]

Has anyone made that claim?

Justinian feels that posting here is part of an effort to influence the progress of the case and indeed global justice as a whole. I am part of the group trying to maintain the status quo. You, Justinian, Charlie and Halides are part of a group trying to reform the system.

 

[lionking]

Justinian feels that posting here is part of an effort to influence the progress of the case and indeed global justice as a whole. I am part of the group trying to maintain the status quo. You, Justinian, Charlie and Halides are part of a group trying to reform the system.

Second this. I'll believe it when the prosecution team says "we'll like to thank those from the JREF forum for their invaluable research and advice". There's some serious over estimation of the importance of what's posted here.

 

[Mary_H]

Justinian feels that posting here is part of an effort to influence the progress of the case and indeed global justice as a whole. I am part of the group trying to maintain the status quo. You, Justinian, Charlie and Halides are part of a group trying to reform the system.

Thank you for noticing. Are you sure you want to say you're part of the group trying to maintain the status quo if the status quo is not to reform the system?

 

[Katody Matrass]

_________________________

Okay, Katody, this is an important issue. So let's proceed in baby steps, since you don't accept my interpretation of what Raffaele is saying in his Diary. Here's one of the two passages in which Raffaele relates what Amanda had persuaded, or induced, him to say:

___________________________________________
"The judge questioned me today and he told me that I gave three different statements, but
the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire
cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she
worked, Le Chic. But I do not remember exactly whether she went out or not to go to that
pub and as a consequence I do not remember how long she was gone for. What is the big
problem? I do not remember this, for them, important detail, therefore they should stop
bothering me and start investigating her." (By the way, this statement in his Diary is written under the date November 7. This date must be wrong, since he saw the judge on November 8th.)
___________________________________________


Certainly one natural reading of this passage is that Amanda had persuaded Raffaele to make the following statement---or a statement with the same cognitive content--- to the cops:


On the night of November 1st Amanda left me to go to work at Le Chic.


In my opinion, this statement constitutes the "second version" and it is clearly the second version which Amanda persuaded Raffaele to express to the cops.

I vaguely remember we had this discussion once already, and I vaguely recall you even conceded it doesn't make sense. But since it is of utmost importance, let's go in tiny steps

So your theory still is that Amanda ordered Raffaele to lie. Up to that moment he was giving her alibi, but she told him to lie by retracting that alibi and replacing it with something which was easily verifiable as false.
Do I understand your interpretation correctly?

 

[Katody Matrass]

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

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.

Thanks for bringing it forward shuttlt!

It's a honest attempt, yet closer look reveals serious problems.
When AK and RS show up, Meredith already have been raped. So I understand she's in some state of undress? She begs them for help, yet they side with some guy they don't know and let him restrain her ?
Then he kills her, leisurely places her on the pillow, leaving tens of bloody shoeprints in the room, sits down, goes through her purse then runs away.

They do nothing. You say it's because they thought she was overreacting. Didn't the horrible crime they just witnessed make it more clear for them she was right? Did he hypnotize them?

OK, he runs away finally. No one tries to stop him. No one calls the police. She's lying there stabbed, choking on blood, yet neither of them call for help, neither of them try to help on their own, why?

 

[RoseMontague]

Justinian feels that posting here is part of an effort to influence the progress of the case and indeed global justice as a whole. I am part of the group trying to maintain the status quo. You, Justinian, Charlie and Halides are part of a group trying to reform the system.

I don't believe we are having a major impact on the case, it is more likely to be very little. However, public opinion and outrage over injustice does have an impact on many cases and a lowly blog discussion is part of that, imo. I think the more examination a case is given the greater the potential for getting a correct result. People are entitled to have an opinion of guilt but if there is nothing to hide, I don't see that they should be so defensive over others wanting to champion an innocent position. I think an effort to curb questions anyone has over the verdict in this case is wrong.

 

[RoseMontague]

This whole case against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox is such a travesty of justice that it bothers me enough to have spent much time following, reading, learning and finally speaking up about this injustice, something that I have never done before. It is nice to see others who feel the same way speak up too...

With the holidays in mind, I wish Peace to you all,
may your days be filled with the luv of family and friends...
RWVBWL

I appreciate the Holiday wishes RWVBWL, and I want to wish you the same. I also would like to thank you for your involvement and participation. Your posts have been both enjoyable and informative.

