Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quadraginta]

As I'm sure you're aware by now, this "massive blunder" turns out to be due to a mistranslation in the version of the Massei report you were working from. My recollection of the facts was correct, but your error was eminently forgivable seeing as your translation was in error.

<snip>

Cool.

Even more "forgiveness" for something which by your own analysis was due to no fault of theirs.

It must be the holiday season that's got you bestowing absolution with such reckless abandon.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There is a delicious irony here. You concede that your error results from your jumping to conclusions, and magnanimously "forgive" him for your own mistaken assumptions.

Your generosity knows no bounds.

I think it's a pity that you, tsig and lionking aren't sharing more of your no-doubt-important thoughts about this case with us. While it's no doubt a valuable contribution to hover over the thread looking for minor errors to snipe at or excuses to attack me personally, you guys could give so much more. For example, you could give a coherent explanation of your reasons for thinking Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty.

Komponisto asked an excellent question earlier which seems to have slipped past you. I reproduce it here not only for you, but also for tsig and lionking to help you all participate a little more fruitfully:

- For any who believe that Knox and Sollecito are guilty: why? I mean this in a very specific sense: what is your ranking of the various pieces of evidence against them, in order from strongest to weakest? How much does each item move your opinion? What is the "tipping point", i.e. the smallest subset of evidence that nudges your probability of guilt over 50%? (Subset need not be unique, of course -- I'd just like an example of a minimal set of evidence that causes you to say "Okay, now that I know this, I think it's more likely than not that they were involved".)

I would very much like to see your answer(s) to this important question.

 

[Malkmus]

Regarding your specific example, I have actually addressed that in response to a similar post by LJ. Maybe you missed that, but it doesn't really matter, because ...

My "overall point" is the point. Taken in detail and in isolation, feasible (if not plausible) exculpatory accounts can be fabricated hypothesized for most of the evidence amassed against Anthony. Once we toss in the possibility likelihood of malfeasance, conspiracy, and incompetence on the part of LE and the prosecutors the rest can be rationalized away explained.

Don't forget, the threshhold is not whether we are convinced of her actual innocence, but rather whether "reasonable doubt" can be created demonstrated.

Whether or not you can unearth a detail or two which are not perfectly analogous between both cases is quite irrelevant to the point I was making.

Ah, yes, I did miss it. You're referring to this?

No, that's not it. The poor girl was under duress. The kidnapper had threatened to harm her daughter if she went to the cops. She spent that month vigorously trying to find them, but she had to do it without telling anyone.

The parties she went to during that period were, of course, merely to maintain a facade of normalcy.

The main problem I see with comparing that to what you would deem an "excuse" by someone arguing innocence for Amanda and Raf is that it entails fabricating an entire scenario out of thin air, right? Or has Casey's defense actually argued this? Wasn't the babysitter found to be a lie, and therefore anyone arguing her innocence couldn't go by your excuse? As far as I know there are no fabricated scenarios in this case being tossed around to explain anything except those from Massei and those who believe his fabricated scenarios. But perhaps you could point to where someone on the innocent side has argued along these lines.
The forensic evidence is argued against in this case based on what we know of how it was handled and interpreted. The circumstantial evidence is argued against based either on Amanda and Raf's own explanation of said evidence or the defense's reasoning of it - none of which are as outlandish as what you have proposed above. It would help your analogy if you could point out the worst of the circumstantial evidence against against Amanda and Raf and we can see if the innocentisti "excuse" for it is as bad as your example above. I know you're hesitant to "compare" the two cases, but otherwise your analogy remains stillborn.

 

[RWVBWL]

Daniel and Amanda

Today I was reading something that caught my eye.
It concerns a man that Amanda Knox had met and slept with while studying in Perugia, Italy. I believe it has been insinuated that Amanda had met this guy and then bedded him the same night, and then she also had bedded him again after she had started dating her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.
This does, I believe, present Amanda Knox in a bad light.

