Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

....or the one where they use Amanda's "capacious purse" as a reason to suspect that she was carrying around the kitchen knife (on the advice of Raffaele)....

komponisto, what is your take on why the police went looking for a knife at Raffaele's on November 6th, anyway? In Matteini's report on the 9th, she says the flick knife Raffaele was carrying was believed to be the murder weapon. I could understand them looking for an additional murder weapon when the tests came back negative on the flick knife, but why look for one before that?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

You're not really under the impression that "forensic experts" are saintly creatures without "interests" of their own, are you?

Ron Hendry doesn't have anything to gain by taking a stand on this case. Nor does Steve Moore, who lost his job for supporting Amanda. But Judge Micheli had a lot at stake. He would have acquired many potent enemies had he dismissed the charges against Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think it's a reasonable guess, RW. Rudy claimed he had a date with Meredith. I don't believe that, but it's possible he was eager to "get with" her. He might have seen her coming home and figured it was his opportunity to give that a try. He talks his way in when she goes in (to use the bathroom?), then goes in her room hoping she will agree to sex.

I don't think she'd have let him in, and if she did, he wouldn't have broken the window and left a mess in Filomena's room.

The scene in Meredith's room suggests a sudden attack that escalated to murder very quickly. She walked in on an ambush.

 

[komponisto]

komponisto, what is your take on why the police went looking for a knife at Raffaele's on November 6th, anyway? In Matteini's report on the 9th, she says the flick knife Raffaele was carrying was believed to be the murder weapon. I could understand them looking for an additional murder weapon when the tests came back negative on the flick knife, but why look for one before that?

I can't say. My top two guesses:

(1) Not everyone among the investigators knew or agreed about the flick knife as the supposed murder weapon.
(2) They weren't necessarily looking for a knife, but for any evidence of Sollecito's involvement they could find, and when Finzi opened the drawer, "inspiration" struck.

 

[moodstream]

Now that Kevin and John have been outed as not having read the Court's judgment with even minimal care, I suppose it comes as no surprise that someone who admits to 'not being a big reader' is in the same boat.

The reason Sollecito washed the knife, rather than disposing of it, is discussed by the Court here:

English translation, Page 375, last paragraph.

It is not 'rational' to dismiss the Court's reasoning as 'garbage' without first bothering to read it.

All of the posts about assigning probabilities got me to wondering:

For any given set of randomly selected pages, what is the probability of being correct that the Court's reasoning is garbage without first having bothered to read it?

 

[komponisto]

All of the posts about assigning probabilities got me to wondering:

For any given set of randomly selected pages, what is the probability of being correct that [a] Court's reasoning is garbage without first having bothered to read it?

Higher than I might perhaps have thought before reading this court's reasoning.

 

[samba]

So we're chaining together a whole bunch of suppositions, none of which make any sense or even rise to the level of being more likely than not... where is the good evidence that's going to make a rational person buy this chain of absurdities?

It's incredibly telling that no pro-guilt poster whatsoever will even try to answer this question. They have no coherent theory of the crime, and they don't even have any coherent idea what evidence convinces them of Knox and Sollecito's guilt!

Great post. If I were a juror, I might give all of these absurdities a second look if the prosecution had presented a solid motive. In trying to solve almost any murder case, I think motive is king. I can't get by the suppositions and absurdities when the murder itself doesn't make any sense.

 

[moodstream]

Not at all. Washing with water and friction you could remove all the organic components and diminish the Fe to the point that it's indistinguishable from the ferrous content of the blade. All that scouring might in fact be what forced particulate (not 4 random cells, but a tiny piece of tissue; made up of 4 or more cells) matter into a deformity on the blade's surface.

Does that help?

Seriously? Blood isn't that easy to wash off. It sticks. It would stick in every deformity on the blades surface. It would get in the smallest crack on the handle of the blade and would be unable to wash out without the use of chemicals that would destroy dna. There is a reason they take knives apart to check for blood. Though it seems this is one thing not done in the knox/sollecito case.

You raise a very good point there Chris. What's stickier - blood or organic matter? I am going with blood.

Bucket of tea, you draw a nice image of the 'particulate (not 4 random cells, but a tiny piece of tissue; made up of 4 or more cells) matter forced into a deformity on the blade's surface.'

