Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[nopoirot]

It's misleading to refer to the original court as the "trial court". In the Italian system, (what Americans, etc. would think of as) the "trial" consists of a three-stage process of which the current proceedings are the second stage. (A defendant is not "convicted" until all three stages are complete.) That's why Italians refer to this as the "appeal trial". At this (second) level, the entire case -- exhibits, testimony, etc. as well as legal rulings and logical inferences from the facts -- can be reviewed. The "standard of review", if you like, is de novo; "the verdict was against the weight of the evidence" is apparently a legitimate ground for appeal in Italy. (Incidentally, a common misconception is that the current court in this case decided to review only the DNA evidence; however, what last month's hearing decided was that they were going to seek expert consultation on the DNA evidence. They can still review the rest of the case themselves, and as far as I know, will.)

At the third level (the "cassation" level), only legal issues (and possibly factual inferences, I'm not clear on this) are reviewed, and hence this stage is closer to what those in English-speaking countries think of as an "appeal" -- although it's still automatic; every defendant gets a hearing, and again, isn't "convicted" until it's done. Some commentators (not usually Italian lawyers) have expressed the opinion that AK/RS have a better chance at the third level than the second, because the third level takes place in Rome as opposed to "provincial" Perugia. This has always puzzled me, because -- though lawyers are skilled in cleverly manufacturing legal issues out of factual ones --the important errors in this case are factual, not legal, and so it would seem that the second level would be the appropriate place to expect them to be addressed if they're going to be addressed at all. I suppose it depends on whether the third-level court can indeed review the factual inferences of the lower courts in addition to the legal rulings (i.e. look at the motivation and say "that reasoning about the knife being the weapon is terrible" in addition to "the decision to deny that request was incorrect according to Italian law").

Thanks. The first two tiers wouldn't seem to owe much to conventional notions about "judicial economy."

Should you find yourself with nothing better to do, perhaps you might expound on the relative functions of judges and jurors in the appeals court.

 

[komponisto]

If you want to know... about this particular scenario my before opinions
The odds of a woman, her boyfriend and a third person hooking up. Quite high.
The odds of these young adults engaging in risque behaviour. Again quite high.
The odds of the behaviour of these young adults going too far. Above average.

So here we have confirmation of another of my suspicions: guilters simply don't think the scenario is particularly improbable in the first place.

Why don't we hear about these cases all the time, in that case?

Now let's break it down:

The odds of a woman, her boyfriend and a third person hooking up. Quite high.

On the contrary, I would be surprised if more than a minority of couples ever invite third parties to participate in sex with them. Still fewer do so within the first two weeks of their partnership.

The odds of these young adults engaging in risque behaviour. Again quite high.

You think a substantial proportion of three-way sexual encounters involve the use of lethal weapons?

The odds of the behaviour of these young adults going too far. Above average

Strangely, you seem to have given a lower probability here, but it seems to me that once we're already granted a three-or-more-person sexual encounter involving knives, the risk of injury is more substantial than any of the two previous probabilities -- though most such encounters still probably don't actually result in death or even serious injury!

Let us assume, however, against all statistical data and common sense, that the probability at each stage is 50%. That is, 50% of couples have three-way sex, 50% of such encounters involve weapons, and 50% of weapon-enhanced orgies result in the death of a participant. That yields a prior probability of 12.5%. (This is without considering any other data such as the backgrounds of the alleged participants (criminal histories, etc). ) So even if you grant the plausibility of each of the components of the scenario (some of which are in fact highly implausible), their conjunction rapidly diminishes in probability as the number of components increases.

 

[loverofzion]

The other day I had written that I thought it possible that Giacomo Silenzi had mentioned to the rest of the boyz downstairs and maybe even Body Roga, aka Rudy Guede, if he was there, of his latest conquest.

I mentioned this, for it is a common male trait, and of many of the boyz I've known, especially the younger 1's, to talk about their recent conquests and bedroom activities. Especially males sharing a pad, drinkin' and smokin'. Especially one who had already had anal sex with a new luver of about 10 days. That's a different experience that is always hard to keep from the boyz while drinkin' and smokin'...

