Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

Which is why he was invited to be in two upcoming documentaries?

Don't fool yourself that your opinion that his credibility is zero is shared by anyone but entrenched guilters.

"invited"?! "Documentaries"?!

Who do you think "invited" him?

Who do you think is behind the "documentaries"?

Amanda's PR team or, say, PBS Frontline?

Moore is (like those before him) a joke.

 

[Dan O.]

Well I don't accept your opinion, and put greater value on the findings of the court. Weighing up your opinion against the court's after months of deliberation is pretty easy for me.

And so we've come around to where you are claiming to do exactly what I've said you were doing. Let me know when you come up with your own scenario or at least know enough details of the prosecutions scenario so we can rationally discuss it.

 

[nopoirot]

nopoirot,

Candace Dempsey discussed the period between 1:45 and 5:45 in Murder in Italy. She said that Amanda described it as more of the same high-pressure browbeating as before. No one but you uses the phrase Jason Bourne flashbacks, and I don't think it is a helpful one.

Oh, are you suggesting that the 5:45 statement was the last compromising statement?

 

[treehorn]

Steve Moore originally assumed AK and RS were probably guilty. After much research of the case he came to the conclusion that the trial was a travesty of justice. Many other experts have come to the same conclusion after studying the case. You however maintain your position in spite of the evidence. I commend you for holding on to your belief in regards to this case. However, I can't help but think that even if you know you are wrong, you would never admit it. It's the same thing Mignini and the Perugian justice system has done. They made a huge mistake and will do anything to avoid looking bad.

Congratulations.

You bought the PR team's 'Steve Moore Narrative' right down to the "initially he thought they were guilty" bit.

Why is this much-vaunted sense of 'skepticism' geared only toward Italian police officers?

Surely American PR men deserve at least as much skepticism aimed their way.

 

[treehorn]

nopoirot,

Candace Dempsey discussed the period between 1:45 and 5:45 in Murder in Italy. She said that Amanda described it as more of the same high-pressure browbeating as before. No one but you uses the phrase Jason Bourne flashbacks, and I don't think it is a helpful one.

Half of your problems dealing with the evidence flow from the sources you choose to rely upon.

Candace Dempsey?!

You're not being 'rational'...which reminds me: Has Kevin Lowe ever relied on Dempsey or "Sfarzo" as a source?

To Kevin's credit, I can't remember seeing him expressly do so...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

laundromat

christianahannah,

You are correct. The laundromat incident happened while Meredith was still alive, according to Dempsey, p. 195. Raffaele wrote about it in his diary, thinking that Amanda went to the laundromat on the morning of 2 November, but that was a false rumor.

 

[Chris C]

Steve Moore has given reasonable people everywhere more than enough cause to seriously doubt every claim that he makes in respsect of his past work and the evidence in this case.

His credibility is, at this point, less than zero.

Less than Zero? Are they tossing the cases he worked on out of court because he made mistakes? All Steve Moore has really said is he believes they are innocent and that if the FBI would have investigated this Murder, the way they are taught to investigate, Knox and Sollecito would be walking free. He also points out that Mignini's main suspect from the very beginning was Knox, thus handicapping themselves.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the statements

Oh, are you suggesting that the 5:45 statement was the last compromising statement?

No, I only wished to make clear that I did not agree with your description of the interrogation on 5-6 November. The statement Ms. Knox wrote after making the 5:45 statement has at least one sentence in which Ms. Knox claims to believe two things which, paradoxically, oppose each other. When I read this, I felt more strongly than I did before, that Ms. Knox was confused at that moment.

 

[treehorn]

Less than Zero? Are they tossing the cases he worked on out of court because he made mistakes? All Steve Moore has really said is he believes they are innocent and that if the FBI would have investigated this Murder, the way they are taught to investigate, Knox and Sollecito would be walking free.

What did you think of Moore when he said "... the cases I've prosecuted..." as if HE had been a prosecuting attorney?

