Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

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.

Was not the prosecution evasive also. Especially when considering ToD.

 

[Antony]

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.

[...]

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

[...]

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.

Very lucidly and cogently put - and illustrates exactly why this case stands out as a very obvious miscarriage of justice (along with the fact that the didn't have to go looking for their prime suspects). The way in which those clinging to the belief of guilty continue to state their articles of faith as fact is one of the reasons this discussion just goes round and round.

 

[Antony]

I'm afraid you may not know what the word "reasonable" means in the term "beyond a reasonable doubt". It doesn't mean the same as it does in this sentence: "even though it was raining, there were still a reasonable number of people walking without umbrellas".

In fact, "beyond a reasonable doubt" could perhaps most accurately be defined as "beyond all doubt which has its basis in reason", or, more lengthily but probably more accurately still: "beyond all doubt which a reasonable person could imagine".

[...]

This is another cogent and lucid post, and puts all the rather pointless discussion assigning (essentially arbitrary) %-age points given to the probability of doubt into context.

To repeat my earlier point, I would say not only that claims of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt are nowhere near "beyond reasonable doubt", but that they are clearly innocent beyond reasonable doubt. It's only by demanding an (unachievable) standard of innocence beyond absolute doubt that the guilter faithful can even keep this discussion alive.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

In contrast to Stefanoni saying standards and protocols are merely recommendations.

I hope you did not take my Bayes Watch comment too seriously, komponisto. I am becoming more of a fan daily, it seems.

The logic of the more than one knife theory seems to me to be not so convoluted. Looking at it from the standpoint of guilt (LOL) we would assume AK and RS were present at the murder because of Meredith's DNA on the blade of the knife and Raffaele's DNA on the metal hook of the bra clasp. We also know from the testimony that 5 of the 6 experts contend that the kitchen utensil could not have caused all of the wounds. Therefore there has to be at least one more knife involved and I say at least because I have seen other theories that propose all three had a knife in hand.

Mary_H could very well be correct that the police jumped on the early theory of more than one attacker and tried to find evidence to support it but I don't believe we can make that same assumption from the standpoint of the judge/jury. In my opinion the appeal court is following this logic as well. They have indicated some doubt about these 2 pieces of evidence. If there is still a lot of doubt after the expert review, the the theory of three attackers no longer holds water.

 

[komponisto]

The logic of the more than one knife theory seems to me to be not so convoluted. Looking at it from the standpoint of guilt (LOL) we would assume AK and RS were present at the murder because of Meredith's DNA on the blade of the knife and Raffaele's DNA on the metal hook of the bra clasp. We also know from the testimony that 5 of the 6 experts contend that the kitchen utensil could not have caused all of the wounds. Therefore there has to be at least one more knife involved and I say at least because I have seen other theories that propose all three had a knife in hand.

Oh, I totally forgot to include multiple knives in my list above! That's one of my favorite examples.

Yes, the guilt theory no doubt requires the assumption of more than one knife; but this is a problem for the guilt theory!

Since folks were quoting Latin maxims earlier, it's appropriate to remember this one: pluritas non est ponenda sine necessitate. (Known as Occam's Razor.)

To the extent that a single knife can explain all of the wounds, any theory that requires more than one loses probability points (with the exact "number of points" lost depending on the statistical frequency of multiple-knife attacks).

Mary_H could very well be correct that the police jumped on the early theory of more than one attacker and tried to find evidence to support it but I don't believe we can make that same assumption from the standpoint of the judge/jury.

It seems to me that the judges/jurors went in with the assumption that the defendants were likely guilty (otherwise the prosecution wouldn't have brought charges against them!), and asked themselves whether the evidence allowed them to believe in guilt, instead of whether it compelled them to so believe. If you want confirmation, you only have to read the Massei report, in which the most incriminating interpretation of every piece of data is always assumed, without regard to probability.

(As we know, even to conclude the evidence permits the assumption of guilt requires severely distorted thinking.)

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

I believe that is an overstatement on your part but I am willing to discuss what answers she gives that you feel are evasive. Do you have some specific Q&A's in mind?

