Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

That is a lie.

You've been given citations for each point listed above on many, many occasions.

That you have ignored them in the past, or forgotten them, does not give you cause to intimate that I am making a misrepresentation.

Do you think none of us have noticed that you make a game of asking for citations only to ignore them?

I don't ignore citations; you ignore posts. I told you when you first started posting here that I tend to ask for citations for claims that I know cannot be documented, the purpose being to show the poster he is making a false claim. I presume that exercise has been lost on you, because you rarely trouble yourself to look for citations.

In this case, I will make an exception and ask you for cites that you may be able to find, but that you have never offered before, regardless of your claims to the contrary.

This a perfect example of your penchant for over-simplification in defiance of both rationality and common sense:

1) Sollecito has, in point of fact, a documented, pre-homicide history of "antisocial behavior" per the Court's judgment (starting at page 61):

You have placed the words, "antisocial behavior" in quotes here as if they appear in the Court's judgment. They do not.

- Police Station Commander testified that Sollecito was, in 2003, found in possession of 2.67 grams of an illicit narcotic

And?

- Sollecito had history of drug abuse including the use of cocaine and LSD (per Mignini's closing argument)

Allegations were made; that's it.

- tutors at Sollecito's college instituted "an active monitoring" on the "taciturn, shy, introverted" loner because of his interest in "hard-core" animal porn

The one time he was observed for a few seconds looking at animal porn on his computer is completely unrelated to the claims of him being shy and introverted.

- Sollcito, despite pleadings from his own father, insisted on collecting and wearing flick knives

And your citation?

2) Knox, too, has a documented, pre-homicide history of "antisocial behavior":

- Municipal Court of Seattle "finding" that Knox "committed" the civil infraction/ quasi-criminal "offense" of "residential deisturbance" in connection with a rock-throwing incident/ complaints from frightened neighbors

But wait a minute -- where is her "conviction," which you have insisted on for months?

- Knox has admitted to using illicit narcotics (to the point of memory loss on the night of the murder)

Marijuana is not a narcotic. It doesn't even appear to be illicit in Italy, since none of the many people who have admitted to using it have been charged with drug offenses.

- Knox taunted a Jewish coworker about "her people" (of German ancestry) "killing his people" (the story has never been retracted)

So? Do you think there is anyone on these pages who has never told or laughed at an ethnic joke? Are we all murderers? Are you a murderer because you think Indian medical journals are inferior to Western ones?

- Knox posted the 'stranger on a train incident' where her family could see it (to their dismay/ disgust)

Cite?

3) per the Court's judgment: Amanda knew Rudy, and Rudy knew Amanda

- Looking at Knox's 6 weeks in Perugia, she knew Rudy longer than she knew Raffaele (just 8 days or so)

She had met Rudy before she met Raffaele; she did not know Rudy as a friend.

- Rudy let everyone in the cottage know he was interested in Amanda/ he was infatuated

Cite?

- Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions

Cite?

- Indeed, ab initio Amanda began downplaying these facts using measures that included an expensive PR campaign that represented to CBS News that she'd "never laid eyes on Rudy"

Did Amanda direct this PR campaign from her prison cell, where she is allowed one phone call a week and no internet access?

- to dismiss Rudy as nothing more than a "crook" elides the fact that he moved in the same Perugian milieu as Knox did: he was a friend/ basketball pal of the boys that shared the downstairs of Knox's cottage; a repeat visitor to the cottage; and a regular in the basketball court next to the cottage

Since I haven't dismissed Rudy as nothing more than a crook, someone else can respond to this one.

 

[treehorn]

I'm 99.9...9% sure that the Massei narrative and the currently popular pro-guilt attempts at a narrative are pure garbage...

I'm at least 99% sure that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher, and I don't think I can possibly be mistaken that this is the rational view to take.

You didn't see or hear, firsthand, a single witness face cross-examination.

You haven't got complete transcripts or translations of those transcripts.

You haven't seen the autopsy video.

You haven't seen even a small fraction of total number of exhibits, photos, statements, reports and other documents entered into evidence.

And, given those severe limitations, you feel it's "rational" to assign THAT level of certainty?

 

[Fine]

Patent Pending

Dancme,

The first reports of obtaining DNA from fingerprint came out circa 1997-1998. Odeed, Kermit, and I discussed this issue in the first thread. I gave some citations in comment 14636 last May 27th.