I recall reading that Meredith seemingly liked Giacomo a lot, but he was oddly detached, IMHO, for some reason.
And I thought that this might be because he didn't really luv her, in comparison to say, Raffaele Sollecito.
Maybe this was because he was in a band and met a lot of chicks, maybe he was emotionally distant, who knows. But I remember it striking an odd chord in my mind that Giacomo, while away for that holiday weekend did not even even call Meredith while he was at his parents' house.
Meredith texted him just once, just to say hello.
He texted back, but not to say how much he missed her, as I probably would have done.
Instead, Giacomo made a simple request:
"Hey, can you take my sheets of the line?"

Now contrast this with Raffaele Sollecito.
Raffaele meets a pretty, American chick at a classical music concert. They dig each alot, and start sleeping together that same night. Having sex 3 to 4 times a day. They appear to be inseperable. She spends every night at his place, he even meets her at work late at night to walk her safely to his pad and he also cooks for her.

For some reason, I can't imagine this guy NOT calling her if he went away for the weekend. Nor texting to just ask to bring in the sheets...

That is why I wonder if Giacomo might have mentioned to the boyz downstairs of his recent conquest and the type of sex they indulge in.
It is common knowledge that my brutha friends luv the big b**** girls. And so when I think of what happened that night in Meredith Kercher's apartment, I wonder if brutha Rudy Guede went there to rape, not steal.
Because no laptops were stolen, nor a digital camera, I believe, either.
The guy, testosterone probably outta control, wanted sex and whatever $$$ he saw...
L8, RWVBWL

PS-It's interesting how Raffaele Sollecito, in the prosecution and the court's theory,
was so smitten by Amanda Knox that he participated in a brutal murder, helped cover for her, and he willingly recieved 25 years in prison for this.

Why didn't he turn on Amanda?
Might this be because they were not even there?

It might just be because they were both involved. They are inextricably bound by their need to hide what they both did.

 

[Amazer]

On the contrary, I would be surprised if more than a minority of couples ever invite third parties to participate in sex with them. Still fewer do so within the first two weeks of their partnership.

Of course it's a minority... and you'd be surprised how early in a relationship such adventures are embarked upon. Quite often before you could even call it a relationship.

You think a substantial proportion of three-way sexual encounters involve the use of lethal weapons?

Did i mention lethat weapons?

Strangely, you seem to have given a lower probability here, but it seems to me that once we're already granted a three-or-more-person sexual encounter involving knives, the risk of injury is more substantial than any of the two previous probabilities -- though most such encounters still probably don't actually result in death or even serious injury!

Impressive where your imagination takes you.

Let us assume, however, against all statistical data and common sense, that the probability at each stage is 50%. That is, 50% of couples have three-way sex, 50% of such encounters involve weapons, and 50% of weapon-enhanced orgies result in the death of a participant. That yields a prior probability of 12.5%. (This is without considering any other data such as the backgrounds of the alleged participants (criminal histories, etc). ) So even if you grant the plausibility of each of the components of the scenario (some of which are in fact highly implausible), their conjunction rapidly diminishes in probability as the number of components increases.

And your point is?

 

[RWVBWL]

It might just be because they were both involved. They are inextricably bound by their need to hide what they both did.

Hi LoverofZion,,
I've always heard that the cops usually get at least 1 person to turn on the others.
Do you believe that was Rudy Guede? Is he the informant, so to say?

I read this recently on the pro-guilt website, PMF:
Rudy Guede told a friend on 19 November 2007 that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.

From all that I have ever read, LoverofZion,
Raffaele Sollecito had never even met Rudy Guede.
So how does Rudy Guede even know Raffaele Sollecito's name?
Do you have any sources to back this point and prove it true?
Did Rudy's friend Marco what's-his-last-name or anyone else ever mention seeing Rudy and Raffaele hanging?

While you are at it, might you know of this:
When did Rudy Guede 1st meet Meredith Kercher and how many times had he seen her or hung out with her?
Thanks for any reply,
RWVBWL

 

[Katody Matrass]

the devil is in the details

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.

Hi treehorn, It's commendable that you found courage and took effort to present your theory for scrutiny.
I think that when reviewing any such reconstruction, we must first look into how is it consistent with known and agreed upon facts - that would be physical evidence, like shoeprints, fingerprints, blood and other traces, DNA samples, victim's injuries. Such hypothesis also needs to be consistent with hard data like phone and computer logs, cctv recordings etc. It needs to take into account time constraints established by such data and by witnesses' accounts.