I wish to help set the story right:
Amanda Knox met Daniel de Luna, who was studyig in Rome at the time, back in September of 2007 when he came to stay with his childhood friend Stefano Bonassi, one of the boyz living downstairs. Stefano is the person who has said that Rudy Guede visited the guys apartment 2 times.

Daniel also met all of the girls upstairs on that visit except for Meredith, whom was away in London. I wonder if Amanda had thought he was cute?

A month later, on October 20, 2007, Daniel came back to stay with Stefano and the boyz.
Deciding to go out clubbing they headed over to the Red Zone. Meredith, her English friend Amy and Amanda joined Giacomo, Daniel, Stefano and his girfriend, and other students for a fun night out. Giacomo danced with Meredith and Daniel danced with Amanda, having fun until 5:30 in the morning. Afterwards, Daniel slept with Amanda and so he was to be the only man who had ever made love with Amanda in her bedroom...

She did not meet him for the 1st time and then bed him, as I have been led to believe.
Nor did she cheat on her new boyfriend Raffaele.
Some may have a problem with Amanda sleeping with 2 guys in 1 month,
well c'est la vie...
RWVBWL

PS-I also learned that the girlz had only met Rudy Guede in mid-October.
As he only came over to the boyz apartment 2 times, this per Stefano Bonassi's recollection, I highly doubt that he was smoking out with Amanda Knox often. Especially since she met her new boyfriend soon thereafter.

Ref: "Murder in Italy" author: C. Dempsey, pages 115+116

 

[loverofzion]

Today I was reading something that caught my eye.
It concerns a man that Amanda Knox had met and slept with while studying in Perugia, Italy. I believe it has been insinuated that Amanda had met this guy and then bedded him the same night, and then she also had bedded him again after she had started dating her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.
This does, I believe, present Amanda Knox in a bad light.

I wish to help set the story right:
Amanda Knox met Daniel de Luna, who was studyig in Rome at the time, back in September of 2007 when he came to stay with his childhood friend Stefano Bonassi, one of the boyz living downstairs. Stefano is the person who has said that Rudy Guede visited the guys apartment 2 times.

Daniel also met all of the girls upstairs on that visit except for Meredith, whom was away in London. I wonder if Amanda had thought he was cute?

A month later, on October 20, 2007, Daniel came back to stay with Stefano and the boyz.
Deciding to go out clubbing they headed over to the Red Zone. Meredith, her English friend Amy and Amanda joined Giacomo, Daniel, Stefano and his girfriend, and other students for a fun night out. Giacomo danced with Meredith and Daniel danced with Amanda, having fun until 5:30 in the morning. Afterwards, Daniel slept with Amanda and so he was to be the only man who had ever made love with Amanda in her bedroom...

She did not meet him for the 1st time and then bed him, as I have been led to believe.
Nor did she cheat on her new boyfriend Raffaele.
Some may have a problem with Amanda sleeping with 2 guys in 1 month,
well c'est la vie...
RWVBWL

PS-I also learned that the girls had only met Rudy Guede in mid-October.
As he only came over to the boyz apartment 2 times, this per Stefano Bonassi's recollection, I highly doubt that he was smoking out with Amanda Knox often. Especially since she met her new boyfriend soon thereafter.

Ref: "Murder in Italy" author: C. dmpsey, pages 115+116

So, she bedded him the second time she met him.
Not a big deal you are right.

No one ever claimed Rudy was "smoking out" with amanda; only that they had shared a joint together at least once and had met on several occasions.
they were not strangers.

 

[loverofzion]

Where have all the guilters gone, long time passin'?
Where have all the guilters gone, long time ago....?

Have you not noticed all the unanswered questions, quadraginta? Have you not noticed how some flee from that last question they could not find an answer to, and never return?

Must be us, huh? It's certainly not them. "Everybody on JREF is so mean -- I'm not going to play with them anymore!"