Here's another source on DNA in fingerprints:

"A new DNA extraction technique has been developed, and 70 % of
fingerprint samples have been successfully amplified by this technique. Conclusions: Fingerprints
can be used as a source of DNA." Here

Personally, I'm skeptical of this claim. First, the fingerprint samples were taken under controlled laboratory conditions. Second, the discoverer of this technique, Maria Viaznikova---or the institution she was working for, The University of Ottawa--- has a proprietary interest in the success of this technique, supposedly having a patent for this procedure, according to the linked article provided by Dancme. But searching the U.S. Patent Office, reveals there is no such patent with The University of Ottawa as assignee and Maria Viaznikova as inventor. Perhaps the application for patent was denied???

///

 

[Mary_H]

This is a "given" is it?

Where's YOUR "citation" for this gem?

Have you overlooked the use of the word "seems," indicating this is my opinion?

 

[loverofzion]

I looked into this at one time. It's something of a red herring. The comment may be found in the trial transcript. It derives from a transcription of a covertly recorded conversation between Amanda and her mother at the prison. They were discussing the DNA findings on the knife found at Raf's apartment. "There" does refer to that apartment. Forget now where I got that, but it's out there somewhere.

Unconvincing.

 

[loverofzion]

I eagerly await your citations for both claims.



The article you are referring to here was written by Charles Mudede, a Seattle resident who works at The Stranger, a Seattle newspaper. He spoke to the Jewish co-worker in a Seattle cafe a couple of months after the murder:



It is curious, given what "Matthew" says about the number of reporters seeking information about Amanda, that none were able to come up with anything negative, until along came Mudede. One wonders whether, while chatting up his old friend "Matthew" in the cafe, Mudede revealed that he was there to research an article about Amanda and that the words "Matthew" shared (as he leaned confidentially toward Mudede) were going to appear in print.

The guy stands by his story and it appears finally none in the innocent camp can mitigate the effects of am amanda's racist, anti Semitic comments.

Just one more proof of her nasty, lying character.

 

[loverofzion]

I eagerly await your citations for both claims.



The article you are referring to here was written by Charles Mudede, a Seattle resident who works at The Stranger, a Seattle newspaper. He spoke to the Jewish co-worker in a Seattle cafe a couple of months after the murder:



It is curious, given what "Matthew" says about the number of reporters seeking information about Amanda, that none were able to come up with anything negative, until along came Mudede. One wonders whether, while chatting up his old friend "Matthew" in the cafe, Mudede revealed that he was there to research an article about Amanda and that the words "Matthew" shared (as he leaned confidentially toward Mudede) were going to appear in print.

The guy stands by his story and it appears finally none in the innocent camp can mitigate the effects of amanda's racist, anti Semitic comments.

Just one more proof of her nasty, lying character.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This a perfect example of your penchant for over-simplification in defiance of both rationality and common sense:

1) Sollecito has, in point of fact, a documented, pre-homicide history of "antisocial behavior" per the Court's judgment (starting at page 61):

- Police Station Commander testified that Sollecito was, in 2003, found in possession of 2.67 grams of an illicit narcotic

- Sollecito had history of drug abuse including the use of cocaine and LSD (per Mignini's closing argument)

- tutors at Sollecito's college instituted "an active monitoring" on the "taciturn, shy, introverted" loner because of his interest in "hard-core" animal porn

- Sollcito, despite pleadings from his own father, insisted on collecting and wearing flick knives

I think maybe you need to take a few deep breaths and go easy on the bolding, underlining, crazy font sizes and other typical signs of life on the lunatic fringe. At this rate soon you'll be posting in all caps with no punctuation at all and that would be even more painful on the eyes.

If you think any of these things are evidence that a person is a typical or even likely sex killer then you should provide some evidence. Rather than keep everyone in suspense I'll just let the cat out of the bag now and say that you don't have any such evidence, you aren't going to be able to find any such evidence and your whole screed is just recycled PMF talking point matter.

It's also a displacement tactic, since the bottom line is not that Raffaele wasn't the type to commit a sex murder (although he wasn't) it's that he couldn't have been present at the time the murder occurred.

2) Knox, too, has a documented, pre-homicide history of "antisocial behavior":

- Municipal Court of Seattle "finding" that Knox "committed" the civil infraction/ quasi-criminal "offense" of "residential deisturbance" in connection with a rock-throwing incident/ complaints from frightened neighbors

- Knox has admitted to using illicit narcotics (to the point of memory loss on the night of the murder)

- Knox taunted a Jewish coworker about "her people" (of German ancestry) "killing his people" (the story has never been retracted)

- Knox posted the 'stranger on a train incident' where her family could see it (to their dismay/ disgust)

If you think any of these things are evidence that a person is a typical or even likely sex killer then you should provide some evidence. Rather than keep everyone in suspense I'll just let the cat out of the bag now and say that you don't have any such evidence, you aren't going to be able to find any such evidence and your whole screed is just recycled PMF talking point matter.

