Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

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.

He is quite persuasive for those that are already persuaded.

Here was your post regarding Amanda's answers when questioned in her testimony:

Originally Posted by loverofzion View Post
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 responded saying I would be happy to discuss specific answers in her testimony that you felt this way about, which I still have not seen to this point.

 

[Draca]

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

A single attacker could have restrained her alone, especially a strong male attacker.

There is NO evidence of two knives. There is evidence that the kitchen knife could not have created anything but the slash while not using full force. The kitchen knife was not the murder weapon.

 

[LondonJohn]

A single attacker could have restrained her alone, especially a strong male attacker.

There is NO evidence of two knives. There is evidence that the kitchen knife could not have created anything but the slash while not using full force. The kitchen knife was not the murder weapon.

Well, there is "evidence" of two knives if (and only if) one accepts that the kitchen knife was one of the murder weapons. And of course this is because the kitchen knife cannot have caused all the neck wounds. Thus, if one believes the kitchen knife was one of the weapons, it's axiomatic that one must also believe that two (at least) knives were used in the attack.

However, the wounds themselves are entirely consistent with having been inflicted by just one narrow-bladed non-serrated knife (with only one sharp edge) with a blade length of around 8-10cm. And this also correlates with the faint outline of a blade that was made in blood on the bedsheet.

So if the kitchen knife gets thrown out as evidence (which I believe it will), there will be absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that more than one knife was used in the attack. And if that's the case, it's far more logical to conclude that the wounds were all made by just one knife, wielded by just one person (regardless of - and separate to - the question of whether others might have been involved in restraining Meredith).

To use an analogy, imagine that someone is killed by being hit over the head twice with a hammer, leaving two circular indentations of similar size on the victim's skull. Now, it's entirely possible that two different people perpetrated the attack, each of whom was armed with a similar-sized hammer, and each of whom struck the victim in the head*. But, in the absence of any other evidence pointing at more than one assailant, the default conclusion would be that the two blows were struck by one assailant using one hammer**.

* And, if asked directly, I suspect that any forensic pathologist would agree under questioning that the two head wounds were consistent with having been inflicted by two separate attackers, each armed with similar hammers.

** And of course a pathologist would also agree that the two head wounds were also consistent with having been inflicted by a single attacker wielding a single hammer.

 

[nopoirot]

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

It does read rather like a resentful lamentation.

 

[babycondor]

...

* And, if asked directly, I suspect that any forensic pathologist would agree under questioning that the two head wounds were consistent with having been inflicted by two separate attackers, each armed with similar hammers.

** And of course a pathologist would also agree that the two head wounds were also consistent with having been inflicted by a single attacker wielding a single hammer.

You emphasize an important point that many people seem to miss or forget: the difference between "consistent with..." and "proves that...." This distinction should also be kept firmly in mind when evaluating pathologists' statements regarding DNA evidence.

 

[katy_did]

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

Why do you think he's pessimistic, Rose? I read it only as a protest against the fact that the word of the police is automatically believed above that of a suspect, which gives them the sense that they can get away with anything as long as they make sure there's no documentary evidence of it. It's a very fair point, since that's exactly what's happened with regard to Amanda's slander charge: I can't really understand how anyone, whether believing in guilt or innocence, can really think it's OK that an allegation of police abuse is settled by asking the police if they did it or not.

Frank said what he thought about the appeal chances in the comments to his previous post:

Giving priority to the DNA test suggests that if knife and bra clasp go away it becomes useless, for him, wasting time looking for an alibi, or listening to potentially extravagant witnesses. And a judicial mistake can be closed straight away.

I agree with Frank and disagree with Charlie on this. I think Charlie's perspective depends on an assumption that all judicial systems everywhere are corrupt and not to be trusted, which does seem overly pessimistic! So far Hellmann has done nothing to make me think he's not going to judge the appeal fairly and objectively.

 

[katy_did]

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".

Yeah. I'm still not convinced.