We're still here.

 

[loverofzion]

Amanda was questioned for three days before the police decided to change her story to one they liked better.



In the little teeny tiny trip I took to Google to find out more about the case, I saw plenty of evidence that her mother did suspect her, and later changed her story after she realized she might have inculpated Casey (probably on lawyers' advice). Casey's parents are in a very different position from Amanda's, who have never doubted her for one minute.

I am not going to argue that we can believe everything we read in the papers. Casey may very well be innocent, just as Amanda is. There are probably people in Florida who are blogging away for Casey as we write.

Well they have never doubted her publicly.

 

[loverofzion]

Hi all,
LoverofZion had posted that (s)he believes that Amanda Knox was in the apartment with her hands covering her ears as an African male sexually assaulted Meredith Kercher and then she heard Meredith's screams.

Why wouldn't Amanda have just run out of the apartment?

Hearing a blood curdling scream that even Nara Capezzali heard thru double paned windows would have been an incredibly frightening experience.
If she had went into the bedroom the shock of seeing all that blood would have been revolting.

If I recall, afterwards all Rudy Guede could see, when he closed his eyes, was red, and he had to get away.
But Amanda Knox stayed?

No, she too ultimately left.

The real question should be: why didn't she call for help, not why didn't she split.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So, she bedded him the second time she met him.
Not a big deal you are right.

No one ever claimed Rudy was "smoking out" with amanda;

While I don't hold you responsible for what Treehorn posts, it has to be said that Treehorn did indeed make this claim. He claimed, and never retracted the claim, that Rudy and Amanda smoked dope together several times.

Now it's possible that he relied entirely on his own research and came to this erroneous belief without it being told to him by others, but I think this is less likely than the alternative hypothesis that he got it from PMF, TMJK or some other less intellectually hygienic source. If so then he won't have been the first to run this line.

only that they had shared a joint together at least once and had met on several occasions.
they were not strangers.

Cite that they had shared a joint together at least once?

Cite that they had met on several occasions?

All I've seen is a witness statement to the effect that they spoke at one party where marijuana was being used. That is not at all the same thing.

Moreover that claim was not corroborated by the boys who actually lived in the house below Amanda's, and you would think that this was something they would have been questioned about. The claim came from a visitor to the house who was a friend of Rudy's. Hence I'm inclined to further lower the probability that this claim was correct in the first place. It might be true but I don't place a >50% level of confidence in it.

 

[Kaosium]

No, she too ultimately left.

The real question should be: why didn't she call for help, not why didn't she split.

Whereon she went home, snuggled up with her boyfriend, went back to take a shower, then went and got said boyfriend all alarmed. They called the police and she was just another freaked-out girl at the scene of a murder in her home.

That's what all the guilty ones do.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi all,
LoverofZion had posted that (s)he believes that Amanda Knox was in the apartment with her hands covering her ears as an African male sexually assaulted Meredith Kercher and then she heard Meredith's screams.

Why wouldn't Amanda have just run out of the apartment?

Hearing a blood curdling scream that even Nara Capezzali heard thru double paned windows would have been an incredibly frightening experience.
If she had went into the bedroom the shock of seeing all that blood would have been revolting.

If I recall, afterwards all Rudy Guede could see, when he closed his eyes, was red, and he had to get away.
But Amanda Knox stayed?

No, she too ultimately left.
The real question should be: why didn't she call for help, not why didn't she split.

Hi LoverofZion,
As a guy who has had to sit thru a civil trial for rape,
I found it was the minute details that convinced a jury of 8 women and 4 men of my innocence.

With this in mind, would you please expound upon your theory?

As a photographer, I have had the priviledge of photographing a few couples in the act of love making,
and I have also been privileged to watch a woman friend and 3 male friends take turns making love...

For some reason, I just can not picture an African male sexually assaulting Meredith Kercher and then Amanda knox covering her ears as Meredith screamed. I assume that in your theory you mean she did so when this person stabbed her in the throat?