I think only after we got those straight, we can delve into more speculative and subjective issues, like psychological plausibility of actions of the involved.

That's why I see that what your theory accounts for (in your opinion)

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.

is shadowed by what it lefts untouched or even contradicts.

I think it would be much more eye-opening to try to do an event and timeline based reconstruction, not a general and "conceptual" one.

Some example of the facts that it should deal with:

At 20:56 Meredith (?) attempts to call her ill Mother, as she used to do every day. The call didn't connect. There are no more attempts.

Unusual lack of activity of her phone for an hour.

At 21:58 and 22:00 there's strange activity on Meredith's phone. Voicemail is dialed and canceled before connecting. UK bank phone number is dialed without international code.

At 22:13 Meredith's phone connects to different cell then usual.

Meredith was still in her street clothes when murdered.

Washing machine was full of her wet clothes.


Multitude of Guede's shoeprints in Meredith's room. Lack of any other footprints or shoeprints there.
His bloody shoeprints leading outside. No other bloody shoeprints in the cottage.
Guede's DNA traces on and in her body. Lack of other traces.
Guede's DNA on Meredith's purse and clothing.
Knife outline in blood.
Guede's not flushed feces.


Phone activity and witnesses' accounts locating sober and normal acting RS and AK at his place before 21:00

Human activity on Raffaele's computer at least until 21:10 or later.

Broken-down vehicle witnesses account - no activity in or around cottage from 22:30 on.

Curatolo's testimony - he saw AK and RS without Guede outside of the cottage from 21:30 to before midnight.​

Only after the hypothesis deals with such elements it is worth considering whether AK really knew Guede well enough and whether her influence over the two guys was really so powerful.

But I'm afraid that as soon as you try to put your reconstruction into strict time segments and detail the order of events and "choreography" of actions it will first diverge steeply from Massei "findings" and then hopelessly come apart anyway.

 

[Antony]

And not interested in this part of the discussion either. Suffice to say that Raffaeles DNA was found and unless you can come up with sufficient evidence that his DNA come to be there either through contamination/secondary transfer/planting, I will remain convinced that the DNA was deposited there during the murder.

[...]

Another discussion point that doesn't really interest me. Suffice to say that Amandas and Merediths DNA was found and unless you can come up with sufficient evidence that their DNA came to be there either through contamination/secondary transfer/planting, I will remain convinced that the DNA was deposited there during the murder.

[...]

I don't think that a truly coherent theory of the crime can ever be given with the incomplete data that we have.

Breathtaking really. Totally upfront about having no coherent theory of the crime, yet still clinging to the article of faith that the utterly compromised DNA readings mean what the guilter crowd want them to mean.

And of course "incomplete data" isn't a problem for the prosecution, who can invent any facts they want to fill in the gaps; it's not for them to show that all the documented and filmed mishandling of the evidence didn't lead to contamination, because "burden of proof" doesn't have any meaning in a Perugia court.

The subtext is that no coherent theory of the crime involving Knox and Sollecito can be given - of course it's very easy to give one not involving them, as has been pointed out many times here.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

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.)

So, treehorn, all this time that you where studying Massei's motivation (and gained intimate knowledge of it) you were under false impression that it references 400+ various pieces of evidence undisclosed and unknown neither to you nor to the general public.

I wonder what reflections you have now as your misconception was explained to you.

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

I must disagree. i think we have quite a good idea of the case. We've seen photos and videos of almost all of the evidence and it's collection, DNA graphs, prosecution and defence footprint and other evidence analysis. We have close to everything the accused ever said, wrote or signed. Trial transcripts, testimonies and news reporting give us great idea about what various witnesses said. I'd say that most of us are much better versed in the details of the case than any of the jury members.

Your position is that the most damning facts are among the undisclosed data. You're not hinting what do you imagine it could be, though.
Anyway, as I wrote already - the most incriminating "findings" (many of them lies, as we know now) were already public as early as 2008, when the prosecution was fighting for the pretrial.

