Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

Treehorn! Nice to see you back. I am sure that a detailed response to my last post to you will be forthcoming.

...


The claim that Amanda carried the knife around with her is unsupported and highly implausible to boot.

The fact that if these implausible things had happened it would also be more rational and indeed in my view more likely that they just would have disposed of the hypothetical murder knife along with the hypothetical murder clothes and shoes is just the icing of further improbability on the cake of ludicrous post hoc rationalisation.
...

In any case, I look forward to your response to the outstanding issues of whether you were completely wrong in claiming that Amanda and Rudy smoked marijuana together several times, whether you attempted to defend this claim with citations that did not back it up, how someone who claims to be a lawyer can get the maxim "never ask a question you do not know the answer to" so badly wrong twice, what your theory of the crime is and what non-unique subset of the evidence would be sufficient to convince you that Amanda Knox's guilt is >50% probable.

I don't know where to start - you tend to attack on multiple fronts which requires a lot of something I don't like: typing.

Here's a start:

1) You claimed 'Amanda didn't know Rudy': The evidence I cited destroyed your claim.

2) You then claimed Amanda met Rudy "once at most": Amanda's own testimony destroys your claim, as does the testimony of Giorgio Cocciaretto.

3) You also claimed that the PMF translation is in error: I am not fluent in Italian and cannot ascertain whether this is, in fact, correct. I will consider bringing it to their attention but, as they are the only group of talented volunteers to have made the bold move of publishing a carefully executed translation for the world to judge, I see no reason to doubt them in the meantime. Their diligence and dedication speak volumes.

4) You then claimed there's 'no evidence whatsoever' to support the proposition that Amanda smoked dope with Rudy: The cross-examination of Amanda undermines this claim as well. Amanda's answers were clearly evasive and calculated to deceive the triers. After just one month in the cottage, who were the 'friends Amanda smoked dope with in mid-October', if not the 3 girls and 4 boys living in the cottage, and hosting the little party – where dope was smoked - in mid-October?! Further, I don't suppose you've read what Rudy has to say about his 'high times' with Amanda? Is his self-serving 'prison diary' any more, or less, credible than Amanda's self-serving prison diary?!

5) It is now claimed that the PMF translation of the cross-examination in Q is in error. Again, I cannot ascertain whether this is correct. I will consider bringing it to the attention of the talented team at PMF, but see no reason to doubt them in the meantime.

6) You have not cited a legal "maxim": Every "maxim" I learned at law school was expressed in Latin and likely to appear, from time to time, in the opinions of learned Supreme Court Justices and Law Lords.

The (well known) notion that one ought not ask a question they do not already know the answer to during a cross-examination, however, was never once expressed to us in the form of a formal Latin 'legal maxim', nor have I ever seen it appear (in any form) in an opinion.

Your (fatuous and offensive) rant on the subject revealed that you haven't a clue what conducting a cross-examination is really like. It rarely, if ever, goes according to 'script'!!! Although, in theory, a cross is, as you Googled (I suppose), little more than a series of pre-prepared accusations fired at the witness in the form of leading Q’s, in practice, it's a lot more complex: Witnesses do NOT stick to their police statements, depositions, etc., nor do they stick to the little pre-prepared script you've imagined. They routinely change their stories when they get on the stand. The changes may be small or large, they may be unintentional or cunning, but they're are always there, and you've got to be fast on your feet. Nailing them down without going fishing is an art, and the lawyer in Q didn't even get his canvas framed before he was stopped short.

See Tom's examples as to why this happened.

7) My take on the cross-exam of Knox was simply this: from the POV of a common law lawyer, the cross was EXTREMELY limited/ brief/ restrained/ easy on the accused. There are dozens more leading questions on the point (smoking dope with Rudy) that could have been fired at Knox (without running afoul of your so-called "maxim") to nail her down into an even more ridiculous position.

Tom agreed. We began to discuss some of the differences extant in the Italian civil law tradition that might account for the EXTREMELY limited cross in question.

Unfortunately, your rudeness seems to have forced Tom to leave us. This board is all the poorer for it. (Unless of course they'd prefer to learn about the law from, oh, I dunno, school teachers, part time sociology students at diploma mills, etc..)


8) Notwithstanding the length of the foregoing, I do not like to type. Ergo I'm not going to give you something akin to the Court's 400+ page ratio. I wish I had the time to go over the case point by point, but I've been off with the flu and I really do have to get back at it tomorrow. Suffice it to say that I'm leaning toward a theory of the case based on the idea that this crime began as a post-Halloween "rape prank" that ran amok under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

I think Amanda and Raffaele set out to "prank" Meredith and brought the big knife with them as a prop.