It's also a displacement tactic, since the bottom line is not that Amanda wasn't the type to commit a sex murder (although she wasn't) it's that he couldn't have been present at the time the murder occurred.

3) per the Court's judgment: Amanda knew Rudy, and Rudy knew Amanda

- Looking at Knox's 6 weeks in Perugia, she knew Rudy longer than she knew Raffaele (just 8 days or so)

- Rudy let everyone in the cottage know he was interested in Amanda/ he was infatuated

- Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions

- Indeed, ab initio Amanda began downplaying these facts using measures that included an expensive PR campaign that represented to CBS News that she'd "never laid eyes on Rudy"

- to dismiss Rudy as nothing more than a "crook" elides the fact that he moved in the same Perugian milieu as Knox did: he was a friend/ basketball pal of the boys that shared the downstairs of Knox's cottage; a repeat visitor to the cottage; and a regular in the basketball court next to the cottage

You have already been challenged for citations to support these claims. I do not expect to see that challenge met. I don't expect you to actually do any actual research or make any real effort to make sure that the things you post here as fact have any resemblance to the truth.

I just want to flag for readers that claims like "Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions" are frequently made by the more deranged guilters and never backed up, because as far as anyone can tell they are lies.

PS That some DNA labs, somewhere in the world, at some point in time, have made errors is in no way proof that this particular DNA lab made an error in this particular case.

You seem to be struggling terribly with a very simple concept.

A says "Lab B found X. Therefore X is true".

B says "Labs sometimes make mistakes. Therefore it is possible that X is not true".

A says "That some DNA labs, somewhere in the world, at some point in time, have made errors is in no way proof that this particular DNA lab made an error in this particular case!!!!!!!!!!".

What's A's mistake? A is arguing against a position that nobody ever took. In technical terms this is called arguing with a straw man.

If A was rational then A would now enter into a discussion of the facts surrounding the finding of X to be true, to determine whether a rational person should or should not believe X to be true based on the available evidence.

PPS Why are you continuing to struggle with the notion that the correct application of the RD standard to the totality of the evidence is nothing more than a question of statistics and probability theory? Shall we dispense with courts and juries and replace them with statisticians?

Should we dispense with statisticians, logicians, scientists, computer engineers and the whole apparatus of rational inquiry and replace them with twelve random yahoos off the street?

Do you think that this would get us to more reliable information about what exactly a given pattern of ones and zeroes on a hard drive means, or a particular state of a corpse's bowels means, or whether a given argument is rigorous or fatuous?

There's a reason why you get a paper into Nature by having it reviewed by top scientists in the field, not by having it reviewed by an assortment of laypeople from Perugia, or by having someone post unsourced and factually false rants about it with random bolding to internet discussion boards.

 

[treehorn]

I don't ignore citations; you ignore posts....

Mary, I'm not going to play your game much longer. It's boring. Everyone here is familiar with the fact pattern.

All of these citations have been provided to you by myself and others on this board on many, many occasions.

Look 'em up again for yourself and do your level best to show I've made a misrepresentation.

In the event your memory is failing you, I'll even give you some hints, but I'll never do this again:

Re-read the Court's judgment (that will cover about 75% of the facts above); Andre Vogt's report of the closing arguments (for LSD & cocaine); the Municipal Court of Seattle's public records webpage (just enter Knox's name where it asks for the name of the "Defendant") for Knox's CONVICTION; try any number of papers for the 'stranger on the train' (still un-retracted in the Guardian, for eg.), and C. Mudede's piece for the anti-Semitic remarks (again, un-retracted).

PS Knox was, in point of fact, "CONVICTED" pursuant to her violation of the the Seattle Municipal Code. This term is not limited to violations of a criminal code - It is routinely used in the context of quasi-criminal/regulatory offenses of the kind Knox committed. It's obvious that you've never set foot in the hallowed halls of a decent law school.

PPS The phrase "antisocial behavior" is, obviously, taken from the post of the person I was addressing (Kevin_Lowe). That you would attempt to cast it as a misrepresentation of the Court's judgment is telling.

PPPS I'm using the term "narcotic" in its legal rather than medical sense.

 

[komponisto]

You didn't see or hear, firsthand, a single witness face cross-examination.

You haven't got complete transcripts or translations of those transcripts.

You haven't seen the autopsy video.

You haven't seen even a small fraction of total number of exhibits, photos, statements, reports and other documents entered into evidence.

