Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[loverofzion]

Nonsense. The four criteria you enumerated ("vagueness, conformity with the police narrative she had been fed, total lack of information which she had not picked up from police, retraction after some time to recover") are all also qualitites I would expect in a statement from someone desperately lying in a misguided attempt to escape from a police interrogation.



You are simultaneously attributing mutually contradictory qualities to Knox in attempt to portray the unlikelihood of Knox being a liar. In doing so, you are attempting to create a false dilemma, in which the possibility of her being knowledgeable about some aspects of police interrogation (e.g. "be as vague and noncommittal as possible") while being ignorant of others (e.g. "if you place yourself at the scene of a crime, you can very well become a suspect") is not actually logically precluded.



I've never asserted that she was a highly skilled criminal or even that she was particularly intelligent in general, so I have no problem hypothesizing that she made many stupid mistakes during and after the commission of Meredith's murder.



"Wildly implausible"? I do not think so. She could just as well be (in her words) a "stupid liar".



I find it telling that the priniciple of Occam's Razor is invoked quite frequently by those arguing for Knox's innocence with regards to the alleged motive, the staged break-in, and many other aspects of the crime scene and investigation, and yet it is hastily discarded when not to do so would be inconvenient for their position.

The simplest explanation is NOT that she produced a "true" false confession/accusation, but rather that she is a liar.

She is absolutely, unequivocally a liar.
It's like the Emperor's New Clothes; all it takes is one courageous truthsayer to blow all this nonsense about coercion and false confessions out of the water.

 

[loverofzion]

I think I would be somewhat less surprised if it turned out that treehorn and TomM43 were actually lawyers. There are an awful lot of lawyers out there, greatly varying in their beliefs, with competence levels presumably as subject to a bell-curve distribution as those of any other profession. (Treehorn, in my opinion, also exhibits some evidence of arguing for a position he doesn't really believe (*), which is something a lawyer would be more likely to do than the average person.)

What would surprise me more would be if they were practicing criminal-defense lawyers. (It still wouldn't knock me out of my seat, however.)

(*) To be specific: in addition to writing with what strikes me as a somewhat mischievious tone, treehorn seems capable of understanding the objections to his position, yet seldom addresses them directly; in contrast to e.g. lionking and loverofzion, both of whom seem honestly uncomprehending of probability theory in the way you would expect of someone who genuinely believed in guilt.

What does probability theory- do you claim to understand said theory?- have to do with belief in the pair's guilt?

 

[Antony]

I find it telling that the priniciple of Occam's Razor is invoked quite frequently by those arguing for Knox's innocence with regards to the alleged motive, the staged break-in, and many other aspects of the crime scene and investigation, and yet it is hastily discarded when not to do so would be inconvenient for their position.

The simplest explanation is NOT that she produced a "true" false confession/accusation, but rather that she is a liar.

You are simply wrong. Your "simple explanation" raises more questions than it answers. The principle of Occam's Razor is that the simplest hypothesis consistent with the known facts is to be preferred; not a "simple" hypothesis that fails to explain anything beyond the most superficial aspects. Someone guilty of the murder and trying to lie their way out of trouble would hardly have named someone she knew to have a watertight alibi.

The simplest explanation of the overnight interrogation is that the police fed Amanda the details of her statement - and the simplest explanation of the murder scene is that Guede broke in and murdered Meredith on his own. Occam's Razor favours the innocence argument in both cases.

 

[nopoirot]

So in Italy, the hiring and firing of law enforcement personnel is a function of the discretion of the prosecutor? Seems like that requires citation to authority. It's not at all unusual, in the US, for a prosecutor to direct an investigation, but still . . . .

As concerns whether the changes in Sollecito's testimony were "dramatic," the police officers certainly thought so, and were allowed to testify accordingly (see Sfarzo.) It was a blockbuster.

I'm not sure I have much confidence in the pronouncements of Amnesty International. It's my understanding that Lumumba not only obtained a judgement on his false arrest claim, but an award of attorney's fees as well.

This business about Italy being a "police state" is doubtless the sort of reckless comment Amanda's lawyers have thought unhelpful.

I don't know beans about Italian law, but I'm pretty comfortable in saying that, in the US, "probable cause" does not require written statements. "Probable cause" arises when a reasonable peace officer would believe it more likely than not that a crime has been committed, and you had something to do with it.