En route, they happened across Rudy and thought he'd add to the 'scare factor'.

Rudy was quick to agree because he was eager to please Amanda (per the testimony of the boys who lived in the cottage below, Rudy was, by all accounts, hot for Amanda in particular).

Amanda certainly knew Rudy well enough to ask him to join in a little post-Halloween prank on Meredith (per the evidence discussed above).

I think poor Meredith reacted violently to the prank, in a small space filled with 3 "pranksters", all of whom were not only high on drugs but brandishing knives. As a result, she was seriously injured and screamed out.

The intoxicated pranksters panicked when they saw the damage they'd done to Meredith. Her screams would bring the police - They ended her screams.

The 'conspiracy' was formed in an instant.

It was self-preservation. It's been self-preservation ever since.

This theory accounts for, inter alia:

-the transport of the big, bad, shiny knife from Sollecito's place;
-the fact none of the 3 accused had a history of physical violence; &
-the fact that none of them appear to have had a motive for murder (until the victim had been harmed grievously in the course of the prank and started to scream, that is).


This theory is also a nice fit with what's known about the ages, personalities, interests, and (low) maturity levels of the 3 accused.

Note also that, in contrast to YOUR theory, Kevin, it doesn't involve ignoring the evidence adduced at trial (in particular the testimony of Amanda and Giorgio), or fantasies about what is shown in the autopsy video (which no one outside of the courtroom, including you, has seen).

Let the bashing commence, bearing in mind that's it’s merely my opinion and subject to change in the face of cogent, evidence-based argument offered in a civil manner.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

It took you 3 1/2 hours to come up with that response? You could have just said, yeah, given the information we have, the judge's reasoning there is pretty weak. But then you would have to admit that you didn't notice how weak it was the first several times you read it, wouldn't you.

No one is dismissing anything with a wave of the hand. We are dismissing it by quoting it, contrasting it to the facts, and using logic and reason to analyze it. You know -- like lawyers do?

Since when have you been trying to make the simple point that the translation of Massei is incomplete? Was this before or after your recent post ridiculing John, Kevin and me for not having read it carefully enough? Why should it matter if we have read it if it's incomplete? Why would you cite it if it's incomplete?

 

[Mary_H]

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...

"Massei knows the [403], Massei knows much more than me"
"Massei knows the [403], Massei knows much more than me"
"Massei knows the [403], Massei knows much more than me"

This is wonderful, Kevin.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
8) Notwithstanding the length of the foregoing, I do not like to type. Ergo I'm not going to give you something akin to the Court's 400+ page ratio. I wish I had the time to go over the case point by point, but I've been off with the flu and I really do have to get back at it tomorrow. Suffice it to say that I'm leaning toward a theory of the case based on the idea that this crime began as a post-Halloween "rape prank" that ran amok under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

I think Amanda and Raffaele set out to "prank" Meredith and brought the big knife with them as a prop.

En route, they happened across Rudy and thought he'd add to the 'scare factor'.

Rudy was quick to agree because he was eager to please Amanda (per the testimony of the boys who lived in the cottage below, Rudy was, by all accounts, hot for Amanda in particular).

Amanda certainly knew Rudy well enough to ask him to join in a little post-Halloween prank on Meredith (per the evidence discussed above).

I think poor Meredith reacted violently to the prank, in a small space filled with 3 "pranksters", all of whom were not only high on drugs but brandishing knives. As a result, she was seriously injured and screamed out.

The intoxicated pranksters panicked when they saw the damage they'd done to Meredith. Her screams would bring the police - They ended her screams.

The 'conspiracy' was formed in an instant.

It was self-preservation. It's been self-preservation ever since.

This theory accounts for, inter alia:

-the transport of the big, bad, shiny knife from Sollecito's place;
-the fact none of the 3 accused had a history of physical violence; &
-the fact that none of them appear to have had a motive for murder (until the victim had been harmed grievously in the course of the prank and started to scream, that is).


This theory is also a nice fit with what's known about the ages, personalities, interests, and (low) maturity levels of the 3 accused.

Note also that, in contrast to YOUR theory, Kevin, it doesn't involve ignoring the evidence adduced at trial (in particular the testimony of Amanda and Giorgio), or fantasies about what is shown in the autopsy video (which no one outside of the courtroom, including you, has seen).