I await your reply, in non-graphic detail.
Especially as you are a member of the pro-guilt community...
Peace, RWVBWL

PS-LoverofZion,
I have met a few cool Israeli surfers over the years who grew up surfing in Haifa and Tel-Aviv.
One guy, Mickey Kook, absolutely rips! If only the Palestinians surfed too, maybe there would be a lil' more comraderie between the younger, beligerant males of both sides...

Didn't I read of an Indian and a Pakistani on the same team compete in the US Open recently?

Sure I did, and who would ever thought that could happen?
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100910/jsp/frontpage/story_12919860.jsp

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The PMF thread is a hoot at the moment. They have this obsession with mops over there, and with somehow trying to find a way to tie Amanda and Raffaele mopping up a leak at Raffaele's house with a clean-up of the crime scene.

Never mind that there is absolutely none of the smearing or luminol-reacting that you would expect either from mopping with bleach or mopping without bleach... that just proves that Amanda Knox is a mop-master so skilled that she leaves no trace.

So they've compiled every photo ever taken that shows a mop, every statement ever made about a mop, tried to catalogue every known mop by brand and characteristics and track their movements, assumed that every statement from Amanda or Raffaele about mops was a deliberate lie to throw police off the scent and tried to work backwards from that assumption, and racked their brains to come up with any remotely coherent theory of how the mop(s) were involved in the murder...

...to no sensible result whatsoever. Which of course IS THE ANSWER! As Michael astutely concluded, the fact that they can't jam the mop into any theory of the crime whatsoever (even by the hilariously loose "standards" of that board for coherency) leads one to conclude that Amanda and Raffaele must have been playing some elaborate and deliberate shell game with the mops just to confuse investigators! How diabolical! The more you investigate this case the deeper, darker and more convoluted the dastardly plots of Amanda and Raffaele become.

That probably explains the lamp too. I bet they moved it there just to spread confusion, so PMFers would spend years trying to make up some story where it was damning evidence against them, to distract them from the real evidence - the dustpan and shovel! It was in plain sight all along!

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi all,
Before anyone gets on my case,
please note that we are discussing a brutal murder and sexual assault case.
A photographer had to photograph Miss Kercher, just as a cororner had to examine her body.

Being a photographer myself, 1 who has witnessed 4 people in the act of lovemaking, I wonder how LoverofZion pictures the horrible murder and sexual assault that we discuss and how does s(he) believe that it coincides with the evidence left at this murder scene...
RWVBWL

 

[colonelhall]

'Ullo John. With reference to the use of the word "matey" I could go with Captain Birdseye, but I think it is more likely to be Victor Meldrew. Ideal "guilter" material, in my opinion.

As for Knox's relationship with Rudy. Just how big was that downstairs flat? I think that some of us here are getting a bit carried away with the notion of a prty downstairs. In any case, Americans tend to use the word "party" to indicate any fun gathering, no matter how small. You know, like those pictures of her having fun with the guys back home. Looked pretty intimate to me.

I just don't buy the concept of her having a smoke with Rudy downstairs and being able to claim that she didn't really know him.

 

[Draca]

The PMF thread is a hoot at the moment. They have this obsession with mops over there, and with somehow trying to find a way to tie Amanda and Raffaele mopping up a leak at Raffaele's house with a clean-up of the crime scene.

I wish they would answer my own obsession in knowing why the forensic team gift wrapped the mop and took it for a walk into MK's bedroom? Did they present the mop as a gift to someone in the bedroom? Something like - don't ever say I never gave you something? Why did they gift wrap only the stem but not the head of the mop? Why would anyone want a dirty old mop for a gift anyway? Did they bring the mop back to the lab gift wrapped also? These are questions I would like to know.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySCwcZD5Dk&feature=player_embedded

 

[lionking]

I think it's a pity that you, tsig and lionking aren't sharing more of your no-doubt-important thoughts about this case with us.

