Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

It's interesting that finally what's left from the pro-guilt argument are easily debunkable curiosities like this one, or the one SomeAlibi popped up before ( how would she now this or that if she didn't do it herself ). All of this spiced up with the "statement analysis" nonsense and "emotional intelligence".

Let's not forget voice modulation too!

I think this latest failed tactic employed against LJ just goes to show how bad some are at interpreting statements and behavior.

 

[HumanityBlues]

At some point I had hoped to be allowed to return as a member there but I have to say that I have given up on that possibility and I no longer will attempt to follow the discussion on PMF.

You're not missing much. Last time I checked, PMF is a site dedicated to talking about JREF and London John.

 

[Alt+F4]

After watching the video of the collection of this bra clasp more than a few times, I tend believe that the bra clasp was contaminated by accident or most likely, on purpose to further the possibility of conviction.

So they contaminated the bra clasp on purpose and recorded themselves doing it?

What is the reasoning again that there is no need to test this stain?

I believe the court said because it can't be dated.

BUT

a semen stain from the other convicted male in this sexual assault+murder, Raffaele Sollecito!

I guess the prosecution feels their case is strong enough without it.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I guess the prosecution feels their case is strong enough without it.

I'd say they feel it's much stronger without it

BTW You concede that it's not the defense that requested the December special escapade in search for something to pin Raffaele down?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

clamor

I believe the court said because it can't be dated.



I guess the prosecution feels their case is strong enough without it.

Alt+F4,

To the best of my knowledge, no semen stain can be dated. Does it follow that no one should ever examine a putative semen stain with a confirmatory test? There are several possible outcomes, as has been discussed several times previously, one of which makes the whole case come apart (it is semen from a previously unidentified male). Another of which, that it is Sollecito's semen, would be the single strongest piece of evidence against him. Sollecito may yet be exonerated, a fact well known to the prosecution. One would think that they would be clamoring for the test.

 

[Alt+F4]

BTW You concede that it's not the defense that requested the December special escapade in search for something to pin Raffaele down?

No. It's my reading of that sentence that it was the defense that suggested the second search, the police agreed to it.

 

[Katody Matrass]

No. It's my reading of that sentence that it was the defense that suggested the second search, the police agreed to it.

Interesting. Do you think they were sure nothing incriminating would be found? What could have been the rationale for such a strange request?

 

[komponisto]

komponisto,

I am rereading your lesswrong article and will comment more on it later. The first thing that jumps out at me is the following:


I hope I am not imposing a strawman reading on this and would appreciate clarification. Do you mean to say that the polices suspicions about people should not drive them to put more effort into investigating them than anybody else, lest that lead them into some kind of viscious cycle of looking for evidence against them and thereby reinforcing their suspicions?

Not exactly. The passage you quoted says, rather, that the police should base their suspicions primarily on the strongest evidence, which is the evidence closest to the crime. In the Kercher investigation, unfortunately, they allowed their suspicions to be directed by factors of little actual relevance (such as their interpretations of Knox's behavior).

Rationality isn't about how to prove a case, it's about how to know which case to prove in the first place. If your suspicions aren't well-founded, you're going to find yourself "proving" something that's wrong, quite simply.

 

[Alt+F4]

There are several possible outcomes, as has been discussed several times previously, one of which makes the whole case come apart (it is semen from a previously unidentified male).

I've yet to see anyone explain how a "previously unidentified male" could have murdered Meredith and have left zero physical evidence except for a semen stain. If it is possible however, then it's also possible that Amanda could have murdered Meredith and also have left almost no physical evidence.

Another of which, that it is Sollecito's semen, would be the single strongest piece of evidence against him.

The defense would just say that Amanda borrowed Meredith's pillow once when she and Raffaelle were having sex at the apartment. Amanda was a bit of a slob so she didn't bother changing the pillow case before giving the pillow back. This fits right in with Meredith borrowing Amanda's lamp. The defense from the begining portrayed the women as best buddies who had no problem sharing stuff.

 

[RWVBWL]

After watching the video of the collection of this bra clasp more than a few times, I tend believe that the bra clasp was contaminated by accident or most likely, on purpose to further the possibility of conviction.

So they contaminated the bra clasp on purpose and recorded themselves doing it?

What is the reasoning again that there is no need to test this stain?

I believe the court said because it can't be dated.

BUT a semen stain from the other convicted male in this sexual assault+murder, Raffaele Sollecito!

I guess the prosecution feels their case is strong enough without it.

Hi Alt-F4,
Happy New Year to you!
I've mentioned this before, it does not take but 1 rogue police officer or a few to plant evidence to further the case that they wish to build against a suspect. The Judges wouldn't even know it.

Being a Los Angles native, I remember reading some of the deatils of a rogue cop named Rafael Perez and his collegues who did just this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...aqi=g1g-v1&aql=&oq=rafael+perez+lapd&gs_rfai=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Pérez_(police_officer)

So I keep an open mind when reading stories that interest me.
Could something like this happen in the trial and conviction of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox?
I wonder...

It's too bad that the prosecution and the court apparently do not want to test this stain, for if semen, and from Raffaele Sollecito, it would convince me, and I bet the rest of the world that he is guilty without a doubt of participation in the sexual assault+brutal murder of Meredith Kercher.
Don't you agree?
RWVBW

 

[komponisto]

komponisto,

One other thing:


I'm not sure what you are saying here. Is it that you feel the odds of her behaving in this way, given that she is innocent are low, but not as low as her leaving as little evidence as was left, given that she took part in the killing? Or are you comparing it with the odds of her taking part in a sex-killing and leaving as little evidence as was left, given that her housemate was killed in a sexually aggravated murder?