 

[christianahannah]

To all,

A commenter asked about the make and model of the equipment in the DNA lab. "The Applied Biosystem’s Quantifiler Kit was used for a quantity of DNA [207] suitable for it to be amplified. The trace amount was quantified with the software designed for quantification, which is included with the instrument, the [ABI Prism] 7700 that was used." Massei, p. 200.

There is also this machine mentioned, page 184 motivations:

The extraction of DNA is mechanical, using automatic systems. In this case, she explained, a biorobot was used; this was a machine called the EZ1 workstation made by the firm Qiagen.

Stefanoni also describes a machine on page 219 which has safeguards for secondary transfer. Is this the machine you write of?

She excluded the possibility that, in the machine used for the analysis of the various samples, any secondary deposits might have formed from which it would have been possible to transfer DNA onto other specimens. With respect to this, she stated that the machine is equipped with a security system which prevents such an occurrence.

Page 254 (is this another machine?):

Dr. Patumi further observed that, having failed to obtain a qualification of type, Dr. Stefanoni then proceeded in her analysis to seek a quantification, which as Dr. Stefanoni herself explained, is obtained by using a machine called a fluorometer, which is able to determine the quantity of genetic material in a given item. The machine yielded the result "too low".

Page 255:

It did, however, emerge from the documentation that some of the samples taken from Exhibit 36 were quantified with the Qubit fluorometer, and that the results for some of them were "too low". Thus the quantity was inferior to the base value (or threshold setting) of the kit; it could even have been equal to zero. This result, she asserted, should have led to cessation of the analysis.

 

[christianahannah]

I think Carla Vecchiotti is Sabrina Misseri's defence consultant (she's mentioned here). I agree with you that Hellmann's choice of her would contradict the idea he's not interested in a genuine review of the evidence. It would be interesting to know more about Stefano Conti, too.

So far there is this on this Stefano Conti (if it is the same person, it appears to be). I am using Google translation and original version. He is also mentioned other times in the document.

DR. Stefano Conti

* Born on 28/02/1952.
* Graduated in Medicine in 1986.
* Specialist at the University "La Sapienza" of Rome in Legal Medicine and Insurance in 1990 and in Aeronautical and Space Medicine in 2000.
* Technical Consultant since 1991 at the Institute of Legal Medicine, University "La Sapienza" of Rome.
* Assistant (now Executive Level I) in the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Policlinico Umberto I in Rome since 1991.
* Improved in micrograph, Medical Informatics, in Civil Defence and methods for the analysis of surveys and biomedical signal processing at the University "La Sapienza" of Rome.
* Alternate member of the Committees for Exams from 1994.
* Has participated in conferences and scientific congresses with communications.
* It has, as per announcement, ten publications, as per attached list, all together.

http://translate.google.com/transla...commissioni/attivita5/finaleF22BmedRU_ris.htm

DOTT. STEFANO CONTI

* Nato il 28/02/1952.
* Laureato in Medicina e Chirurgia nel 1986.
* Specializzato presso l'Università "La Sapienza" di Roma in Medicina Legale e delle Assicurazioni nel 1990 e in Medicina Aeronautica e Spaziale nel 2000 .
* Collaboratore tecnico dal 1991 presso l'Istituto di Medicina Legale dell'Università "La Sapienza" di Roma.
* Assistente (ora Dirigente di I livello) presso il Servizio Speciale di Medicina Legale I del Policlinico Umberto I di Roma dal 1991.
* Perfezionato in Micrografia, Informatica Medica, in Protezione civile e in Metodi per l'analisi delle indagini e dei segnali biomedici presso l'Università "la Sapienza" di Roma.
* Membro supplente nelle Commissioni per gli Esami di Profitto dal 1994.
* Ha partecipato a Convegni e Congressi Scientifici anche con comunicazioni.
* Presenta, come da bando di concorso, dieci pubblicazioni, come da elenco allegato, tutti in collaborazione.

http://www.uniroma1.it/amm-personale/concorsi/commissioni/attivita5/finaleF22BmedRU_ris.htm

 

[Fine]

I vaguely remember we had this discussion once already, and I vaguely recall you even conceded it doesn't make sense. But since it is of utmost importance, let's go in tiny steps

So your theory still is that Amanda ordered Raffaele to lie. Up to that moment he was giving her alibi, but she told him to lie by retracting that alibi and replacing it with something which was easily verifiable as false.
Do I understand your interpretation correctly?