I don't think 'stuck' is a concept that works for 4 cells. Any handling of the blade would dislodge them, and water molecules, much smaller than the cells, would pour into any crack that could hold the cell and flood it out.

 

[samba]

For Judge Massei's logic about the knife's distinguishing characteristics to be valid, there would have to have been some potential for Raffaele's landlord inspecting the apartment and saying, "Now, where is that knife -- the shiny and clean one that lies on top of the others? I see bigger knives and smaller knives, but I don't see that one. Boy, that Raffaele Sollecito has some serious explaining to do."

I can't fathom how Massei (or anyone else) could possibly believe that the "landlord noticing a missing knife" concern would trump having the murder weapon in your possession. C'mon....from Murder 101 (which we've all taken by growing up with TV crime shows), you get rid of the murder weapon!! Any flimsy excuse you would give to the landlord (if he really did notice) is far safer than having the weapon available for forensic analysis.

It's reasoning like this that really convinced me of innocence.

 

[moodstream]

I used to think the "Friends of Amanda" group had something with that point (of all the knives in the drawer, they just happened to pick the 'magic' one).

Then I saw the photo:

A great big, bad** butcher knife lying across the top of a tray that held the usual assortment of small table knives, spoons, and forks.

If you were a police officer investigating Sollecito's kitchen in the wake of a homicide-by-knife, you'd have to be a FOOL not to select that big, bad shiny knife for testing: It SCREAMED out for it.

Actually, if the police were given instructions about what kind of knife to look for, they would not have selected the kitchen knife. As you point out, it's a big knife. So big that if it were used to murder someone by stabbing them in the neck, the knife would go right through and out the other side. Any attack with force using that knife would produce a very different looking wound.

This fact had a very profound influence on the outcome of the trial. Because Knox stabbed the victim with the knife, and the knife cut only 8cm deep, it had to be concluded that Knox did not intend to kill Meredith when Knox stabbed her. The court concluded that Knox was merely trying to control or intimidate Kercher but with reckless disregard for the life threatening possible consequences.

The police could not have known that when they went looking for the murder weapon though. Hence, you would not think they would be interested in a knife that big, a knife almost certain not to have been used in the crime.

 

[TomM43]

RoseMontague,

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs."

Suppose that my pension/401k/whatever advisor says that he thinks I should put my retirement money into investment X and there is only a slight chance that it will go bust. I would want to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that I will not lose all my retirement money. That is how I like to think about the meaning of the phrase reasonable doubt.

Well, in real life,most people use the preponderance standard (more probably than not) in making investment decisions. And when that doesn't work out (and sometime before), they use the hoping against hope standard.

 

[Dan O.]

I don't think 'stuck' is a concept that works for 4 cells. Any handling of the blade would dislodge them, and water molecules, much smaller than the cells, would pour into any crack that could hold the cell and flood it out.

Maybe they were some kind of magic cells that stick to the knife while being scrubbed vigorously with copeious amounts of water that washes away all the blood but then just fall out on the swab when the knife is tested.

 

[Dan O.]

Well, in real life,most people use the preponderance standard (more probably than not) in making investment decisions. And when that doesn't work out (and sometime before), they use the hoping against hope standard.

When talking about the analytical calculations of "most people" in real life, one need only to look at lottery ticket sales to realize that they don't.

 

[Mary_H]

Actually, if the police were given instructions about what kind of knife to look for, they would not have selected the kitchen knife. As you point out, it's a big knife. So big that if it were used to murder someone by stabbing them in the neck, the knife would go right through and out the other side. Any attack with force using that knife would produce a very different looking wound.

This fact had a very profound influence on the outcome of the trial. Because Knox stabbed the victim with the knife, and the knife cut only 8cm deep, it had to be concluded that Knox did not intend to kill Meredith when Knox stabbed her. The court concluded that Knox was merely trying to control or intimidate Kercher but with reckless disregard for the life threatening possible consequences.

The police could not have known that when they went looking for the murder weapon though. Hence, you would not think they would be interested in a knife that big, a knife almost certain not to have been used in the crime.