Let the bashing commence, bearing in mind that's it’s merely my opinion and subject to change in the face of cogent, evidence-based argument offered in a civil manner.

Well, I commend you, treehorn on offering a theory, and not a bad one at that! You'll get no bashing from me on it, not immediately, anyway.

I also agree with you and Tom on the issue of the cross-examination:

7) "My take on the cross-exam of Knox was simply this: from the POV of a common law lawyer, the cross was EXTREMELY limited/ brief/ restrained/ easy on the accused. There are dozens more leading questions on the point (smoking dope with Rudy) that could have been fired at Knox (without running afoul of your so-called "maxim") to nail her down into an even more ridiculous position.

Tom agreed. We began to discuss some of the differences extant in the Italian civil law tradition that might account for the EXTREMELY limited cross in question."

It would be nice to discuss it further. I don't think Tom has left permanently, has he?

 

[treehorn]

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.

The Knox case has attracted a great deal of media attention.

A few seconds in that limelight is worth fortune in free TV advertising to a lawyer, private investigator, expert-for-hire, etc..

If I were selling my services to the general public, I'd give my eye teeth to pitch for team Knox - for "free" - if it got me 15 minutes at the desk with Larry King.

Millions of people would see my name...

I get chills just thinking about it...

Make no mistake: it's very, very likely that most of those people don't give a toss about Justice.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I don't know where to start - you tend to attack on multiple fronts which requires a lot of something I don't like: typing.

Here's a start:

1) You claimed 'Amanda didn't know Rudy': The evidence I cited destroyed your claim.

2) You then claimed Amanda met Rudy "once at most": Amanda's own testimony destroys your claim, as does the testimony of Giorgio Cocciaretto.

3) You also claimed that the PMF translation is in error: I am not fluent in Italian and cannot ascertain whether this is, in fact, correct. I will consider bringing it to their attention but, as they are the only group of talented volunteers to have made the bold move of publishing a carefully executed translation for the world to judge, I see no reason to doubt them in the meantime. Their diligence and dedication speak volumes.

4) You then claimed there's 'no evidence whatsoever' to support the proposition that Amanda smoked dope with Rudy: The cross-examination of Amanda undermines this claim as well. Amanda's answers were clearly evasive and calculated to deceive the triers. After just one month in the cottage, who were the 'friends Amanda smoked dope with in mid-October', if not the 3 girls and 4 boys living in the cottage, and hosting the little party – where dope was smoked - in mid-October?! Further, I don't suppose you've read what Rudy has to say about his 'high times' with Amanda? Is his self-serving 'prison diary' any more, or less, credible than Amanda's self-serving prison diary?!

5) It is now claimed that the PMF translation of the cross-examination in Q is in error. Again, I cannot ascertain whether this is correct. I will consider bringing it to the attention of the talented team at PMF, but see no reason to doubt them in the meantime.

6) You have not cited a legal "maxim": Every "maxim" I learned at law school was expressed in Latin and likely to appear, from time to time, in the opinions of learned Supreme Court Justices and Law Lords.

The (well known) notion that one ought not ask a question they do not already know the answer to during a cross-examination, however, was never once expressed to us in the form of a formal Latin 'legal maxim', nor have I ever seen it appear (in any form) in an opinion.

Your (fatuous and offensive) rant on the subject revealed that you haven't a clue what conducting a cross-examination is really like. It rarely, if ever, goes according to 'script'!!! Although, in theory, a cross is, as you Googled (I suppose), little more than a series of pre-prepared accusations fired at the witness in the form of leading Q’s, in practice, it's a lot more complex: Witnesses do NOT stick to their police statements, depositions, etc., nor do they stick to the little pre-prepared script you've imagined. They routinely change their stories when they get on the stand. The changes may be small or large, they may be unintentional or cunning, but they're are always there, and you've got to be fast on your feet. Nailing them down without going fishing is an art, and the lawyer in Q didn't even get his canvas framed before he was stopped short.

See Tom's examples as to why this happened.

7) My take on the cross-exam of Knox was simply this: from the POV of a common law lawyer, the cross was EXTREMELY limited/ brief/ restrained/ easy on the accused. There are dozens more leading questions on the point (smoking dope with Rudy) that could have been fired at Knox (without running afoul of your so-called "maxim") to nail her down into an even more ridiculous position.

Tom agreed. We began to discuss some of the differences extant in the Italian civil law tradition that might account for the EXTREMELY limited cross in question.

Unfortunately, your rudeness seems to have forced Tom to leave us. This board is all the poorer for it. (Unless of course they'd prefer to learn about the law from, oh, I dunno, school teachers, part time sociology students at diploma mills, etc..)