 

[loverofzion]

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

Maybe amanda introduced them on their merry wayover to assault Merdith.

I don't know how many times Meredith had met Rudy. It is known that they were once together with amanda at a gathering at the boys' apt. downstairs where a spinello was smoked.

In all lilkelihood they had a passing acquaintanceship.

What is your point exactly?

 

[loverofzion]

They? Cleaned what up?

Themselves, and then the crime scene.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have made it clear that I really enjoy Frank's posts and his writing style. Clearly this pessimistic approach with some of the hardcore supporters of innocence seems to be spreading. I don't understand it nor do I agree with it. I know Charlie has given his reasoning on this but I am not convinced.

Frank's latest post which I would characterize as so sad, too bad.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/01/angels-and-demons-around-amanda-knox.html

 

[loverofzion]

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.

Again, there was evidence of Merdith having been restrained; as well as evidence of 2 different knives.

 

[loverofzion]

I believe that is an overstatement on your part but I am willing to discuss what answers she gives that you feel are evasive. Do you have some specific Q&A's in mind?

Sure.
Just start at the beginning of her questioning that first night, then proceed through until the end of the trial.

 

[loverofzion]

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.

It was nost asked of them to "figure out the dynamics nor the likelihood of the three teaming up.
Of course they figured out the "way" the three worked; this is based on evidence of facts culled from the investigations.

What happened efore the three joined forces that night is irrelevent, and speculative.

How they did it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. THAT is the purpose of the evidence.

 

[loverofzion]

I believe that is an overstatement on your part but I am willing to discuss what answers she gives that you feel are evasive. Do you have some specific Q&A's in mind?

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/01/statement-analysis-of-amanda-knox.html

Try reading this piece, Rose.
You may learn about the construction and repetition of evasion and obfuscation - or muddying the waters- as part and parcel of Ms. Knox's way of communicating her version of the "best truth she can remember".

 

[loverofzion]

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.

Well, Meredith had partied the night before, her boyfriend was out of town and she was known to be a studious and conscientious young woman.
Chances were pretty good she'd be returning to go to sleep after having been out with her girlfirends since that afternoon.

Right Mary?

 

[Dan O.]

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

That is incorrect. You don't think it, you only accepted what the authorities said. You have no independent observation from which to form your own opinion.

If you had any basis for thinking this, you would be able to show specific characteristics of the bruising that are consistent with being held down and not consistent with being held and attacked by a single assailant. When have you even seen the bruising?

But you also have to go beyond the bruises and look at the blood patterns that painted a picture of the dynamic of the attack. What have you done to try and reconcile the blood patterns with a multiple attacker scenario? Where precisely was Meredith held down? And how does the blood get sprayed around the room in the patterns we see if she was held down when the fatal wounds were inflicted?

 

[RoseMontague]

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/01/statement-analysis-of-amanda-knox.html

Try reading this piece, Rose.
You may learn about the construction and repetition of evasion and obfuscation - or muddying the waters- as part and parcel of Ms. Knox's way of communicating her version of the "best truth she can remember".

The statement analysis "expert" who by his own admission took an 8 hour on-line class and read a book to become such an expert? You will have to do better than that, LOZ. That is pure voodoo hoodoo.

I also believe you were addressing answers she gave in her testimony that you thought were evasive?

 

[RoseMontague]

That is incorrect. You don't think it, you only accepted what the authorities said. You have no independent observation from which to form your own opinion.

If you had any basis for thinking this, you would be able to show specific characteristics of the bruising that are consistent with being held down and not consistent with being held and attacked by a single assailant. When have you even seen the bruising?

But you also have to go beyond the bruises and look at the blood patterns that painted a picture of the dynamic of the attack. What have you done to try and reconcile the blood patterns with a multiple attacker scenario? Where precisely was Meredith held down? And how does the blood get sprayed around the room in the patterns we see if she was held down when the fatal wounds were inflicted?

Exactly. If two people were holding her she dragged them around that room in which case we would see more than minor bruising and some footprint evidence of these two additional attackers, in my opinion.