 

[RoseMontague]

As far as AK being coerced, let me add the following: : She buckled and gave us the inforation we already knew.: Dictionary definition of bucle.
: to fasten with a buckle
2: to prepare with vigor
3: to cause to bend, give way, or crumple
intransitive verb
1: to become fastened with a buckle
2: to apply oneself with vigor —usually used with down <buckle down to the job>
3: to bend, heave, warp, or kink usually under the influence of some external agency <wheat buckling in the wind>
4: collapse <the props buckled under the strain>
5: to give way : yield <he buckled under pressure>

Buckle certainly implies she was under a lot of pressure and it is certain that this is admitted with that quote. How much pressure is too much? The cops need to look at admitting statements made under this type of pressure the same way they do denying statements. Does the suspect give information that only someone involved would know? Amanda's statements are weak on the details and provide little that could be confirmed. Mignini pressed for more details and got just a little bit more but nothing as they would if Amanda were really there.

So they get this statement and do they ask Amanda if she saw Patrick with a knife? What did he do with the knife? Did he have blood on his clothes? Did he clean up? Where did he put his clothes? When did he leave? Was he bloody when he left? Did Amanda look into Meredith's room before he locked the door? Did he lock the door? What did he do with the keys? Did he take her cell phones? You can't tell me when she made her statement they just said OK write it down, we can't ask her any more.

They knew this accusation was made under pressure and they knew it was missing important details that would indicate it really did happen.

 

[Justinian2]

I somehow can't envision it. It would require Rudy to smash window directly in front and above of his face, risking injury.

Compared to this, throwing a rock from across the gap have all the advantages. Hitting that window was very easy for Rudy - basketball player.

Well, true he was a basketball player and may have preferred that technique.

However, with the side armed motion (soldiers are taught to use the side armed sling when throwing a hand-grenade), Guede could have slung it through the window at a slow speed while turning his head. The side armed throw would leave more glass on the sill as a rock thrown from the side would have moved at a much slower speed. This technique might better account for the distribution of glass that was found.

 

[loverofzion]

You are simply wrong. Your "simple explanation" raises more questions than it answers. The principle of Occam's Razor is that the simplest hypothesis consistent with the known facts is to be preferred; not a "simple" hypothesis that fails to explain anything beyond the most superficial aspects. Someone guilty of the murder and trying to lie their way out of trouble would hardly have named someone she knew to have a watertight alibi.

The simplest explanation of the overnight interrogation is that the police fed Amanda the details of her statement - and the simplest explanation of the murder scene is that Guede broke in and murdered Meredith on his own. Occam's Razor favours the innocence argument in both cases.

How did amanda know Lumumba had a "watertight alibi"?
She didn't se him that night; had no idea where or what he was doing.

In my opinion the simplest explanation of the murder scene is that it was executed by the three convicted.

 

[Poppy1016]

Buckle certainly implies she was under a lot of pressure and it is certain that this is admitted with that quote. How much pressure is too much? The cops need to look at admitting statements made under this type of pressure the same way they do denying statements. Does the suspect give information that only someone involved would know? Amanda's statements are weak on the details and provide little that could be confirmed. Mignini pressed for more details and got just a little bit more but nothing as they would if Amanda were really there.

So they get this statement and do they ask Amanda if she saw Patrick with a knife? What did he do with the knife? Did he have blood on his clothes? Did he clean up? Where did he put his clothes? When did he leave? Was he bloody when he left? Did Amanda look into Meredith's room before he locked the door? Did he lock the door? What did he do with the keys? Did he take her cell phones? You can't tell me when she made her statement they just said OK write it down, we can't ask her any more.

They knew this accusation was made under pressure and they knew it was missing important details that would indicate it really did happen.

Very well said Rose.

 

[loverofzion]

Buckle certainly implies she was under a lot of pressure and it is certain that this is admitted with that quote. How much pressure is too much? The cops need to look at admitting statements made under this type of pressure the same way they do denying statements. Does the suspect give information that only someone involved would know? Amanda's statements are weak on the details and provide little that could be confirmed. Mignini pressed for more details and got just a little bit more but nothing as they would if Amanda were really there.

So they get this statement and do they ask Amanda if she saw Patrick with a knife? What did he do with the knife? Did he have blood on his clothes? Did he clean up? Where did he put his clothes? When did he leave? Was he bloody when he left? Did Amanda look into Meredith's room before he locked the door? Did he lock the door? What did he do with the keys? Did he take her cell phones? You can't tell me when she made her statement they just said OK write it down, we can't ask her any more.