___________________________

Katody,

I wasn't proposing a theory. My last post addressed the single issue of the proper interpretation of Raffaele's Diary. If I understood you properly, you asked just what statement ---according to my interpretation of the Diary---Amanda had induced Raffaele to tell the police. My answer was this statement:

On the night of November 1st Amanda left me to go to work at Le Chic.

Now, it's a different issue as to just why Amanda would want Raffaele to say this to the cops. And whether Amanda ever did, in fact, ask Rafffaele to say this. The fact is he did make the bolded statement to the cops, and he also told the cops that Amanda was to blame for persuading him to say it. (See the Matteini Report. HERE)

A common innocentisti theory is that the cops rattled Raffaele during his interrogation, leading him to say that Amanda had gone to Le Chic and---later during the interogation---on reflection but still rattled, he retracted that statement and blamed Amanda for making him say it. According to this theory Amanda is blameless. (And Raffaele was fooled.) And that's why Raffaele in his Diary added the "(unfortunately, I now say)" comment to make it clear that Amanda had never, in fact, asked him to lie. I believe that this is your theory too. Correct?

My own theory, advanced by Patrick's attorney, Pacelli, is that the lovebirds went to the police station to accuse Patrick. If guilty they did this to have someone arrested for a crime they committed. If innocent they did this because Amanda was confident of Patrick's guilt, and the sooner he was arrested the safer she'd feel and the less interrogation inconvenience she'd suffer. I wouldn't be surprised if the defense during the APPEAL trial takes this route to explain the night of November 5/6 at the police station. Amanda's 15 minute apologetic Spontaneous Declaration before the court supports this view. We'll see.

///

 

[Chris_Halkides]

burning question

Dr Hampikian is presently under investigation to determine who is paying for his advocacy position regarding Amanda Knox. His enterprise uses tax-exempt dollars from all Americans to champion the wrongfully convicted, especially those disadvantaged due to ethnicity and income. Since Knox does not fit either of these categories, and the case is still undergoing an automatic appeal process in a foreign country, there are burning questions about Dr Hampikian's misappropriation of taxpayer-funded resources and who paid for his trip to Italy to meet with the sex killer's family.

On 18 JUL 2010, Prof Halkides wrote to me the following challenge:

stilicho,

How do you know that anyone is paying for Dr. Hampkian's work in this case? By "advocacy position" do you mean being an expert witness? Does tax-exempt mean the same thing as taxpayer-funded to you?

The burning question in this case should be how did slipshod forensics pass by Massei without more criticism.

You still have about 17 unanswered comments from me to go...

 

[shuttlt]

Thanks for bringing it forward shuttlt!

It's a honest attempt, yet closer look reveals serious problems.

When AK and RS show up, Meredith already have been raped.

I didn't think it had been established that she had been raped. There was clearly some sexual contact from Guede. More than that is just making guesses and telling stories, surely?

So I understand she's in some state of undress?

Could have been, but I don't see that she has to be. Perhaps when they get home she's naked, perhaps she's fully clothed. Same for Guede.

She begs them for help, yet they side with some guy they don't know and let him restrain her ?

Do we really know as an absolute fact of the case how well they knew him? I don't see any evidence that they did know him very well, but neither would they have wondered who this stranger was that confronted them.

Then he kills her, leisurely places her on the pillow, leaving tens of bloody shoeprints in the room, sits down, goes through her purse then runs away.

I don't think you are trying to imagine a scenario where they are involved.

They do nothing. You say it's because they thought she was overreacting. Didn't the horrible crime they just witnessed make it more clear for them she was right? Did he hypnotize them?

This is not what I wrote. You seem to be starting from my scenario and using your imagination to turn it something where they couldn't be involved. The point in this story is that the situation gets away from them. First they are reacting because they believe the situation is being exaggerated, later they are reacting because they do not want to get into trouble and do not perceive the danger that the situation may get worse, then it is too late and they feel that they are implicated and do not want to take the blame.

OK, he runs away finally. No one tries to stop him. No one calls the police. She's lying there stabbed, choking on blood, yet neither of them call for help, neither of them try to help on their own, why?