 

[LondonJohn]

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."

And this is the most important point of all. People who are being attacked by someone armed with a knife are very often far more submissive and compliant that one might expect. This is due to two major factors: firstly, sheer fear often induces a mental and physical "paralysis" in the victim(s); and secondly, the victim(s) is/are usually offered a choice by the perpetrator, along the lines of: "Do what I say and you won't get hurt - but if you struggle or resist, I'll kill you". If something like this is said, then unless the victim(s) is/are very confident that they will be able to overpower the attacker before being injured themselves, the logical option is to believe that compliance is the least-bad option.

This is, for example, what happens in the vast majority of armed robberies on banks. We're all familiar with the cliched announcement by the lead robber as the armed gang storm into the bank: "Everybody on the floor. Stay where you are and don't move, and nobody will get hurt." And the same message is used to the bank workers themselves: "Put the money in the bag / open the safe etc - if you do what I say you won't get hurt". And in most armed robberies on banks, the customers and staff comply, and nobody DOES get hurt. The threat of using a weapon (usually a gun/shotgun in this case) is sufficient to obtain full compliance.

The same thing happens in many violent rapes, and also in robberies against individuals: the assailant uses the threat of extreme violence as a weapon in itself. And the majority of people will comply in such a situation - since however bad it is to be raped (or, to a lesser extent, robbed of all your valuables), it's vastly preferable to being killed.

However, the knowledge of this psychology can be to the benefit of sadistic sexually-motivated killers. The BTK killer in Kansas used exactly this psychology to enable him to control and tie up entire families, before torturing and killing them at his leisure (often killing the first victims in front of the other restrained members of the family). And a rapist with high levels of adrenaline coursing through his veins can react to a brief struggle from his victim by exercising the ultimate form of control over her.

So, with all this in mind, I think it's entirely feasible that a single attacker - Guede - had a brief initial struggle with Meredith, after which he got the knife to her throat and told her to comply otherwise he would cut her throat. And if you're going to restrain and control someone with a knife to their throat, the best (perhaps the ONLY) way to do this is from behind, since you then trap the victim's neck between the knife blade and your shoulder/chest.

So my belief is that Guede had Meredith in this position on the floor, and she was relatively compliant. This would have given Guede the opportunity to retain the knife at her throat in his right hand, then use his left hand to start removing the clothing from her lower body. I think it's then possible that Meredith realised what was about to happen, and either screamed and/or moved against the knife - and one or both of these things caused Guede to stab her in the neck. There's no need whatsoever (in my mind) for there to have been multiple attackers to have been involved - a single fit man with a sharp knife and a threatening demeanour can be more than sufficient to restrain and pacify a single victim (and often, as in your example and that of BTK, more than one victim).

 

[LondonJohn]

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

Have you read what the Massei report says about the autopsy report, in relation to the condition of Meredith's body ouside of the neck wounds? I'll repeat it AGAIN for convenience's sake (my emphasis):

There were no noticeable injuries to the chest or abdomen.

The presence of two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and barely noticeable, were detected in the region of the elbow.

On the hands were small wounds showing a very slight defensive response.

A small, very slight patch of colour was noticed on the "anterior inner surface of the left thigh" (page 16). Another bruise was noted on the anterior surface, in the middle third of the right leg" (page 17).

The doctor also stated that, after sectioning the corpse, he noted at the level of the head "a very slight area of bruising" in the region just below the top of the head;

Does this sound like the outcome of a protracted struggle with multiple assailants, followed by forcible restraint while Meredith struggled against being held back? (I'll give you a clue: No).

 

[loverofzion]

The statement analysis "expert" who by his own admission took an 8 hour on-line class and read a book to become such an expert? You will have to do better than that, LOZ. That is pure voodoo hoodoo.

I also believe you were addressing answers she gave in her testimony that you thought were evasive?

I thought his analysis quite persuasive.

My point was she used evasion as a way of communicating, probably dating from way before she tried using such tactics in an actual court of law.