What kind of an "FBI man" thinks he's "prosecuting" a case when he's just a "witness" for the prosecution?!

Did you catch his rant on Seattle's KIRO radio? The one where he literally claimed the Italian system was such that Mignini "knew" that he'd personally "go to jail" if he failed to win the conviction of Knox?

What kind of an "FBI man" says things like that?!

 

[Chris C]

What did you think of Moore when he said "... the cases I've prosecuted..." as if HE had been a prosecuting attorney?

What kind of an "FBI man" thinks he's "prosecuting" a case when he's just a "witness" for the prosecution?!

Did you catch his rant on Seattle's KIRO radio? The one where he literally claimed the Italian system was such that Mignini "knew" that he'd personally "go to jail" if he failed to win the conviction of Knox?

What kind of an "FBI man" says things like that?!

So he didn't work for the FBI? Are you disagreeing with, that if the FBI investigated the case Knox/Sollecito would not have been charged? Are there any other ex-FBI agents that are jumping on the prosecutions side or refuting what Moore has said? How about Congressman? This guy has made a statement and no one in the FBI has stood up and refuted him. Apparently he is respected enough in the FBI that they are not disagreeing with him. Can you say the same about Mignini? Heck he got convicted of abusing his office by his own peers.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Really? Lets see sabout that?

Are you just argueing for the sake of argueing? When does something become sensible, simply because it happens frequently?

You were trying to argue that because murders with knives "don't make sense" that therefore any crazy theory was equally likely. It was and is a terrible argument - knife murders happen tens of times every day.

Guess pulled from your nether regions noted. Besides, to me it's not terribly important how they transported the knife. It would be a bonus if we know, but in the grand scheme of things not very important.

Nope, it doesn't work like that, because the prosecution theory is that Amanda just happened to be carrying the knife.

I would agree with you 100% if there was evidence that Meredith's murder was premeditated. If that were the case it wouldn't really matter how they moved the knife. Determined people would have found a way.

Not really interested in this part of the discussion. Too many variables to which we can never know the answer.

Once again it doesn't work like that. As Komponisto has said, the laws of probability are laws, not suggestions.

The prior probability of a three-way sex murder involving two young students with no history of violent crime and a local crook they didn't know is incredibly, absurdly low. It's an extraordinary claim, a zebra hypothesis. That is a fact about the universe: such crimes happen incredibly rarely if they happen at all.

You can't just wipe a p<0.0001 link in your chain of suppositions out of the equation by saying "Too many variables, we can't know, let's just call it p=1 for now and get on with hating Amanda Knox".

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.

This is just about as logical as saying "Well Uri Geller bent my spoon, or at least that's what it looked like, and unless you can come up with sufficient evidence that he cheated on that occasion, I will remain convinced he can bend metal with his mind".

A bit of suspect and highly ambiguous evidence does not suffice to make a rational person accept an extraordinary claim.

For that you need extraordinary evidence. Stefanoni's claimed results do not support belief in an extraordinary claim.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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!

No you couldn't, but thanks for trying.

Compare these two stories. Which is more likely to be true?

Rodney the bank robber decided to rob a bank. So he went to a mate who sells guns and bought a gun, then he went to a supermarket and bought stockings to put on his head, then he phoned some crooked mates and organised a gang, then he stole a fast car, and then he and his mates robbed the bank.

Rodney the completely law-abiding citizen had no plans to rob a bank. But by an amazing coincidence he was carrying a shotgun in his bag, and we know this because his bag was big enough for a shotgun. As he was walking along the street a passing car dropped some stockings and he picked them up, thinking he might give them to a lady friend. Then he just happened to meet three other people (who unknown to him were bank robbers) who were waiting at the pedestrian crossing and they suggested to Rodney that they all go to the bank together. Meanwhile a guy who owned a fast car got a really bad case of Montezuma's Revenge just outside that bank and left his car running while he ran out to find a public toilet. As Rodney walked in one of the bank robbers pulled out a gun and put on a stocking mask, so Rodney (thinking it was a Halloween prank) did too. Then the bank accidentally got robbed and as they ran out in a panic they saw the waiting car and took the opportunity to drive off in it.

