Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Forrest and Woody article

To all,

Here are a couple of quotes from an article on deceptive interrogations. The pdf is protected, so one has to type these out for oneself. Kaosium, IIRC, originally cited it, and I mentioned it yesterday.

"According to Kassin and Neumann (1997), jurors relied on confession evidence more than other forms of evidence (italics added). Of greater concern is the finding that even if jurors rated a confession as less voluntary and believed that the confession did not affect their decisions, these jurors were still more likely to convict than jurors who did not read confession evidence (Kassin & Sukel, 1997)… In Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mistaken admission of a coerced confession into the trial could comprise a harmless error that does not increase the risk of a mistaken conviction and is therefore subject to a harmless error analysis. This ruling rests on the assumption that jurors can recognize and reject a coerced confession, even though empirical findings contradict this assumtion (Kassin & Sukel, 1997)."

 

[shuttlt]

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?

I am certainly aware of the details of the case at this broad level. I think you miss the point though. Naturally the defence have their explanation, just as the prosecution do, and there are, over and above that other explanations available on the forum. The fact though is that she signed and wrote a bunch of documents making these allegations. That being the case I would like to know on what grounds one can assign probabilities to this in order to do Bayesian analysis.

 

[Justinian2]

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

What is the context? Need the context to understand where 'there' is and when 'she was there'.

After all, I can't lie. I was there too!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't have the entire transcript, though

What is the context? Need the context to understand where 'there' is and when 'she was there'.

After all, I can't lie. I was there too!

Justinian2 and loverofzion,

I just gave the context in a previous message. Where = Raffaele's apartment. When = night of the murder. One surmises that she was a little hesitant to acknowledge to her mother that she had spent the night at Raffaele's.

 

[Alt+F4]

"According to Kassin and Neumann (1997)...

That study was published 14 years ago, probably based on research done 15-20 years ago (cites a 1991 Supreme Court case). What does it have to do with an investigation done a little over three years ago....in Italy (which has a very different jury system than the U.S)?

 

[loverofzion]

How do you know of thes facts? Were you there?!

Again, none of the facts known by amanda I mentioned above were publicly known at the time of the questioning.
One roommate of hers commented how intently raf questioned her in the car about what thb police knew.

 

[loverofzion]

Justinian2 and loverofzion,

I just gave the context in a previous message. Where = Raffaele's apartment. When = night of the murder. One surmises that she was a little hesitant to acknowledge to her mother that she had spent the night at Raffaele's.

Nonsense.
By then her mother had been privy to amanda's series of partners; she knew amanda was sleeping with raf at his place.

I was there refers to what it appears, the scene of the murder.

 

[Fine]

Danceme,

Raffaele's fingerprints were on the door, if I am not mistaken, and I have documented that DNA can be extracted from fingerprints. It seems reasonable to conclude that Raffaele's DNA was on the door.

______________

Well, Halides, by definition, a fingerprint is only composed of sweat (water + salts).

You appear to be saying---if your argument is sound--- that any fingerprint left by a person also contains DNA from that person. But that can't be right. So,...do you know how frequently a person's DNA is left in their fingerprints?

///

 

[el buscador]

Alt-4F, Raffaele's defense team has stated since November 24th, 2007 that he was on his computer all night.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2007/11/alibi-di-raffaele-provatoalibi-di.html

"SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2007

Raffaele's Alibi: Confirmed/Raffaele's Alibi: Doesn't stand up


According to the technical investigation for the defence it’s been proven: Raffaele was on his computer all night.

According to the technical investigation for the prosecution it’s been proven: Sollecito did not touch his computer.

Same old story.

From what can be understood in fact, according to the defence, that evening Raffaele downloaded “The fabulous world of Amelie” and “Stardust”. Certainly if this is all they have to go on…it’s scarce. Don’t we all know that films download themselves?

In the meantime, Daddy’s boy speaks out from prison with a long, pathetic letter: “I will never touch a joint again.”

 

[loverofzion]

shuttlt,

My commenters and I examined a list of 18 supposed lies told by Edda Mellas, as posted at True Justice. We found that all 18 were either wrong or misleading. Has True Justice ever put out a retraction or clarification? If the positions were reversed, I would have. Sorry, but I don't take lists written by The Machine or Harry Rag as being worth much, based on this experience and others.

Where did you print your retractions?

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt-4F, Raffaele's defense team has stated since November 24th, 2007 that he was on his computer all night.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2007/11/alibi-di-raffaele-provatoalibi-di.html

"SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2007

According to the technical investigation for the defence it’s been proven: Raffaele was on his computer all night.

From what can be understood in fact, according to the defence, that evening Raffaele downloaded “The fabulous world of Amelie” and “Stardust”. Certainly if this is all they have to go on…it’s scarce. Don’t we all know that films download themselves?

Downloading two movies is different than what the defense is now claiming, that there was human interaction on the computer all throughout the night.

EDIT: Also, where does Raffalle mention watching Naruto? In 2007? In 2008? In 2009?