8) Notwithstanding the length of the foregoing, I do not like to type. Ergo I'm not going to give you something akin to the Court's 400+ page ratio. I wish I had the time to go over the case point by point, but I've been off with the flu and I really do have to get back at it tomorrow. Suffice it to say that I'm leaning toward a theory of the case based on the idea that this crime began as a post-Halloween "rape prank" that ran amok under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

I think Amanda and Raffaele set out to "prank" Meredith and brought the big knife with them as a prop.

En route, they happened across Rudy and thought he'd add to the 'scare factor'.

Rudy was quick to agree because he was eager to please Amanda (per the testimony of the boys who lived in the cottage below, Rudy was, by all accounts, hot for Amanda in particular).

Amanda certainly knew Rudy well enough to ask him to join in a little post-Halloween prank on Meredith (per the evidence discussed above).

I think poor Meredith reacted violently to the prank, in a small space filled with 3 "pranksters", all of whom were not only high on drugs but brandishing knives. As a result, she was seriously injured and screamed out.

The intoxicated pranksters panicked when they saw the damage they'd done to Meredith. Her screams would bring the police - They ended her screams.

The 'conspiracy' was formed in an instant.

It was self-preservation. It's been self-preservation ever since.

This theory accounts for, inter alia:

-the transport of the big, bad, shiny knife from Sollecito's place;
-the fact none of the 3 accused had a history of physical violence; &
-the fact that none of them appear to have had a motive for murder (until the victim had been harmed grievously in the course of the prank and started to scream, that is).


This theory is also a nice fit with what's known about the ages, personalities, interests, and (low) maturity levels of the 3 accused.

Note also that, in contrast to YOUR theory, Kevin, it doesn't involve ignoring the evidence adduced at trial (in particular the testimony of Amanda and Giorgio), or fantasies about what is shown in the autopsy video (which no one outside of the courtroom, including you, has seen).

Let the bashing commence, bearing in mind that's it’s merely my opinion and subject to change in the face of cogent, evidence-based argument offered in a civil manner.

First, this is pure speculation based on one anonymous claim that Amanda played a practical joke like that at UW. Against that are many people who know her well, who will swear she never hurt anyone or ever would. But you reject all that in favor of this one anonymous source, whose assessment of Amanda is somehow more perceptive and accurate. Why? What makes this rumor more credible than what Amanda's friends, teachers, and family members say about her - other than the fact it is what you want to believe?

Second, if the purpose was to scare Meredith, they could do that without injuring her, just by brandishing the knives. The idea that they somehow injured her by mistake and then decided to finish her off, and have preserved this shared secret ever since, is not plausible.

Third, your theory doesn't explain the nature of Meredith's injuries or the evidence found at the crime scene. At what point in this prank did Guede use the toilet, without leaving any blood traces in that bathroom? How did Guede's DNA end up inside Meredith's vagina? The evidence doesn't indicate a prank, or a group of people surrounding Meredith and taunting her. It suggests a sudden, violent struggle that ended within moments, when the assailant plunged his knife up to the hilt in Meredith's neck and tore a three-inch gash.

 

[Justinian2]

Make no mistake: it's very, very likely that most of those people don't give a toss about Justice.

Justice and punishment are not synonyms.

I presume you're refering to a just finding of guilt or innocence rather than the incarceration of anybody that might have, from your perspective, a possibility of guilt. A possibility of guilt of 10% is enough for you to incarcerate two people for the best part of their lives.

Your type of 'justice' (that includes the incarceration of some of the innocent) creates terrorists and suicide bombers.

 

[Justinian2]

The Knox case has attracted a great deal of media attention.

A few seconds in that limelight is worth fortune in free TV advertising to a lawyer, private investigator, expert-for-hire, etc..

If I were selling my services to the general public, I'd give my eye teeth to pitch for team Knox - for "free" - if it got me 15 minutes at the desk with Larry King.

Millions of people would see my name...

I get chills just thinking about it...

Make no mistake: it's very, very likely that most of those people don't give a toss about Justice.

Make no mistake: it's very, very likely that most of those people don't give a toss about Justice.

Justice and punishment are not synonyms.

I presume you're referring to a just finding of guilt or innocence rather than the incarceration of anybody that might have, from your perspective, a possibility of guilt. A possibility of guilt of 10% is enough for you to incarcerate two people for the best part of their lives.

Your type of 'justice' (that includes the incarceration of some of the innocent) creates terrorists and suicide bombers.