What's the difference? The difference is that the first story hangs together logically. It's not wildly implausible that a bank robber might decide to rob a bank, and the probability of each of the subsequent events is very high indeed given that Rodney is a bank robber who had decided to rob a bank. Chain them all together and it's still not an implausible story.

The second story is a cavalcade of absurdities with no logical relationship between them, much like the "rape prank" theory proclaimed by Michael at the PMF and subsequently parroted here by Treehorn, or the Massei narrative. Each link in the chain is absurd and is not in any way entailed by the truth of preceding links in the chain. When people come up with a story like this it's quite rational to multiply together the improbabilities and say "This story is staggeringly unlikely.. you better have some equally staggeringly good evidence for it".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

I will not rehash other people's debunking of this litany of erroneous or irrational claims.

The fact remains that despite what you tried to claim earlier, Amanda met Rudy once that we know of, saw Rudy once at her place of work that we know of, did not know Rudy (in a perfectly ordinary and uncontroversial sense of the word "know whatever quibbles you may raise), and there is no evidence at all they ever shared drugs.

As for the claim that Amanda was evasive in court, you really need to meet a good friend of mine, Healey's First Law of Holes: If you are in a hole, stop digging. The pretence that you and TomM43 are practicing trial lawyers has cratered, since it's obvious neither of you have more than the shallowest familiarity with actual cross-examination (regardless of how often you refer to it as "cross"). Stop digging.

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.

If you don't even know what a maxim is, again, stop digging.

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.

When and if witnesses go off script it is indeed necessary for a lawyer to think on their feet, but did it escape your attention that Amanda didn't do this? She was not evasive despite your claims to the contrary, nor was she contradicting her previous statements and so forcing anyone to think on their feet (or else we'd have heard about it from the interrogating lawyer who if they were competent already knew the answers to every question they asked). She just answered the exact questions put to her.

Stop. Digging.

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.

The fact that you and TomM43 agree on a claim is a lot more like two bad students handing in word-for-word identical wrong answers on an exam, than it is like reputable experts reaching consensus. Really you guys should get together beforehand and agree to pretend to be different things so you can't drag each other down. Two people keeping their story straight is much harder than one.

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..)

TomM43, whatever else one may say about him, seems to understand the First Law of Holes.

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 have to agree with other posters who said that this attempt at a theory is at least a step in the right direction (although you really should cite your source, Michael at the PMF forums, unless you are going to try to claim that it's sheer coincidence that you are reading so closely off his latest hymnbook).

The problem is that this isn't a theory yet. Before your theory can even be described as possible you need to fill in what happened when, and how is it to be reconciled with Rudy's testimony, the computer evidence and the autopsy evidence.

I'll tell you right now that you're going to have to throw Massei under the bus to make this one work, which will be pretty funny given the love you have been expressing for Massei.

 

[treehorn]

So he didn't work for the FBI? Are you disagreeing with, that if the FBI investigated the case Knox/Sollecito would not have been charged?

Clint Van Zandt was a bona fide "profiler" with the FBI.

To wit, Van Zandt is a graduate of the FBI's prestigious National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC).

Only the best agents make the cut. It's the kind of training one needs to be considered an 'expert' in the analysis of domestic rape/homicide cases. (Moore never made the grade for this training.)

Van Zandt assessed the evidence in the Knox case for NBC and thought it was damning.

So, yes, I am going to have to disagree with Steve 'Never Made the Grade' Moore: the elite boys at the FBI would've charged Knox & Sollecito.

 

[Mary_H]

Clint Van Zandt was a bona fide "profiler" with the FBI.

To wit, Van Zandt is a graduate of the FBI's prestigious National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC).