 

[RWVBWL]

My guess is that Rudy broke in through Filomena's window. Started searching around her belongings and his nerves caused him to need a bathroom.

Rudy may have already been through all four bedrooms before the bathroom break. He started in Filomena's room, he knows where both Amanda and Meredith stashed their money and there is an unexplained open drawer in Laura's room.

<snip>
I don't believe Rudy wore gloves at any of the other crimes he's accussed of committing, why the change in his MO now? His MO did however include stealing computers, yet no effort to even pick up Filomena's laptop or digital camera. It makes it seem like he busted in there for one reason only - to use the bathroom.

Alt+F4
Given Rudi's previous lack of success with stolen goods, I suspect he was looking for cash. He must have suspected that the occupants would have rent money stashed somewhere, what with rent coming due shortly.

Does anyone have further information on this unexplained open drawer in Laura's room that Dan O. mentioned?
I do not recall hearing of this until Dan O. posted it...
Thank you,
RWVBWL

 

[Chris C]

No one had been interviewed at that stage, they (Meredith's friends) were waiting to be interviewed by the police.

So Meredith's friends had flown down to Italy before the police ever interviewed Knox?

 

[komponisto]

I am certainly aware of the details of the case at this broad level. I think you miss the point though. Naturally the defence have their explanation, just as the prosecution do, and there are, over and above that other explanations available on the forum. The fact though is that she signed and wrote a bunch of documents making these allegations. That being the case I would like to know on what grounds one can assign probabilities to this in order to do Bayesian analysis.

As far as I know she "wrote" and signed two such documents, the "I confusedly remember that he killed her" one in Italian that was actually written by Rita Ficarra and thrown out by the Corte di Cassazione, and then the other "best truth I have been able to remember" one in English a few hours later. She probably didn't understand the first document (certainly not its implications) at the time she signed it, and in the second basically said that her statements of the previous night were worthless.

Bayesian analysis of this is nothing mysterious. We don't need a high level of precision in the numbers here -- even order-of-magnitude estimates will do. There's a tiny prior probability that Knox was involved; we need a very surprising set of observations to be convinced of this. In more traditional JREF-style terms: it's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

How extraordinary is the evidence of the "confession"? Not very, in light of the eminently plausible defense explanation I repeated above. It's simply not particularly surprising assuming her innocence. Hence it doesn't count much against her.

Everything I just said is 100% Bayesian, even though that "100%" is the first number I've mentioned! It's important to keep this in mind to avoid pointless squabbles over the "legitimacy" of numbers.

On what "grounds" can you assign probabilities to these matters? On the same grounds as you assign probabilities to everything else, if you're a Bayesian! Because if you're a Bayesian, probabilities are just numbers that refer to your degree of belief.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

______________

Well, Halides, by definition, a fingerprint is only composed of sweat (water + salts).

You appear to be saying---if your argument is sound--- that any fingerprint left by a person also contains DNA from that person. But that can't be right. So,...do you know how frequently a person's DNA is left in their fingerprints?

///

Fine,

I am not sure from where your definition originates. However, reagents such as ninhydrin, which reacts with the N-terminal amino group of proteins and with other primary amines such as amino acids, can be used to detect fingerprints in some cases. So there are other substances besides water and salts. However, I do not know what percentage of fingerprints contain DNA. My impression is that it usually takes more than a single print to gather enough DNA for profiling, but I studied this subject about nine months ago and have forgotten a good bit in the interim. Should be some cites on the previous thread.

 

[el buscador]

Downloading two movies is different than what the defense is now claiming, that there was human interaction on the computer all throughout the night.

EDIT: Also, where does Raffalle mention watching Naruto? In 2007? In 2008? In 2009?

However, the defense team still says, "All night."

 

[Alt+F4]

So Meredith's friends had flown down to Italy before the police ever interviewed Knox?

Meredith had British friends who were also living in Perugia at the time. These were the women she had dinner with the night of the murder.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

False claims about Edda Mellas

Where did you print your retractions?

loverofzion,

I am not sure what you mean by retractions, but our rebuttal to the original article can be found here.

 

[Alt+F4]

However, the defense team still says, "All night."

Yeah, but have not proven it. They could also say the Flying Spaghetti Monster committed the murder, but I've yet to see any evidence of that either.

 

[Chris C]

Erm, none. She was sitting with her flatmates prior to any questioning. The questions remain - how did she know her throat had been cut and why did she refer to multiple assailants - "bastards" plural? Why did Raffaele tell Kate Mansey two days later that Amanda had discovered the body and provide more details when we know that they were nowhere near the door and never saw the body at all?

1. On what day did the investigators believe there was more than 1 person involved?
2. Sitting where with her flatmates?
3. Do you think at any time during questioning Knox was told how Meredith was killed and they believe it was performed by more than one assailant?
4. During Knox's supposed confession to nothing, she only mentioned one person killing Meredith.
5. Are we sure there were multiple assailants? The defense argues there was one assailtant.