So you think there's important information not in the motivation document, do you?

In which case, why didn't Massei and Cristiani see fit to mention it?

Do you have access to this mysterious treasure-trove of hidden evidence of guilt that somehow didn't make it to the internet?

And, given those severe limitations, you feel it's "rational" to assign THAT level of certainty?

Those "limitations" are insignificant. If there were strong evidence of guilt, we would have heard about it.

Low prior probability of guilt + not much evidence of guilt = low posterior probability of guilt. You can be offended at the "certainty" of the latter quantity all you like; it doesn't change the math.

 

[treehorn]

So you think there's important information not in the motivation document, do you?

The translation of the Court's ratio is filled to the brim with references to transcripts, photos, reports, statements, etc. that none of us are privy to.

This fact escaped your attention?

Low prior probability of guilt + not much evidence of guilt = low posterior probability of guilt.

Nice formula.

I wonder why our Yale Law-educated Crim Prof never mentioned it to us...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Mary, I'm not going to play your game much longer. It's boring. Everyone here is familiar with the fact pattern.

All of these citations have been provided to you by myself and others on this board on many, many occasions.

Look 'em up again for yourself and do your level best to show I've made a misrepresentation.

In the event your memory is failing you, I'll even give you some hints, but I'll never do this again:

Re-read the Court's judgment (that will cover about 75% of the facts above); Andre Vogt's report of the closing arguments (for LSD & cocaine); the Municipal Court of Seattle's public records webpage (just enter Knox's name where it asks for the name of the "Defendant") for Knox's CONVICTION; try any number of papers for the 'stranger on the train' (still un-retracted in the Guardian, for eg.), and C. Mudede's piece for the anti-Semitic remarks (again, un-retracted).

Why am I not surprised that when challenged to support the barrage of bolded allegations you posted you present vague citations for some of them, absolutely no support at all for the most contentious of them (such as the accusation that "Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions"), and then declare that you will never again stoop to providing citations?

On the JREF forums if you do not plan to ever again provide citations for your claims, you can look forward to a future of never being taken seriously when you make claims. It's that simple. Your word alone was never any good here, and if it had been you would have just blown it with "Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions".

PS Knox was, in point of fact, "CONVICTED" pursuant to her violation of the the Seattle Municipal Code. This term is not limited to violations of a criminal code - It is routinely used in the context of quasi-criminal/regulatory offenses of the kind Knox committed. It's obvious that you've never set foot in the hallowed halls of a decent law school.

PPS The phrase "antisocial behavior" is, obviously, taken from the post of the person I was addressing (Kevin_Lowe). That you would attempt to cast it as a misrepresentation of the Court's judgment is telling.

PPPS I'm using the term "narcotic" in its legal rather than medical sense.

That's nice.

So when are you going to post a coherent theory of the crime that conforms with the facts as we now know them?

Don't you think it's a bit of a problem for you that you have absolutely no idea how this crime could possibly have occurred, if Amanda and Raffaele were involved?

You can talk vaguely about "corroboration" all you like but corroboration has to corroborate some theory or other, and that theory has to be physically possible and preferably not be ridiculously implausible if you want anyone to believe it. After all I can find "corroboration" for the idea that aliens are mutilating cattle, but that doesn't get me anywhere if the theory I am trying to corroborate is hugely silly now does it?

 

[Mary_H]

It's also a displacement tactic, since the bottom line is not that Raffaele wasn't the type to commit a sex murder (although he wasn't) it's that he couldn't have been present at the time the murder occurred......

.......It's also a displacement tactic, since the bottom line is not that Amanda wasn't the type to commit a sex murder (although she wasn't) it's that he couldn't have been present at the time the murder occurred.

Very nice argument, Kevin, as was the rest of your post.

 

[Mary_H]

The guy stands by his story and it appears finally none in the innocent camp can mitigate the effects of amanda's racist, anti Semitic comments.

Just one more proof of her nasty, lying character.

What do you think the effects have been of Amanda's racist, anti-Semitic comment, loverofzion? Do you think anyone has really taken it seriously? If so, what are their feelings about it, apart from how it reflects on Amanda's character? What do they think it means?

 

[treehorn]

If you think any of these things are evidence that a person is a typical or even likely sex killer then you should provide some evidence. Rather than keep everyone in suspense I'll just let the cat out of the bag now and say that you don't have any such evidence, you aren't going to be able to find any such evidence and your whole screed is just recycled PMF talking point matter.

It's also a displacement tactic, since the bottom line is not that Raffaele wasn't the type to commit a sex murder (although he wasn't) it's that he couldn't have been present at the time the murder occurred.