It's strange, isn't it, moodstream? My current guess about their reasoning is that they wanted to put a weapon in Amanda's hand, and, given she was female, the most likely weapon she would use would be a kitchen knife. A kitchen knife from the cottage could innocently hold both girls' DNA without proving anything, but one from elsewhere would be inculpatory.

 

[Mary_H]

I can't say. My top two guesses:

(1) Not everyone among the investigators knew or agreed about the flick knife as the supposed murder weapon.
(2) They weren't necessarily looking for a knife, but for any evidence of Sollecito's involvement they could find, and when Finzi opened the drawer, "inspiration" struck.

Thanks, komponisto. I would more likely to go with (2), I guess.

 

[moodstream]

Don't forget about the one in which the judge concludes that Nara Capezzalli surely would not have claimed she heard a scream unless she actually had heard one.

....or the one where they use Amanda's "capacious purse" as a reason to suspect that she was carrying around the kitchen knife (on the advice of Raffaele)....

When it comes to the Massei report, it's really hard for me to pick a favorite. But a top contender has to be the explanation of Raffaele's conversations to the police the morning of Nov 2.

In the first call to the Carabinieri , placed before the unexpected arrival of the Postal Police, Raffaele tells them he thinks nothing is missing. His statement might appear to be a general off the cuff observation, but not so to Massei - Raffaele could have known nothing was missing only if he staged the break in himself! Brilliant!

But Massei must hurdle this difficulty – if Raffaele participated in staging the scene of broken glass and disarray in Romanelli's bedroom, why say that there had been no theft? I would find this a stumper for sure, but not so Massei – in the absence of a forced front door, RS/AK needed to create another possibility of access into the house; broken glass and disarray in the room of Romanelli fit this purpose independently of the theft of actual objects.

Well, okay, so AK/RS didn’t need to stage a burglary, they just needed to fake a way in.

But right then the Postal Police do arrive, and what would you guess that Raffaele goes and tells the Postal Police. You guessed right – he tells them that are awaiting the arrival of the Carabinieri because there had been a **burglary** inside the house!

So a moment ago Raffaele informing the Carabinieri that nothing is stolen, because it was not his intent to create a burglary, but inadvertently confessing to staging the break in at the same time , and the next minute he is telling the Postal Police the exact opposite, that there was a burglary.

Why? Because both statements reflect instantaneous reactions to finding Knox’s cottage in disarray, and carry no deeper meaning? Of course not, silly. Raffaele has realized in the brief period of time between speaking with the Carabinieri and the Postal Police that in his first conversation he was confessing to the crime, and now had to correct himself quickly before the Postal Police got on to him.

Gosh, that’s just a natural when you think about it. Of course Raffaele wants to maintain to the Postal Police that there was a robbery. It looks like there was a robbery and to say otherwise, he now realizes, will point the finger of doubt towards himself.

So, he leads the Postal Police on a tour of the house, and on the tour, while showing Romanelli's room to Postal Policeman Fabio Marsi, Raffaele said: 'very strange, **nothing has been taken**, there's still a portable computer and a digital camera.

Massei doesn’t bother to explain this total contradiction at the end. Maybe he grew tired, or dizzy, or became distracted watching Stardust on Sollecito’s computer, or maybe he figures if you have been reading along to that point, anything you the reader can make up is as good as anything he can make up.

Sure, you can fault him for rational thinking, but you can’t fault him for original thinking.

 

[moodstream]

It's strange, isn't it, moodstream? My current guess about their reasoning is that they wanted to put a weapon in Amanda's hand, and, given she was female, the most likely weapon she would use would be a kitchen knife. A kitchen knife from the cottage could innocently hold both girls' DNA without proving anything, but one from elsewhere would be inculpatory.

That is a very sound theory, I think.

 

[Justinian2]

Now that Kevin and John have been outed as not having read the Court's judgment with even minimal care, I suppose it comes as no surprise that someone who admits to 'not being a big reader' is in the same boat.

The reason Sollecito washed the knife, rather than disposing of it, is discussed by the Court here:

English translation, Page 375, last paragraph.

It is not 'rational' to dismiss the Court's reasoning as 'garbage' without first bothering to read it.