They knew this accusation was made under pressure and they knew it was missing important details that would indicate it really did happen.

The suspect did indeed give informatin that only someone involved would know.
She knew there had been a sexual assault ("he wanted Meredith"); she knew about thuds from the crime scene; she knew the poistion of the body had been before it ws moved; she knew her throat had been cut and that she died a slow, agonizing death (amanda:"She *********** bled to death").

Since you don't know the details of that first night of her questioning, you really cannot know if the police asked her those very questions.
No policeman ever said We can't ask her any more.

Wherever do you get your ideas.
.

 

[RWVBWL]

Cheatin'...

<snip>
Maybe there's an innocent explanation. As innocent as lust. Amanda was cheating on Raffaele.<snip>
///

Hey good day, Fine!
You know something?
Amanda Knox was having sex with Raffaele Sollecito 3 to 4 times a day!*

I think that Raffaele, a late bloomer, was makin' up for lost ground!
And I bet Amanda was diggin' it, so why would she need to start having an affair? You seem to imply that Amanda Knox was a nympho?

Did you ever have an affair after dating a boyfriend of only 6 days?
I know that I haven't done so after datin' a new girlfriend...
Bye, RWVBWL

*Reference: Angel Face, Author: Barbie Nadeau, page 34,
"Raffaele bragged to his friends that he and Amanda were having sex 3 - 4 times a day, usually under the influence of marijuana or hashish."

So Amanda still liked gettin' high and havin' sex!
I guess Amanda had not yet graduated unto "happy Hour" sex, you know, down a few and with inhibitions down, let's get busy...
Amanda Knox cheatin'?
I doubt it...

 

[RWVBWL]

How did amanda know Lumumba had a "watertight alibi"?
She didn't se him that night; had no idea where or what he was doing.
In my opinion the simplest explanation of the murder scene is that it was executed by the three convicted.

Hey, LoverofZion!
How's it goin? Good I hope...
Funny that you mention that Amanda had no idea of where or what Mr. Lumumba was doing that night,
even though I bet most people would assume he was tending his bar.

Couldn't the same be said for Amanda's knowledge of Miss Kercher's whereabouts?*

Heck, who knows, for all Amanda knew, maybe Meredith was out havin' a drink with someone after Sophie left here, since her new boy-friend Giacomo didn't seem to care enough to even call her that day, the last of her life...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

*-Thanks Mary H for that important bit of info!

 

[RoseMontague]

The suspect did indeed give informatin that only someone involved would know.
She knew there had been a sexual assault ("he wanted Meredith"); she knew about thuds from the crime scene; she knew the poistion of the body had been before it ws moved; she knew her throat had been cut and that she died a slow, agonizing death (amanda:"She *********** bled to death").

Since you don't know the details of that first night of her questioning, you really cannot know if the police asked her those very questions.
No policeman ever said We can't ask her any more.

Wherever do you get your ideas.
.

News implying a sexual assault was in the papers the next day and we have discussed this before and provided links. Cause of death was not blood loss and did they find that thud at the scene? The police said they did not ask her any more questions and they also said they did not press her as she was then considered a suspect and her further statements were spontaneous (yeah right). It is the cop's version we both seem to be doubting here.

 

[Justinian2]

Hey good day, Fine!
You know something?
Amanda Knox was having sex with Raffaele Sollecito 3 to 4 times a day!*

I think that Raffaele, a late bloomer, was makin' up for lost ground!
And I bet Amanda was diggin' it, so why would she need to start having an affair? You seem to imply that Amanda Knox was a nympho?

Did you ever have an affair after dating a boyfriend of only 6 days?
I know that I haven't done so after datin' a new girlfriend...
Bye, RWVBWL

*Reference: Angel Face, Author: Barbie Nadeau, page 34,
"Raffaele bragged to his friends that he and Amanda were having sex 3 - 4 times a day, usually under the influence of marijuana or hashish."

So Amanda still liked gettin' high and havin' sex!
I guess Amanda had not yet graduated unto "happy Hour" sex, you know, down a few and with inhibitions down, let's get busy...
Amanda Knox cheatin'?
I doubt it...

Mignini and Massei probably have sex 3 or 4 times too. 3 or 4 times a year!

 

[el buscador]

How did amanda know Lumumba had a "watertight alibi"?
She didn't se him that night; had no idea where or what he was doing.

In my opinion the simplest explanation of the murder scene is that it was executed by the three convicted.