 

[komponisto]

"Massei knows the [403], Massei knows much more than me"
"Massei knows the [403], Massei knows much more than me"
"Massei knows the [403], Massei knows much more than me"

This is wonderful, Kevin.

403, by the way, is a page number referring to Massei and Cristiani's original Italian document. (The passage in question is on pp. 402-403.)

This increases my probability to something above negligible that treehorn is a prankster who doesn't actually believe a word of what he's been writing.

...because (for someone who goes around talking about reading the report "with attention to detail") that's one heck of an embarrassing mistake, if it wasn't intentional.

 

[Fuji]

A bloody palm print left at the scene of a murder is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of most because it showed that the suspect was at the murder scene after the blood flowed.

<snip>

That is my idea of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - a bloody palm print. A fingerprint isn't sufficient and a partial fingerprint certainly does NOT prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It wasn't sufficient evidence to convict John Holmes of murder in the case of the Wonderland Murders, the most brutal and shocking mass murders in the Los Angeles area since Charlie Manson.

Holmes indeed left a palmprint at the scene of the crime, but was eventually acquitted of all charges.

"Holmes had left a bloody palmprint on the railing of Launius' bed -- the only suspicious print found at the crime scene, the Times reported."

 

[Fuji]

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.

Can you substantiate this assertion?

 

[Fuji]

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.

Too bad John Charles Eichinger didn't follow your advice, or he might not have wound up on Death Row.

Your advice would have also helped Peter Tobin.

 

[treehorn]

First, this is pure speculation based on one anonymous claim that Amanda played a practical joke like that at UW. Against that are many people who know her well, who will swear she never hurt anyone or ever would. But you reject all that in favor of this one anonymous source, whose assessment of Amanda is somehow more perceptive and accurate. Why? What makes this rumor more credible than what Amanda's friends, teachers, and family members say about her - other than the fact it is what you want to believe?

Second, if the purpose was to scare Meredith, they could do that without injuring her, just by brandishing the knives. The idea that they somehow injured her by mistake and then decided to finish her off, and have preserved this shared secret ever since, is not plausible.

Third, your theory doesn't explain the nature of Meredith's injuries or the evidence found at the crime scene. At what point in this prank did Guede use the toilet, without leaving any blood traces in that bathroom? How did Guede's DNA end up inside Meredith's vagina? The evidence doesn't indicate a prank, or a group of people surrounding Meredith and taunting her. It suggests a sudden, violent struggle that ended within moments, when the assailant plunged his knife up to the hilt in Meredith's neck and tore a three-inch gash.

1) My (working) theory doesn't require that the UW rape prank rumor prove true (although further investigation of that rumor and the people who would have been involved in such a thing would be interesting, no?).

Indeed, just Google the term "rape prank" and you'll see that some young people today are engaged in this sort of hazing, and many more are at least aware of it.

2) I think it WAS their intention to merely scare Meredith without hurting her, but by brandishing the knives while intoxicated, they created a risk of harm if Meredith reacted violently. That risk was realized.

3) Rudy WAS a creep, and although Amanda knew him superficially, she did not know him well enough to judge his character. By including Rudy in the "prank", Amanda took on an 'accomplice' that was, clearly, not like other boys she'd known at UW. In the process, Amanda put Meredith at risk in a way that Amanda was too immature and/or high to foresee.

Recall that Rudy was, apparently, known to 'bother' girls in clubs - literally touching them without consent, etc.. I think the language barrier may also have created a situation whereby Rudy did not fully understand what Amanda was intending.

I think it was Rudy that took the "prank" to a level Amanda had not anticipated, a level that left the DNA trace you mention. Meredith's response to this assault was, understandably, to put up an enraged/ frightened struggle that, in a confined space filled with knives brandished by intoxicated 'pranksters', resulted in grievous bodily harm.

4) The extent of this harm was severe. Something they'd not intended but could not now simply sweep away. Meredith was screaming. They're high, possibly even paranoid from the cannabis. They can't think straight. Blind panic - They silence Meredith. All 3 act in (what their drug-addled brains perceive to be) self-preservation.

Rudy holds Meredith still for the stabbers. All 3 equally culpable. None of the 3 in a position to rat out the other 2 by claiming a lesser role. The conspiracy of silence is formed in an instant and plays out as we've seen it, with cracks developing at various stages. And the games continue.

 

[Mary_H]

Too bad John Charles Eichinger didn't follow your advice, or he might not have wound up on Death Row.