Could be that they feel it is already too late. It could be that Meredith had already threatened them with the police a few tens of minutes earlier and they were afraid what she would say. It could be that they were paralysed by the enormity of the situation. It could be that they were stoned and coping with the situation constructively was beyond them.

 

[Justinian2]

That's as maybe. You still don't understand the butterfly effect or chaos theory.

Your quote made it seem as though the butterfly effect says that small effects can have a large impact in delivering future known/desired outcome. I'm not at all sure that the butterfly effect is about delivering specific desired large scale effects, rather the practical impossibility of predicting such large scale effects due to the impossibility of sufficiently understanding all the contributing factors.

If we're talking Chaos Theory, what makes you think that your posts won't somehow cause Knox to say in prison rather than being freed? Perhaps Halides will be pondering one of them while crossing the street, fail to see a car and get run over thereby preventing him making the crucial breakthrough that will free Knox.

True. And perhaps you or another guilter will cause a statement to be made which will inspire a successful defense? Like you say, it works both ways.

Change now is a good thing. Amanda and Raffael are in prison for long terms.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Originally Posted by Jungle Jim
I have seen this assertion made several times in this thread. I am aware that in a tapped phone conversation between Amanda and Filomenia, Filomenia states that she has (will) contact a lawyer to see about getting out of their lease (btw, a course of action that Amanda does not disagree with). Do you have a source that shows that Filomenia and/or Laura "immediately" hired a lawyer?

IIP says she hired one 'early on'.

Thanks, I appreciate the response. A couple of follow up questions: (1) what does IIP stand for? (2) Do you have a link to the source of the "early on" quote?

 

[Justinian2]

Second this. I'll believe it when the prosecution team says "we'll like to thank those from the JREF forum for their invaluable research and advice". There's some serious over estimation of the importance of what's posted here.

Part of my reason for posting here is psychological. I don't want those that are closest to the defense team to feel overwhelmed my a phony majority.

As for helping, the defense team by now probably has as strong a case as they can have. Now it's up to the guilters on the prosecution. That's a scary thought.

One person like myself could hang the jury in the states. However, the majority rules in Italy and the cases are long. After months listening to the trial, I might be worn down myself - just like they wore down Amanda.

Italian justice is pseudo justice, from what I've seen. However, I've also seen a very powerful case - at least from my viewpoint.

 

[shuttlt]

One person like myself could hang the jury in the states. However, the majority rules in Italy and the cases are long.

Wasn't the verdict in this case unanimous? That being the case I have never given much thought to whether a unanimous verdict was required. Was it?

 

[Fuji]

Unfortunately you've erroneously referred to (and linked to) the Supreme Court of Cassation. This is not the same court that Knox and Sollecito are currently having their appeal heard in. It's the court where Guede had his final appeal heard. Knox and Sollecito are currently being tried in the Court of Assizes of Appeal (Corte d'Assise d'Appello), in a trial de novo.

I think Fuji was linking this in response to Charlie's hypothesis of what the Supreme Court would do if the original verdict of Amanda and Raffaele is upheld at the appeal trial.

Yes, christianahannah, you are correct. Both Charlie Wilkes and LondonJohn are in error, and I note in passing that neither has corrected themselves.

 

[Fuji]

I've never spent any time degrading another person.

This is a lie. You used to have a line in your JREF signature that said, "Guilters are evil".

 

[Fuji]

The arguments I've seen presented towards establishing the crime scene was somehow staged can, at best, be described as "flimsy".

Leaving that aside- and imagining for the moment that there was solid evidence suggesting the scene was staged, by someone- what evidence has been put forth that it was actually Knox and her boyfriend (as opposed to anyone else in the world) who did it?

Up to now I don't recall seeing anything other than one or two arbitrary contentions primarily based on circular logic and/or naked speculation.

But if anyone can aquaint me with something compelling, I'd be interested.

From here:

"Reasons for Staging

Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation. This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior.

The second reason for staging, to protect the victim or the victim's family, occurs for the most part in rape-murder crimes or autoerotic fatalities. This type of staging is performed by the family member or person who finds the body. Since perpetrators of such crimes leave their victims in degrading positions, those who find the bodies attempt to restore some dignity to the victim."