'Water' enters the subject's language when sexual activity has taken place, including bathing, washing of hands, washing of laundry, etc.

 

[nopoirot]

That doesn't reflect well on the quality of their "thinking," does it? I think it's a good thing (for those of us who believe Amanda and Rafaelle were wrongfully convicted) that the appeal judge specifically focused on reviewing the knife and bra clasp evidence.

The court realizes these issues are controversial, and wishes to preserve the appearance of fairness. The expert opinions which the lower court purported to follow will remain in the record.

Now put yourself in the position of a juror who is convinced that the defendants have, to borrow a pithy phrase from one of them, told the court a "load of bs." You are strapped into a procrustean bed bed which leaves you only the option of finding them guilty as charged or letting them waltz scot-free. I know what you, with your high regard for principles of law, would do, but I'm not so sure that this might not "stick in the craw" of most jurors (even those schooled in advanced probability theory.) Then there's the small matter of the pride of Italy in its institutions being put at risk.

 

[RoseMontague]

Why do you think he's pessimistic, Rose? I read it only as a protest against the fact that the word of the police is automatically believed above that of a suspect, which gives them the sense that they can get away with anything as long as they make sure there's no documentary evidence of it. It's a very fair point, since that's exactly what's happened with regard to Amanda's slander charge: I can't really understand how anyone, whether believing in guilt or innocence, can really think it's OK that an allegation of police abuse is settled by asking the police if they did it or not.

Frank said what he thought about the appeal chances in the comments to his previous post:

Giving priority to the DNA test suggests that if knife and bra clasp go away it becomes useless, for him, wasting time looking for an alibi, or listening to potentially extravagant witnesses. And a judicial mistake can be closed straight away.

I agree with Frank and disagree with Charlie on this. I think Charlie's perspective depends on an assumption that all judicial systems everywhere are corrupt and not to be trusted, which does seem overly pessimistic! So far Hellmann has done nothing to make me think he's not going to judge the appeal fairly and objectively.

Maybe it's all this talk of they, it is they this and they that, and I am not confusing these they with the British Royal Family or 12 foot invisible shape-changing lizards (a bit of humor from stilicho-well done). My comment focuses on the they of the appeal court, I just don't think this court is going the route of the first one and I believe they have already seen the inherent problems in the first verdict. That quote I posted from this court's written order regarding the additional testing saying it does not fully share the first court's addressing of reasonable doubt seems to me to be a significant point.

The earlier quote that you have included in your post matches my thoughts exactly, and I could be reading more into Frank's comments about the police and the first court without considering his comments on the second.

BTW, who added the [403] tag to our thread. Good one. LOL.

 

[Justinian2]

They came back early the next morning and cleaned up.

Source? (Who's the psychic?)

 

[Justinian2]

Maybe it's all this talk of
[...]
BTW, who added the [403] tag to our thread. Good one. LOL.

I did. I'm the official OP. What's an OP???? What am I? What powers do I have?

LOL.

 

[loverofzion]

Source? (Who's the psychic?)

Who do you suppose might have performed the clean up?
Who else had the motivation to create an IMPRESSION of a burgled crime; how else did raf know upon entering in his phone call to the police that no, nothing's been taken. Hmmmmm....how do you think he knew that.

 

[Thunder]

Would someone please explain to me why this subject is receiving soo much attention?

 

[katy_did]

Maybe it's all this talk of they, it is they this and they that, and I am not confusing these they with the British Royal Family or 12 foot invisible shape-changing lizards (a bit of humor from stilicho-well done). My comment focuses on the they of the appeal court, I just don't think this court is going the route of the first one and I believe they have already seen the inherent problems in the first verdict. That quote I posted from this court's written order regarding the additional testing saying it does not fully share the first court's addressing of reasonable doubt seems to me to be a significant point.

The earlier quote that you have included in your post matches my thoughts exactly, and I could be reading more into Frank's comments about the police and the first court without considering his comments on the second.

BTW, who added the [403] tag to our thread. Good one. LOL.