I think it is very improbable that prosecution had some bomb that they decided to not use or that the media failed to report. Both prosecution and the media had very good motivation to publicize any such facts. Don't you agree?



BTW It would be beneficial for you and for all of us if you consult PMF about the translation controversy.

 

[Danceme]

This incident really happened, but police did look into it and found it was a red herring that had nothing to do with the Meredith Kercher murder.

I find it a little unbelievable that Douglas Preston would write this into an afterword to his book without even waiting to see if it checked out.

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.

Have you even seen the actual picture of the fatal wound? It's a very large, wide ugly gash. Any police officer who saw the wound itself or even a photo would consider a large knife not a small one. It's not at all surprising. The theory of a sawing motion made with a smaller knife was only proposed at trial but likely wouldn't have been any police officer's first guess as to how this very large nasty wound was made.

 

[Bob001]

...
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'.
...

I don't think your scenario is plausible, especially compared to the likelihood that Rudy Guede attacked alone, but I acknowledge that it might be possible. Here's the key question, though: Is it plausible that after the "prank" you describe went south, the co-conspirators wouldn't turn on each other? Wouldn't it be more likely that Amanda would say something like "Raffaele and I were going to play a joke on Meredith, but we brought Rudy and he went crazy..."? Or that Rudy would say "Amanda told me to hold Meredith down, but I let her go and she fell onto the knife Amanda was holding..."? There certainly are criminal conspiracies, but typically when a group of people who don't have strong connections are involved in a spontaneous crime, each one points the finger at the others as fast as he can say "Let's make a deal." Raffaele and Amanda -- or either one -- would have had every incentive to blame Rudy -- or the other two -- and minimize their own roles, but as far as I know during their many hours of what you no doubt perceive as contradictory and self-incriminating police interrogation they never even mentioned Rudy. What possible motive would they have for protecting a co-conspirator?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Have you even seen the actual picture of the fatal wound? It's a very large, wide ugly gash. Any police officer who saw the wound itself or even a photo would consider a large knife not a small one. It's not at all surprising. The theory of a sawing motion made with a smaller knife was only proposed at trial but likely wouldn't have been any police officer's first guess as to how this very large nasty wound was made.

Yes, I have many photos and I have studied them. I will never get them out of my head.

Hendry and Moore have also studied them. Moore has been trained in knife combat, specifically how to defend himself against an attacker with a knife. He says that when someone's throat is stabbed and then cut laterally the way Meredith's was, it can only be done by an assailant who reaches around from behind. An attacker who is facing the victim cannot get the leverage needed to cut through the tissue, which is thick and tough. Even for an attacker with the optimum leverage, from behind, it takes tremendous force. The attacker will inevitably plunge the knife up to the hilt to get maximum leverage. A knife as big as the one from Sollecito's apartment would come out the other side.

Hendry, whose eye for details I have come to respect greatly, notes that the first three-quarters of the wound is a relatively smooth cut, but the last 25 percent is torn at the surface tissue rather than cut. He says that is because the knife was in over the hilt. The blade was still cutting the thick, hard cartilage and muscle, but the hilt was below the surface of the skin, so the skin was torn rather than cut.

This is disturbing even to write about, but we need to understand the truth. And this is the truth about what happened to Meredith Kercher. She wasn't surrounded by knife-wielding kids on a lark. She was overwhelmed and swiftly killed by a powerful male attacker.

 

[komponisto]

Of course it's a minority... and you'd be surprised how early in a relationship such adventures are embarked upon. Quite often before you could even call it a relationship.

How often?

Did i mention lethat weapons?

The proposed scenario involves knives -- two, in fact.

And your point is?

I was explicit above:

So even if you grant the plausibility of each of the components of the scenario (some of which are in fact highly implausible), their conjunction rapidly diminishes in probability as the number of components increases

The prosecution (or Massei) theory requires many unusual things to have happened, hence its prior probability is very low. See Burdensome Details, Conjunction Fallacy.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
I've always found it very hard to believe that shortly after Patrick Lumumba texted Amanda Knox that she did not have to come to work that night, and right after Jovana Popovic had stopped by to let Raffaele Sollecito know that he did not have to do her that huge favor, that Amanda decided to play a rape prank on Meredith and grabbed that huuuge kitchen knife, told Raffaele to follow and then when she saw Rudy, whom Raffaele didn't even know, she invited him too to join them in a prank...