Terribly sorry. Tell you what, when you take over this forum and run it the way you desire, I'll be sure to respond in the way you require. Until then.......

Really, I'm amused rather than anything else about your emotional investment in this thread. If the appeal is successful, I'll shrug my shoulders. If it isn't, you will be incandescent with rage.

They are my no-doubt-important thoughts.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Check on the statements made by her parents, who ought to be the ones that know her best. Right?

They have attested without exception to her sterling character as an attentive and doting mother who could not possibly be guilty of such a heinous crime.

Why would they make such a claim if it wasn't true?

I think you need to check the statements made by her parents. Casey's mother was the one who reported Caylee missing, but that wasn't why she called. She called because she wanted the police to arrest Caylee for stealing her car and racking up fraudulent charges on her credit cards. Here are the 911 calls:

http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/caylee911orlando.mp3
http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/audio/01CayleeAnthony911.mp3
http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/audio/02CayleeAnthony911.mp3

Casey also stole a checkbook and a credit card from a "friend" and went on a spending spree shortly before she was arrested in connection with Caylee. Virtually everyone who knows her describes her as a pathological liar and a low-life who cannot be trusted and is best avoided.

Add to that the fact that in most cases where a young child is murdered, a parent is responsible. Casey is exactly the type who commits this particular type of homicide - immature, self-centered, unable to handle responsibility.

 

[komponisto]

If the appeal is successful, I'll shrug my shoulders.

How do you reconcile that with what you said here:

If the appeal is upheld I'll be the first to pass on my apologies to Amanda and her family. Until then, she is what she is. A murderer.

?

If a successful appeal would result in mere shoulder-shrugging on your part, shouldn't you be a little less quick to casually and contemptuously condemn Amanda in the meantime?

Do you ordinarily shrug your shoulders upon finding out you need to apologize?

 

[Mary_H]

Regarding your specific example, I have actually addressed that in response to a similar post by LJ. Maybe you missed that, but it doesn't really matter, because ...

My "overall point" is the point. Taken in detail and in isolation, feasible (if not plausible) exculpatory accounts can be fabricated hypothesized for most of the evidence amassed against Anthony. Once we toss in the possibility likelihood of malfeasance, conspiracy, and incompetence on the part of LE and the prosecutors the rest can be rationalized away explained.

Don't forget, the threshhold is not whether we are convinced of her actual innocence, but rather whether "reasonable doubt" can be created demonstrated.

Whether or not you can unearth a detail or two which are not perfectly analogous between both cases is quite irrelevant to the point I was making.

Your premise seems to be that effective arguments for a case can consist primarily of form without content. It's true -- some people (lawyers) are able to build a strong case by offering in detail and in isolation, feasible (if not plausible) exculpatory accounts that are fabricated hypothesized for most of the evidence amassed against a defendant, then tossing in the possibility likelihood of malfeasance, conspiracy, and incompetence on the part of LE and the prosecutors.

We're not doing that, though. Everything we are offering is plausible, is not fabricated and is likely. Bringing up examples from the Casey Anthony case is a way of illustrating that, not of missing your point.

 

[Mary_H]

I think it should be left there with his other wild claims. There is a good quote on this at Ray's place.

Here is his Mignini's theory of the motive:

Quote:
"Amanda has the occasion to get back at that overly serious and moralizing English girl who she felt was too tied to the closed group of her English friends, and who accused her not too subtly of not being orderly or clean, and who criticized her for being too easy with boys," Mignini said.

"Amanda nurtured her hate for Meredith, but that night that hate could explode. For Amanda the moment had come to take revenge on that prissy girl. That is what she must have thought. And in a crescendo of threats and increasing violence, Meredith's ordeal begins."

http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2009/11/closing-arguments-day-1-odd-summation.html

No stereotyping going on there, eh?