You are referencing the 'Closing considerations' part of the Massei Report starting on page 357 which is the part that describes the 'thinking' necessary to go from the earlier more factual sections of the Massei Report into pure speculation.

From the Massei Report:

This dynamic requires the presence of a second attacker, of a second knife. This Court holds that the second attacker is Amanda Knox and the second knife is Exhibit 36. The outcome of the genetic investigation with a quantity of DNA indicated as "too low" was placed under censure and doubts about reliability. Equally, the incompatibility of this knife with the wounds suffered by Meredith was affirmed. On these matters, the considerations already made must be recalled, which led this Court to evaluate the outcome of the genetic investigation as reliable, and this knife as absolutely compatible with the most serious wound.

The inquiry elements allow, still, further observations.

This knife, which attracted the attention of Inspector Finzi during the search in in Raffaele Sollecito's house such that it was taken, unlike the other knives that were in the same drawer, must have presented itself as different from the others, with [403] its own individuality with respect to the other knives present in the Corso Garibaldi house. The owner of this house, were this knife not to be found in the Corso Garibaldi house, would have been able to remember its presence and note the absence of this utensil, and this circumstance would have been able to constitute a trace, an investigative hypothesis upon which Raffaele Sollecito may have been called in to supply an explanation for. In relation to this, it is to be held that Amanda and Raffaele would have evaluated as opportune to carry the knife back to the house from which it had been removed, considering also that its cleaning (it was in fact found extremely clean, as has been noted) would have ensured the non*‐‑traceability of the wounds suffered by Meredith to it itself.

This is the woulda, coulda, shoulda section of pure unsourced speculation (source: the considerations already made )

 

[treehorn]

circumstances, don't you find Massei's reasoning weak? If you were representing the defendants, wouldn't you expect the judge to specify exactly HOW the knife differed from the others, instead of settling for his assumption that it did? How do we know his conclusion doesn't follow from an invalid premise?

Look at the photo on PMF, Mary.

Note also there is a bracketed reference number in the paragraph:"[403]"

What does this refer to? The photo? The cop's testimony about the knife in the drawer?

You don't know. I don't know.

And this is the (simple) point I've been trying to make to the Knox-fans:

The translation is incomplete! We do not have the photos, exhibits, transcripts, reports, etc., that are referred to by the Court!

It is, therefore, not 'rational' to dismiss it with a wave of the hand.

Until you find what [403] refers to, you haven't got a legitimate foundation for your rejection of the Court's reasoning in this regard.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Look at the photo on PMF, Mary.

Note also there is a bracketed reference number in the paragraph:"[403]"

What does this refer to? The photo? The cop's testimony about the knife in the drawer?

You don't know. I don't know.

And this is the (simple) point I've been trying to make to the Knox-fans:

The translation is incomplete! We do not have the photos, exhibits, transcripts, reports, etc., that are referred to by the Court!

It is, therefore, not 'rational' to dismiss it with a wave of the hand.

Until you find what [403] refers to, you haven't got a legitimate foundation for your rejection of the Court's reasoning in this regard.

I guess you do need a nice hyperlink to click on to find the post that contains that series of questions which you either didn't notice or are not responding to for reasons of your own.

Also has it occurred to you that this (in my opinion very silly) argument that you are running here cuts both ways? If ignorance of the hidden and arcane import of the mystic runes [403] is an impassable barrier to any informed opinion about the case, then both innocenters and guilters are equally screwed. None of us can say anything about the case at all, pro or anti, because we lack that vital knowledge of the hermetic secret known to us only at [403].

I think if you want to be serious about this you should go preach the faith of the mystical and inscrutable [403] over on PMF. They seem to think that they are entitled to all sorts of opinions about the case, but I bet they don't know the ghastly truth that lurks behind the innocent-seeming alphanumerics of [403] either. So really they haven't got any legitimate foundation for any of their views, right?

In fact, all anyone including you can do is chant "Massei knows the [403], Massei knows much more than me" over and over again until we realise that Meredith really did die at 23:30 whatever her lying stomach contents say, Nara heard a scream, Amanda carried a kitchen knife in her bag, Raffaele gave himself away by saying nothing was taken and on and on...