Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quixotecoyote]

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.

Of course, since you could write a similar list of necessary conditions for any scenario going back to (and beyond) the birth of any hypothetical perpetrator, the only logical conclusion is to assume that the murder is too unlikely to have happened at all and thus Meredith Kercher is still alive and thus Knox is innocent! It's an open and shut case!

 

[komponisto]

Of course, since you could write a similar list of necessary conditions for any scenario going back to (and beyond) the birth of any hypothetical perpetrator, the only logical conclusion is to assume that the murder is too unlikely to have happened at all and thus Meredith Kercher is still alive and thus Knox is innocent! It's an open and shut case!

Sorry, no. The items listed are improbable conditioned on the (undisputed) fact that Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher (with or without the collaboration of anyone else).

 

[Mary_H]

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.

I do think a lone wolf scenario is correct. I have continued to be surprised throughout the course of my life at how strong men are compared to me. Research has shown that basketball players are the second-fittest athletes, after dancers. I think Rudy was more than strong enough to handle Meredith, who was very slight.

There was a case in Seattle a couple years ago in which one man with a knife attacked and raped a pair of women for over an hour, using the knife to keep them under his control. One of the women died after breaking a window and escaping into the street. As she was dying, she said to one of her neighbors, "He told us he wouldn't hurt us, but he did. He lied."

 

[loverofzion]

It reminds me of a Blake Edwards farce, as in: Peter Sellers, Inspector Clouseau, "The Pink Panther."

They came back early the next morning and cleaned up.

 

[lionking]

Fit does not equal strong Mary, and I think you know that. I was an extremely fit marathon runner, not strong though.

 

[loverofzion]

Treehorn’s original post (24821) argued Knox rarely, if ever, gives a straightforward answer or explanation on the tough questions[/I. He gave this example: After establishing that she'd been at the cottage 'party' with Rudy in October, Knox is asked about the details of that party: CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked? AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes. CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs? AK: Every once in a while with friends. To Treehorn, Knox’s answers are evasive and incomplete. He bemoans that Knox is allowed to avoid providing direct answers to the questions, and allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?". He blames the Italian civil law tradition.

Katody Matrass argued in return: (Knox) answers precisely and straight. It's (Carlos) Pacelli that deliberately expresses himself in a deceptive manner. (Pacelli) asks in a way to create an illusion that (Knox) confirmed.

Loverofzion (24829 ) replies to Katoday Matrass that Knox is not answering straight … "At that time was hashish smoked" deserves a one word answer. It's either yes or no. Amanda instead chooses to say |once in a while with friends". He goes on to assert there are myriad questions (Knox) answered evasively and deceptively.

LondonJohn posts Knox answered the questions posed to her by Carlo Pacell directly and properly: She was asked: "Was hashish smoked at a certain party". She replied: "Yes". She was then asked "Did you yourself use drugs during this period (October 2007)?" She replied: "Occasionally I did, yes". (24831)


Charlie Wilkes points out that Loverofzion’s @24829 seems to mismatch the first question in Treehorn’s example with Knox’s answer to the second question. Treehorn responds at 24851: No she didn't. Per usual, Knox created confusion. This is what liars seek to do. Innocent people have nothing to conceal, as a result they seek to establish clarity, not confusion.

Katody Matrass (24863) counters Treehorn by pointing out Amanda’s answers are straight:
CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?
AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.
CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?
AK: Every once in a while with friends.
CP: Which substances were they?
AK: Marijuana.

Komponisto joins in at 24868 with a direct translation of the Italian.

( Treehorn: "Every once in a while with friends" is affirmative while, at one and the same time, she's allowed to remain equivocal on the crux of the issue: "Did she smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?"
Komponisto: That was not the question she was asked. Pacelli's question, in the original Italian (unfortunately the video seems to have been removed from YouTube, so you'll have to get your PMF friends to verify this) was:
Quote:Lei faceva uso di sostanze stupefacenti? That's faceva, the imperfect tense, which indicates habitual or continuous action, not the preterite (fece) or perfect (ha fatto), which would more likely have been used had the speaker been asking specifically about a particular occasion. The question, as posed, means roughly, "were you in the habit of using mind-altering substances?")

Kevin Lowe (24878) comments that in cross examinations, attorneys tend not to ask questions of a witness that you don't know the answer to. In the cross-examination process the lawyer uses the witness as a mouthpiece to deliver a carefully-chosen series of statements to the court that paint a picture that the lawyer wants the court to see. The "art of cross-examination" is in part the art of creating illusions by omitting important and relevant information.

And that is all before TomM43’s reply, which began to veer the thread away from the original issue.

Treehorn, a lot of posters have pointed out that Knox is not evasive in her answers, and have done a lot of work to show this.
Call me biased, but you have been shot out of the water on this topic, yet you offer no meaningful defense of your original post. Still in recent posts you don’t seem to concede the point.

What’s going on?

Anyone reading further amanda's answers when questioned during other parts of the trial will find confirmatin of her evasive, at times meandering, long winded answers.
That you think you shot down thse 2 questions asked of her, tkjry reading other parts of the testimonies she has given.
She never answers directly unless forced.

 

[Mary_H]

Fit does not equal strong Mary, and I think you know that. I was an extremely fit marathon runner, not strong though.