Speaking of Rudy, I thought that he had already arrived at the gals apartment at 8:30pm for his date. Didn't he mention this to Judge Claudia Matteini?

RW, this post raises an important question that weakens any argument for premeditation. Amanda and Raffaele had no reason to believe Meredith would be home. From their contact with her earlier that day, they knew Meredith had gone out, but they didn't know where she was going. It was a long holiday weekend with no school the next day. Everybody had partied the night before and no doubt many of them were partying this night, too.

There was no cell phone contact between Meredith and Amanda that evening, so no reason Amanda would be aware that Meredith had been tired and decided to call it an early night and go home from her friends' place before 9:00. There is no evidence of Amanda becoming aware at any time of where Meredith was or whether Meredith was home; for all she knew, Meredith would be spending the night elsewhere, as Amanda was.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Hi all,
I've done a couple of tests to try and understand some of what we debate here. So have others...

An interesting test would be to take a huuuuge kitchen knife and, with a friend who really, really trusted you, put the tip of this knife at your friend's throat.

And then think for a moment.
Think of the power you wield.

Are you capable of really plunging that knife into your friends throat?
No mattter how high or drunk you got?
Just for a prank?
Or just because the friend might have gotten mad at you for leaving a dirty toilet, bringing guy friends over, or because your friend wouldn't have sex?
Can you actually murder someone in 1 of the most horrible possible ways, feeling the knife enter puncture, penetrate and enter your friends body?

Do you really think that a young gal, 1 who worked 3 jobs to save enough $$$ to follow her dream by studying abroad, 1 who is a big sister to her younger siblings, 1 who had wrapped a birthday present for another friend just a few hours before, would have done this?

Or would she have stopped that knife blade from penetrating her friends neck. At any time? Or just stopped it all? Sorry Meredith, it was just a joke!

Or would she have never even done any of this?

She never would have. She can be a goof, naive, clueless, tactless, whatever... but she's not violent or aggressive. I don't understand why people can't see how ridiculous it is. But, as I just posted to Danceme, it's also not feasible from a mechanical standpoint, and it is not the kind of attack reflected in the victim's injuries.

 

[moodstream]

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.

I think the knife is one weakness in your theory. It's not a special knife. They had plenty of kitchen knives already at the cottage. Why bother?


Another problem would be the consequences. If they are not planning ahead of time to kill her, they have to be aware that there will be a next morning, and Meredith will be plenty peeved. Knox would certainly have to move, and most likely have to explain herself to the police. It seems like a lot of downside for a prank.

 

[moodstream]

I find it a little unbelievable that Douglas Preston would write this into an afterword to his book without even waiting to see if it checked out.

Yup, he should have caught the next plane to Perugia and checked it out first hand. Or, maybe not, since Magnini induced Preston to believe his freedom was in jeopardy in Italy.

Have you even seen the actual picture of the fatal wound? It's a very large, wide ugly gash. Any police officer who saw the wound itself or even a photo would consider a large knife not a small one. It's not at all surprising. The theory of a sawing motion made with a smaller knife was only proposed at trial but likely wouldn't have been any police officer's first guess as to how this very large nasty wound was made.

It may have been a large wound, but it was connected to a small woman's neck. The knife was too long for the wound, longer than the width of the neck. Nothing in the neck would prevent the knife from exiting somewhere if it was used without restraint.

 

[Fine]

Yes, I have many photos and I have studied them. I will never get them out of my head.

Hendry and Moore have also studied them. Moore has been trained in knife combat, specifically how to defend himself against an attacker with a knife. He says that when someone's throat is stabbed and then cut laterally the way Meredith's was, it can only be done by an assailant who reaches around from behind. An attacker who is facing the victim cannot get the leverage needed to cut through the tissue, which is thick and tough. Even for an attacker with the optimum leverage, from behind, it takes tremendous force. The attacker will inevitably plunge the knife up to the hilt to get maximum leverage. A knife as big as the one from Sollecito's apartment would come out the other side.