Your advice would have also helped Peter Tobin.

In the second story, about Peter Tobin, it says the knife was found in the former home of the suspect, and that it had up to 19 matches for the victim's DNA. The murder was committed in 1991, but the trial was taking place in 2008. For that much DNA to have remained on the knife for that long, the knife must have been hidden. That is different from putting it in the kitchen drawer.

In the first story, about Eichinger, he also had hidden the knife, in a cooler with other items from the murders. The odd thing about the Eichinger case is why he wasn't arrested for the first murder he committed, as he had been visiting at the victim's house the night before. If the police had investigated him, they could have found he had ordered the knife on the Home Shopping Network. Strange.

 

[Justinian2]

It wasn't sufficient evidence to convict John Holmes of murder in the case of the Wonderland Murders, the most brutal and shocking mass murders in the Los Angeles area since Charlie Manson.

Holmes indeed left a palmprint at the scene of the crime, but was eventually acquitted of all charges.

"Holmes had left a bloody palmprint on the railing of Launius' bed -- the only suspicious print found at the crime scene, the Times reported."

The bloody palmprint proved Holmes was at the scene of the murder.

That would have have established guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" in my mind. However, the rest of the story is important. He could have said that he found the bodies and tried to help, thus getting bloody. Sounds like the Guede story, doesn't it?

 

[Fuji]

In the second story, about Peter Tobin, it says the knife was found in the former home of the suspect, and that it had up to 19 matches for the victim's DNA. The murder was committed in 1991, but the trial was taking place in 2008. For that much DNA to have remained on the knife for that long, the knife must have been hidden. That is different from putting it in the kitchen drawer.

In the first story, about Eichinger, he also had hidden the knife, in a cooler with other items from the murders. The odd thing about the Eichinger case is why he wasn't arrested for the first murder he committed, as he had been visiting at the victim's house the night before. If the police had investigated him, they could have found he had ordered the knife on the Home Shopping Network. Strange.

The point is, both murderers retained possession of the respective murder weapons after committing their crimes, when they could have easily disposed of them permanently. It has been repeatedly asserted here that no murderer would do such a thing. I am offering this as evidence that that is certainly not always the case.

 

[Fuji]

The bloody palmprint proved Holmes was at the scene of the murder.

I agree.

That would have have established guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" in my mind. However, the rest of the story is important. He could have said that he found the bodies and tried to help, thus getting bloody. Sounds like the Guede story, doesn't it?

We'll never know what Holmes' argument for his innocence might have been, as he died over 20 years ago without ever speaking about it. Unlike all three defendants in the Kercher case.

 

[treehorn]

403, by the way, is a page number referring to Massei and Cristiani's original Italian document. (The passage in question is on pp. 402-403.)

This increases my probability to something above negligible that treehorn is a prankster who doesn't actually believe a word of what he's been writing.

...because (for someone who goes around talking about reading the report "with attention to detail") that's one heck of an embarrassing mistake, if it wasn't intentional.

As I said, I am not fluent in Italian, so I am not looking at the original document. Therefore, I'm not in a position to make the deduction you just made.

Alas, my point remains the same: we have not seen, heard and read everything that the triers have.

The photo of the big knife atop the tray of harmless utensils reinforces this passage in the Court's judgment in a way that cannot be understood until one actually sees the photo.

It's just ONE example of the need to be mindful of the limited data set we're dealing with.

 

[Fuji]

Is it a good time to bring up once again that despite a thorough inventory of the accused's wardrobes the police were never able to show that a single item of clothing or shoe had gone missing from either of them?

Is it a good time to once again remind you that you have no way of knowing whether a single item of clothing or shoe had gone missing from either of them?

 

[treehorn]

Well, I commend you, treehorn on offering a theory, and not a bad one at that! You'll get no bashing from me on it, not immediately, anyway.

I also agree with you and Tom on the issue of the cross-examination:

7) "My take on the cross-exam of Knox was simply this: from the POV of a common law lawyer, the cross was EXTREMELY limited/ brief/ restrained/ easy on the accused. There are dozens more leading questions on the point (smoking dope with Rudy) that could have been fired at Knox (without running afoul of your so-called "maxim") to nail her down into an even more ridiculous position.

Tom agreed. We began to discuss some of the differences extant in the Italian civil law tradition that might account for the EXTREMELY limited cross in question."

It would be nice to discuss it further. I don't think Tom has left permanently, has he?

Well, Mary, I'm inclined to think you're being facetious, but hope springs eternal.

Feel free to fire away.