Well, okay. I guess that could be a point of contention. What about using a knife as a threat, though?

 

[Amazer]

Of course, since you could write a similar list of necessary conditions for any scenario going back to (and beyond) the birth of any hypothetical perpetrator, the only logical conclusion is to assume that the murder is too unlikely to have happened at all and thus Meredith Kercher is still alive and thus Knox is innocent! It's an open and shut case!

This!

 

[komponisto]

This!

Did you miss the next post?

Let me repeat it for you:

Sorry, no. The items listed are improbable conditioned on the (undisputed) fact that Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher (with or without the collaboration of anyone else).

 

[Draca]

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.

Lionking,

I'm not Mary but would like to address this. I think the bruises are what they should be for Rudi Guede doing the attack alone.

The attack up until the neck stab would have taken a very short duration. The first signs of the attack were near the bed where the first signs of blood of the wall fingerprints and blood on the floor are found. Rudi would have had her in control from behind at this point.

Things move across the room near the desk and window where there are further signs of struggle and blood.

She would have been forced to the floor where he again grabbed her from behind and held her jaw firmly in his grip with his left hand while he stabbed her pulling the knife up to the right with the other hand. At that point the fight was over and not much time would have passed.

She moves toward the wardrobe aspirating blood as she weakens and he removes part of her clothes and moves her on her back with a pillow under her hips. Since there is no struggle none of this needs to cause a great deal more wounds.

MK had over 40 bruises and cuts. The locations of these injuries are consistent with a single attacker.

 

[loverofzion]

Considering that this question is the crux of the entire issue, what you're saying here is that you're not interested in justifying your opinion.

Or that's the charitable interpretation, at any rate. The uncharitable interpretation is that your argument is "we can never know the answer, therefore the defendants are guilty".

It is a logical impossibility to have an opinion on how likely the scenario is after seeing the evidence without having an opinion on how likely it is before seeing the evidence.

No, the likelihood of the three teaming up was never the question for the jury.
The question is how does the evidence seen and heard stach up.

In this case, apparently it convinced the junry to unanimously vote the pari guilty.

Really, how the dynamics of this particular, highly pathological combination of people, played out is not the court's concern.

 

[lionking]

Well, okay. I guess that could be a point of contention. What about using a knife as a threat, though?

I think the bruising suggests Meredith was held down while being assaulted.

 

[Mary_H]

No, the likelihood of the three teaming up was never the question for the jury.
The question is how does the evidence seen and heard stach up.

In this case, apparently it convinced the junry to unanimously vote the pari guilty.

Really, how the dynamics of this particular, highly pathological combination of people, played out is not the court's concern.

Holy cow, loverofzion. How the dynamics of the crime played out is the jury's only concern. If they can't figure out a way the three defendants committed the crime together, they don't have a case. The prosecutor can't just bring three (or two) defendants into court and say they did it without showing how they did it. That is the purpose of the evidence.

 

[Mary_H]

I think the bruising suggests Meredith was held down while being assaulted.

Wouldn't she have more bruises from struggling against three people than from struggling against one? If more hands were available to restrain her, wouldn't they have held down her legs as well as her arms during a struggle? Or knelt on some part of her body?

 

[komponisto]

No, the likelihood of the three teaming up was never the question for the jury.
The question is how does the evidence seen and heard stach up

You see, RoseMontague, this is why I have to talk about Bayes' theorem -- because people write comments like this!

Let me say it again: it is logically impossible to have an opinion on how likely the scenario is after seeing the evidence without having an opinion on how likely it is before seeing the evidence.

The rules of probability are rules, not suggestions.

 

[lionking]

You see, RoseMontague, this is why I have to talk about Bayes' theorem -- because people write comments like this!

Let me say it again: it is logically impossible to have an opinion on how likely the scenario is after seeing the evidence without having an opinion on how likely it is before seeing the evidence.

The rules of probability are rules, not suggestions.

Sorry, are you saying it's impossible for AK and RS to have killed Meredith?

 

[komponisto]

Sorry, are you saying it's impossible for AK and RS to have killed Meredith?

No. (Certainly not in that comment, anyway.)

It was a general point about probability theory: posterior probabilities must incorporate prior probabilities.

 

[moodstream]

Anyone reading further amanda's answers when questioned during other parts of the trial will find confirmatin of her evasive, at times meandering, long winded answers.
That you think you shot down thse 2 questions asked of her, tkjry reading other parts of the testimonies she has given.
She never answers directly unless forced.

You are more than invited to present any testimony you wish to illustrate her evasions. ( As far as meandering, long winded... I don't understand your point).

I don't think I shot down the assertion that Knox was not evasive nor trying to confuse when she responded to the questions asked in the example given by Treehorn, but I do think the assertion has been roundly defeated.

I notice that you refer to 'reading further answers', and 'other parts of her testimony' , but not taking up the debate for this particular testimony, and so am I correct then to say that you also agree that the example presented by Treehorn is not an example of Knox evading the questions she is asked, and in fact is an example of Knox answering clearly, directly and truthfully?

 

[Chris C]

(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.

He still hasn't accused them.

 

[Chris C]

They came back early the next morning and cleaned up.

They? Cleaned what up?