How would one go about estimating these kinds of odds?

Well, first of all I don't actually think the odds of her behaving that way given that she is innocent are particularly low at all. They may be lowER than the odds of her behaving that way given that she is guilty, but not by a huge amount.

In explicit Bayesian terms, that passage of the post is arguing that while her behavior may in fact be (weak) Bayesian evidence of guilt, it is nowhere near strong enough to have a significant impact against the extremely low prior. (I seem to recall that when I was originally writing that passage, I considered making a comparison to Hume's criterion for assessing miracles: only believe a miracle happened if its not having happened would constitute an even greater miracle; which is essentially the same point.)

 

[komponisto]

Alt+F4:

The defense would just say that Amanda borrowed Meredith's pillow once when she and Raffaelle were having sex at the apartment

They might, and, depending on the details of the defense's proposed scenario, the resulting doubt could still be reasonable; but it still would be the strongest evidence against Sollecito, and would make the case a heck of a lot stronger than it is now. Assuming the test results were undisputed, it could easily raise my probability of Sollecito's guilt to well over 10%. And, if nothing else in my knowledge of the case changed, I would be confused as hell.

 

[Alt+F4]

It's too bad that the prosecution and the court apparently do not want to test this stain, for if semen, and from Raffaele Sollecito, it would convince me, and I bet the rest of the world that he is guilty without a doubt of participation in the sexual assault+brutal murder of Meredith Kercher.
Don't you agree?
RWVBW

Happy New Year to you as well!

No, I don't think if that stain is semen from Raffaelle it would convince the world of his guilt. See my post above for why I think this.

As for planting evidence in this case, what would be the motivation to frame an innocent Italian with fake DNA evidence? They already had Rudy and I'm not going for the embarassement excuse. They took their lumps when they were forced to release Patrick.

 

[billyryan]

Hi Alt-F4,
Happy New Year to you!
I've mentioned this before, it does not take but 1 rogue police officer or a few to plant evidence to further the case that they wish to build against a suspect. The Judges wouldn't even know it.

Being a Los Angles native, I remember reading some of the deatils of a rogue cop named Rafael Perez and his collegues who did just this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...aqi=g1g-v1&aql=&oq=rafael+perez+lapd&gs_rfai=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Pérez_(police_officer)

So I keep an open mind when reading stories that interest me.
Could something like this happen in the trial and conviction of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox?
I wonder...

It's too bad that the prosecution and the court apparently do not want to test this stain, for if semen, and from Raffaele Sollecito, it would convince me, and I bet the rest of the world that he is guilty without a doubt of participation in the sexual assault+brutal murder of Meredith Kercher.
Don't you agree?
RWVBW

Did Rudy not describe to his cell mates how Meredith's killer masturbated on top of her dead body

RWVBWL You wonder why the prosecution do not want to test the pillow case stains

Maybe they have already tested them and they just dont like the result

 

[komponisto]

As for planting evidence in this case, what would be the motivation to frame an innocent Italian with fake DNA evidence? They already had Rudy and I'm not going for the embarassement excuse. They took their lumps when they were forced to release Patrick.

They attempted to minimize their "lumps" by not also releasing Amanda and Raffaele: "Well, we weren't totally wrong!"

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[shuttlt]

Well, first of all I don't actually think the odds of her behaving that way given that she is innocent are particularly low at all. They may be lowER than the odds of her behaving that way given that she is guilty, but not by a huge amount.

Do you know how many people tell the police things that are as untrue as Knox is supposed to have done who do not have something to hide? Do you know how many people who say the same untruths genuinely have false memories induced by police brutality, etc... On what basis do you make this judgement? I don't know. It seems to me that, given the lies she is supposed to have told (Raffaele's statements in his interrogation and so on), it might not be such weak evidence at all. How many innocent people do tell the police fantastical, madeup bollocks?

You said more and I hope to respond to that later.

 

[Justinian2]

Does anybody have the complete quote and story where Amanda told her mother (in a taped call) that: "I was there"?

I don't remember that 'there' wasn't given a location or further specifics. Of course Amanda was there when the police opened the door to the bedroom. Is that what the quote is referring to?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

there is no there there

Does anybody have the complete quote and story where Amanda told her mother (in a taped call) that: "I was there"?

I don't remember that 'there' wasn't given a location or further specifics. Of course Amanda was there when the police opened the door to the bedroom. Is that what the quote is referring to?

Justinian2,

On page 215 in Murder in Italy, Dempsey says that "there" refers to Raffaele's apartment on the night of the murder and that when police produced the entire intercept, Judge Micheli had to accept this interpretation. The press had interpreted her words differently (why am I not surprised).

 

[komponisto]

Do you know how many people tell the police things that are as untrue as Knox is supposed to have done who do not have something to hide?

Are you referring to the Lumumba "accusation"? If so, are you familiar with the defense arguments? Knox was pressured to speculate, and acquiesced. (Apparently this is a common interrogation technique; one can only hope it usually works better.) There is no evidence of intent to deceive. They fed her the suggestion of Lumumba's involvement based on an exchange of text messages; she didn't come up with it spontaneously herself. She trusted the police to know what they were doing, and didn't realize that they had already decided she did it (with Raffaele and...Patrick).

I find this a completely satisfactory explanation of her statements to the police. Why don't you?

 

[loverofzion]

Does anybody have the complete quote and story where Amanda told her mother (in a taped call) that: "I was there"?

I don't remember that 'there' wasn't given a location or further specifics. Of course Amanda was there when the police opened the door to the bedroom. Is that what the quote is referring to?

It was "I can't lie. I was there".