Hmmm, I thought most of the 'theys' referred to the police, and didn't read too much significance into it. It seemed like a bit of a continuation of one of his previous posts, where he seemed to be hinting that the police may have planted the DNA evidence. I'm starting to get the sense that he's viewing the police as the ones who'll take the blame (or be the fall guys) if the verdict is overturned, rather than Stefanoni or Mignini...

Yeah, I noticed the [403] too, ha (ETA: oh, it was Justinian ).

 

[Justinian2]

Giving priority to the DNA test suggests that if knife and bra clasp go away it becomes useless, for him, wasting time looking for an alibi, or listening to potentially extravagant witnesses. And a judicial mistake can be closed straight away.

If either DNA finding is found lacking, the whole case should unravel pretty quickly.

Amanda's DNA should have been on her kitchen knife. Nothing unusual there. The question is how did Meredith's DNA get on the test swab and what does it mean?

What it does NOT mean is:
Amanda used the knife to kill Meredith.
The knife was ever at the crime scene.
The DNA got on the knife during the murder.
The DNA is NOT the result of lab contamination.
The DNA is NOT the result of poor forensic work.

Meredith's DNA on the test swab of the double DNA knife only means: Meredith's DNA got on the test swab.
That's all it means!
It's guilt by juxtaposition!
It's guilt by association!

And it may not even be real!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I agree with Frank and disagree with Charlie on this. I think Charlie's perspective depends on an assumption that all judicial systems everywhere are corrupt and not to be trusted, which does seem overly pessimistic! So far Hellmann has done nothing to make me think he's not going to judge the appeal fairly and objectively.

Bureaucracies everywhere have a morbid fear of having their sins exposed. Look how long it took the Catholic Church to deal with pedophile priests. They moved the priests around, ran interference to keep the police from getting involved, paid hush money, did everything to protect their reputation while doing nothing to deal with the underlying problem. Only when it became a full-blown public scandal did they face the ugly truth... THEN all of a sudden, they swung into action and became oh-so-pious in their determination to rid the church of this terrible scourge.

That kind of cynical inertia is why criminal defendants are guaranteed a public trial. It's a fundamental right in civilized countries because the experience of history has shown that sometimes the public needs to get involved, make a stink, kick up a ruckus, impose demands. This is one of those times. And we're doing it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Would someone please explain to me why this subject is receiving soo much attention?

It could be that [403] tag. Or rats.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

wrongful convictions

Would someone please explain to me why this subject is receiving soo much attention?

Thunder,

I wish that all wrongful convictions received this much attention, or more. It is one thing that the blogosphere can treat very effectively. The appeal is underway, and there is bound to be interest because of that.

 

[LondonJohn]

Who do you suppose might have performed the clean up?
Who else had the motivation to create an IMPRESSION of a burgled crime; how else did raf know upon entering in his phone call to the police that no, nothing's been taken. Hmmmmm....how do you think he knew that.

Hmmmmm.......do you think he might have looked into Filomena's room and seen her laptop and camera lying there in plain view, and that he might also have checked with Knox as to whether any of her belongings were missing?

In any case, he's wrong, isn't he? Meredith's money, credit cards and keys were taken. Do you think he wove all that into the fabric of his "made-up" declaration to the police that "nothing had been taken"? Elaborate double-bluff, eh? GENIUS!

 

[Justinian2]

Who do you suppose might have performed the clean up?
Who else had the motivation to create an IMPRESSION of a burgled crime; how else did raf know upon entering in his phone call to the police that no, nothing's been taken. Hmmmmm....how do you think he knew that.

Who do you suppose might have performed the clean up?

What makes you think there was a clean up?

Who else had the motivation to create an IMPRESSION of a burgled crime

There was a break-in. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

how else did raf know upon entering in his phone call to the police that no, nothing's been taken. Hmmmmm....how do you think he knew that

My theory: Amanda said her stuff was there. Raf probably said "Not that I know of" - which would have been my answer.