I'm not trying "displace" anything - I'm making a good faith effort to discuss the case with you.

I was not trying to argue that any of the behavior of RS or AK amounted to a clear indicator that, before Nov. 1, 2007, either one was clearly "the type to commit a sex murder."

I was addressing, in a very specific way, your assertion that neither accused had a history of "antisocial behavior."

By any objective measure, that's not accurate.

Before the murder, both accused engaged in conduct that literally violated moral, municipal and/or criminal codes.

Just how narrow is your definition of "antisocial behavior"?

 

[treehorn]

I just want to flag for readers that claims like "Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions" are frequently made by the more deranged guilters and never backed up, because as far as anyone can tell they are lies.

You mean you have not read the Court's judgment in respect of the relationship between Amanda and Rudy?!

You've declared the ratio to be "garbage" but you need the page numbers?!

Are you literally under the impression that Amanda and Rudy did not socialize together before the murder?!

How is your willful blindness to this evidence "rational"?



PS I never pegged you for the sort to resort to Mary's silly 'citation game'. I'm disappointed.

 

[colonelhall]

Has anybody noticed that whenever anything harmful to Knox's image is claimed, the likes of Kev and Mary just yell "cite!" yet any claim supporting her innocence, that is just grabbed out of thin air by secret agent Kenneth Moore is just accepted as fact?

 

[TomM43]

Originally Posted by loverofzion View Post
Yes amanda knew exactly how the body had been positioned at death, and she also knew that she "*********** bled to death", among other facts not yet publicized.She bragged in the presence of her flatmates that she had found the body first.




______________________

The cops never tried to conceal the fact that Meredith's throat had been cut. The cops revealed that information to the press the day Meredith's body was found.

A police source said: "This was a particularly nasty murder and the victim was found with a deep cut to her throat."

See Here

///

That's a bit of a leap. One could safely say that one person in the police department revealed it, but it goes against typical procedure to suggest that those investigating this crime were, at the scene, forthcoming to all the witnesses and circle of friends, which frequently includes the perpetrator, and would disclose details about the manner of death.

Also, since the "What do you think, she ******* bled to death." was said on the afternoon of November 2, she hadn't read it in a UK tabloid that would not published until the following day.

There were a couple of instances of "how could she know that if she were not there during the crime?" in her trial testimony. In her testimony about why did she tell Meredith's English friends that Meredith was killed in the closet, after lengthy persistence of Mignini and the court to have her answer a simple question she finally conceded that her only source of information on the throat-cutting was RS. And the location of these conversations was a car--I assume with Luca and Paola, since they were the ones that gave AK and RS a ride to the Questura and were the recipients of RS' interrogation about what they had told the police, and what they saw at the scene.

I am not aware of any source of information that claims that any of the English friends, or the Italian roommates or their boyfriends--much less RS or AK--were told by the ILE that Meredith's throat had been cut.

 

[komponisto]

Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together on several occasions

If anyone really wants to know, this claim most likely derives from the following passage of the Massei report (p. 27 of the original, translation mine):

All of them [the young men who lived on the lower floor of Via Della Pergola 7] also smoked joints together. He [Stefano Bonassi, one of the residents of the lower floor] did not recall whether Meredith was present for this; Amanda, Filomena, and Laura Mezzetti, however, were.

Note that Rudy is not specifically included here (!), although since he was a regular visitor to the lower floor we can infer that he and Amanda MAY possibly at some point have been in the same room, along with a number of other people, while spinelli were being made use of.

Treehorn's claim is thus a highly misleading stretch of the record. (Surprise, surprise.)

 

[Mary_H]

Has anybody noticed that whenever anything harmful to Knox's image is claimed, the likes of Kev and Mary just yell "cite!" yet any claim supporting her innocence, that is just grabbed out of thin air by secret agent Kenneth Moore is just accepted as fact?

Anyone is welcome to request a citation at any time, colonelhall. One way to avoid being asked for a citation is to provide one when making a claim, unless the claim is for something that has been adequately cited in the past or is one that is based on logic and not on the facts of the case.

I agree, there are limitations to citations. We can't quote newspaper articles and experts as if what they have to say is infallible. If we disagree, we can use other sources and logic to try to invalidate their claims.

However, when posters such as treehorn and loverofzion repeatedly make claims without citations, are shown to be mistaken and then days later bring up the same exact claims, again without citations, it is as Kevin said, "On the JREF forums if you do not plan to ever again provide citations for your claims, you can look forward to a future of never being taken seriously when you make claims. It's that simple."

This is not just a board for airing personal opinions. Most of the posters here work much harder than that.