Only the best agents make the cut. It's the kind of training one needs to be considered an 'expert' in the analysis of domestic rape/homicide cases. (Moore never made the grade for this training.)

Van Zandt assessed the evidence in the Knox case for NBC and thought it was damning.

So, yes, I am going to have to disagree with Steve 'Never Made the Grade' Moore: the elite boys at the FBI would've charged Knox & Sollecito.

Van Zandt didn't like what he saw at first, but he hasn't said much lately. I think he would be embarrassed to continue to hold that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Another FBI agent, John Douglas, has now spoken out in support of A & R. It's only a matter of time before Van Zandt does, too.

Incidentally, Van Zandt retired from the FBI after 25 years, just as Steve Moore did.

 

[Draca]

John Douglas - Father of FBI Profiling

Clint Van Zandt was a bona fide "profiler" with the FBI.

To wit, Van Zandt is a graduate of the FBI's prestigious National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC).

Only the best agents make the cut. It's the kind of training one needs to be considered an 'expert' in the analysis of domestic rape/homicide cases. (Moore never made the grade for this training.)

Van Zandt assessed the evidence in the Knox case for NBC and thought it was damning.

So, yes, I am going to have to disagree with Steve 'Never Made the Grade' Moore: the elite boys at the FBI would've charged Knox & Sollecito.

John Douglas

“Amanda is innocent—I’m convinced of it,” says Douglas. “The Italian police completely contaminated the crime scene. Besides, behavior reflects personality, and there is nothing in Knox’s past behavior to indicate she is a murderer. In both cases—West Memphis and Knox—the police allowed theory rather than evidence to direct their investigations, and that is always a fatal error.”

http://chlorine.wwteam.com/amg/STUFF/Articles/%22I+Have+Only+One+Objective--+to+Catch+a+Killer%22


Elite enough for you treehorn?

 

[moodstream]

It's a different matter when she gets on more dangerous ground. There is a lengthy segment of testimony on who and how Patrick came to be named. It it were put into the format and font of a typical testimony transcript, it would be 24 pages long. .

I would like to try to read it for myself. Do you have a link? I can make do with google translate, if I must.

It begins with her being asked why she had never mentioned Patrick before 1:45 on November 6:

"Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me."

It ends with her grudging concession, "No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him."
…..

So, "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." and "No. They didn't say it was him," cannot both be true. Since she volunteered "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." and had admitted that the latter was true only after the persistent, patient questioning by the judge, I think "...they suggested Patrick's name to me." is a lie.

Well, let me tell you what I think happened at the police station overnight Nov 5, 2007. Raffaele was requested at the questera for the purpose of bringing along Knox, who was the prime suspect already. If Raffaele hadn’t worn his Nike’s, and brought a pocket knife, he would have walked out the station the next morning a free man. The police simply wanted Raffaele to say Knox was not with him that night. However, because his shoe treads so closely matched those found in the murder room, he became associated with the crime.

The police already thought someone who could be neither Knox nor Sollecito must be involved. Perhaps an initial analysis of a bloody fingerprint ruled out both AK/RS. Perhaps there was some other indicator. From the start the police were sure Knox was central to the crime. Raffaele’s sneakers convinced them he was deeply involved. Now the objective became to get Knox to confess and name the unknown party.

The Police questioned Knox about her phone. The Police were going over the contacts and the messages and so on and they got on the message Knox sent to Patrick - ‘See you later’. For the police, sure they were looking straight into the face of the killer, bells went off. The message had been sent shortly before the murder. From that point forward, the impetus of the interrogation was to get Knox to tell them who she sent that message to. When she did, the police would know the identity of the third assailant.

Knox, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime, was confused and very frightened. The text is very generic. Knox could have sent it to anyone. The police pressure did not help. The rest was a tragedy of misunderstanding. The police, completely convinced of Knox’s involvement, were sure she was protecting someone, and Knox, trying to think who she sent the text to, played into the police’s convictions with every appearance of evasion and every denial. When finally she did remember, and said the magic name, Patrick, the case was closed and her fate was sealed.