Hendry, whose eye for details I have come to respect greatly, notes that the first three-quarters of the wound is a relatively smooth cut, but the last 25 percent is torn at the surface tissue rather than cut. He says that is because the knife was in over the hilt. The blade was still cutting the thick, hard cartilage and muscle, but the hilt was below the surface of the skin, so the skin was torn rather than cut.

This is disturbing even to write about, but we need to understand the truth. And this is the truth about what happened to Meredith Kercher. She wasn't surrounded by knife-wielding kids on a lark. She was overwhelmed and swiftly killed by a powerful male attacker.

___________________________

Umm, Charlie, this ---if true---suggests that the attacker had some knowledge about the use of knives. And of the three suspects, Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy....who would that be???

///

 

[Mary_H]

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

Feel free to fire away.

No, I wasn't being facetious. It's great that someone rose to the challenge of describing a possible scenario. As you implied, you have a right to state your opinion, especially in response to requests for it. Of course, I do disagree with it, so thanks for the invitation.

The fundamental problem with this or any scenario of the murder as a three-on-one operation is that it buys into Mignini's original vision of the crime, for which he had not one iota of evidence when he formulated it. The image that three people had tried to force sexual relations on Meredith was fully formed by the fourth day after the crime, regardless of the facts that no evidence had been analyzed and the medical examiner had said he could not testify unequivocally that Meredith had been raped.

Any evidence that is collected after the fact to support a notion for which there is no evidence must be considered questionable.

That this image was conjured so quickly by Mignini, possibly with the help of Giobbi, then swallowed whole, apparently without objection, by de Felice and Amato is astonishing. It says everything about them and nothing about the suspects. It was made up out of whole cloth. They had as much evidence to allow them to create this scenario as they had to create a dozen other scenarios, and this is the one they chose. This is the one they liked best, so to speak.

Once this picture of the crime was made available to the world, Mignini's fantasy became a lot of other people's fantasies, probably with a million or more slight variations on the theme. All of these mental scenarios, though, spring only from imagination, embellished by unsubstantiated rumors, hearsay and wishful thinking. It has not been established with strong validity that three people committed the crime together.

 

[lionking]

Mary, do you think a lone wolf scenario is correct? I don't as I believe there would have been far more defensive bruises and wounds if Meredith fought back against Rudy, who is hardly He-Man.

 

[komponisto]

The prosecution (or Massei) theory requires many unusual things to have happened, hence its prior probability is very low. See Burdensome Details, Conjunction Fallacy.

To reinforce this point, here is a partial list:

(1) Amanda Knox has to have participated in murder with Rudy Guede.
(2) Raffaele Sollecito has to have participated in murder with Rudy Guede.
(3) Raffaele Sollecito has to have participated in murder with Amanda Knox (and vice-versa).
(4) Amanda Knox has to have participated in a sex game with Rudy Guede;
(5) Raffaele Sollecito has to have participated in a sex game with Rudy Guede.
(6) Amanda Knox has to have participated in staging a break-in in her house.
(7) Raffaele Sollecito has to have participated in staging a break-in at Amanda and Meredith's house.
(8) The supposed staged break-in has to have resembled Rudy Guede's previous break-ins without any participation from Rudy.
(9) Amanda Knox (or Raffaele Sollecito) has to have carried a large kitchen knife from Raffaele's apartment to that of Amanda and Meredith.
(10) Amanda Knox has to have left no trace of herself in the murder room.
(11) Raffaele Sollecito has to have left no trace of himself in the murder room (save the ambiguous and highly disputed bra clasp result).
(12) Amanda and Raffaele have to have encountered Rudy that night.
(13) Amanda and Raffaele have to have declined to accuse Rudy despite leaving unambiguous traces of him in the apartment.
(14) Despite the mass of evidence against him, Rudy has to have declined to accuse his co-participants, Amanda and Raffaele, until after he would have been able to find out that they were suspects via the media.
(15) The victim of Amanda and Raffaele's aggression has to have been someone with whom they had had no known problem or quarrel.
(16) Amanda and Raffaele have to have become violent while under the influence of cannabis.

...and on and on and on...

Now, of course these items are not all independent; but neither is there any perfect entailment. Each one of them strictly decreases the probability of the conjunction, in most cases by a significant amount.