My point is, it is possible for Knox to perceive the police as naming Patrick, because from her perspective, the police insisted that the person responsible for the crime was the person Knox sent the text to. Knox supplied the name, true, but that was simply filling in the blank for a narrative created for her by her interrogators.

Judge Massei would disagree with your assessment that she was "answering clearly, directly, on the topic, and without evasion." Here are some excerpts from points in between the "they suggested Patrick's name to me." and the "No. They didn't say it was him,..." in which the judge tries to get her to answer the question; you don't get judges saying things like this if the witness is providing clear, direct, relevant, non-evasive testimony, and it would not have taken 24 pages worth to get there if she weren't being evasive.

Judge Massei: Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear
precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the
cuffs, who gave them to you.

***
Judge Massei: Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous
crescendo.

AK: Yes.

Judge Massei: As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the
pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some
interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as
continuously as possible...

AK: Okay, I'm sorry.

Judge Massei: So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who...
these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me...
***
Judge Massei: All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about
something that had happened to her. But you need to get back to the questions asked by the
pubblico ministero. This isn't a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That
means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we
still haven't really heard the answer to it.

I would really need to see the text to form an opinion about this. Here you show Knox saying ‘Yes’ and ‘Okay, I'm sorry’. A female ‘Verbal Kint’ (Kevin Spacey) from the Usual Suspects Knox does not appear to be.

Also, here is something to think about. There is no guesswork for Mignini about what happened during the interrogation. Mignini knows exactly what happened. With every word Knox says at trial, Mignini knows to the syllable and the second if it’s correct or not. And yet, there he is, passively waiting for Knox to tell her story, after which he does nothing to correct. How could Knox be lying?

Odd, isn’t it?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Clint Van Zandt was a bona fide "profiler" with the FBI.

To wit, Van Zandt is a graduate of the FBI's prestigious National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC).

Only the best agents make the cut. It's the kind of training one needs to be considered an 'expert' in the analysis of domestic rape/homicide cases. (Moore never made the grade for this training.)

Van Zandt assessed the evidence in the Knox case for NBC and thought it was damning.

So, yes, I am going to have to disagree with Steve 'Never Made the Grade' Moore: the elite boys at the FBI would've charged Knox & Sollecito.

When first presented the evidence and theories of the prosecution, I believed what they said. Now, though I question the many lies told by Amanda and her boyfriend, I have not seen the evidence needed to convict in the USA.

While I believe she should have been tried, I question the hard evidence that proves murder and puts her at the crime scene. I have tried to keep an open mind regarding the evidence and not line up on one side or the other.

 

[quadraginta]

Van Zandt didn't like what he saw at first, but he hasn't said much lately. I think he would be embarrassed to continue to hold that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Another FBI agent, John Douglas, has now spoken out in support of A & R. It's only a matter of time before Van Zandt does, too.

Incidentally, Van Zandt retired from the FBI after 25 years, just as Steve Moore did.

So what you are saying is that Van Zandt has probably changed his mind about the case because he hasn't come out and said he's changed his mind, and that Moore has the same professional credentials as Van Zandt because they both retired from the FBI after they had worked long enough to retire?

 

[moodstream]

Van Zandt didn't like what he saw at first, but he hasn't said much lately. I think he would be embarrassed to continue to hold that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Another FBI agent, John Douglas, has now spoken out in support of A & R. It's only a matter of time before Van Zandt does, too.

Incidentally, Van Zandt retired from the FBI after 25 years, just as Steve Moore did.

Here is a link to a 11/08/2010 Newsvine article with Van Zandt's by line. The article does not offer a point of view, but the headline does:

Amanda Knox: Neither a Murderer nor a Slanderer be...

http://clintvanzandt.newsvine.com/_...da-knox-neither-a-murderer-nor-a-slanderer-benot