Uh, could it be the email Patrick sent that the bar wasn't busy that night so she didn't need to come in? How would Partick know that the bar wasn't busy unless he was at the bar?

 

[Katody Matrass]

___________________________

nopoirot,

Maybe there's an innocent explanation. As innocent as lust. Amanda was cheating on Raffaele.
According to comments attributed to Patrick, even after starting her affair with Raffaele Amanda was still flirting with guys at Le Chic. ("Throwing herself at boys" I think Patrick phrased it.) So when she left Raffaele the night of November 1st she lied about where she was headed. She told him she was going to Le Chic, typical for a Thursday night, and in doing so she "induced" him to believe that she was going there. Instead, unknown to Raffaele, she went elsewhere to meet another man, and didn't return til after midnight.

Ordinarily, she could have gotten away with her indiscretion. But after it was learned that Meredith was murdered that night she had to account for her activities. She couldn't be saying to the cops that she'd gone to Le Chic, since they could have disproved that alibi. And she certainly didn't want to tell Raffaele that she'd been foolin' around. So she persuaded Raffaele to tell the cops she'd stayed with him. But he knew she hadn't stayed, so it was easy for the cops to catch him in that lie.

So, during Amanda's interrogation, when confronted with Raffaele's claim that she left him that night---now caught between a rock and a hard place--- why didn't she come clean and admit to what she'd been up to? It would have been the end to her affair with Raffaele, I suppose, but I wonder whether the cops were right in thinking she was protecting someone, the other man, who may have been married and have already told Amanda that he would deny any involvement. At that point it may have seemed best to tell the cops what they wanted to hear--- if she herself thought Patrick killed Meredith---so sign the damn papers and return home with Raffaele.

If this is the case then there are two falsehoods Amanda induced Raffaele to tell. That it was to Le Chic she'd gone that night, which was induced on the night of November 1st, and that she'd spent the whole night with Raffaele, probably induced the next day prior to speaking with the cops. Raffaele must have wondered why she'd asked him for an alibi---a false alibi---and maybe she'd confessed to him that she didn't go to work, but didn't want to further discuss the matter. Is it a coincidence that in his Diary he speculates on Amanda's infidelity?

///

Hi, Fine it's nice to see you leaning on the innocence side

According to your theory Raffaele is innocent because he wasn't there and Amanda is innocent because she was with a married man and she'd rather spend 3 years in prison then give his personals to the police. Do I understand it correctly?

 

[RoseMontague]

Both of these reports are dated 11/2/2007

http://translate.google.com/transla...07,cd_max:11/4/2007,lr:lang_1it&prmd=ivnsolfd

PERUGIA - E 'shrouded in mystery death of Meredith Kercher, a British student of 22 years, found dead in a house a few hundred meters from the historical center of Perugia with a deep wound to the throat. Investigators do not rule out any hypothesis. The inside track is that the girl was killed by someone and then fled. E 'was found in her own room with the door locked. Era sul letto, coperta da un piumone. It was on the bed, covered by a duvet. With his shirt up and the bare-breasted, wearing other clothing.

http://translate.google.com/transla...07,cd_max:11/4/2007,lr:lang_1it&prmd=ivnsolfd

English, 22, found naked and her throat cut

 

[Katody Matrass]

Well, true he was a basketball player and may have preferred that technique.

However, with the side armed motion (soldiers are taught to use the side armed sling when throwing a hand-grenade), Guede could have slung it through the window at a slow speed while turning his head. The side armed throw would leave more glass on the sill as a rock thrown from the side would have moved at a much slower speed. This technique might better account for the distribution of glass that was found.

Hi, Justinian2!
If he was to break the window directly I think he would use a more handy tool, not an unwieldy rock. Another thing is that being halfway up is not a great position if someone happens to be inside the cottage after all. I'd rather throw the rock, then back away into a safer point to look for any reaction.

 

[Antony]

Hey good day, Fine!
You know something?
Amanda Knox was having sex with Raffaele Sollecito 3 to 4 times a day!*

I think that Raffaele, a late bloomer, was makin' up for lost ground!
And I bet Amanda was diggin' it, so why would she need to start having an affair? You seem to imply that Amanda Knox was a nympho?

Did you ever have an affair after dating a boyfriend of only 6 days?
I know that I haven't done so after datin' a new girlfriend...
Bye, RWVBWL

*Reference: Angel Face, Author: Barbie Nadeau, page 34,
"Raffaele bragged to his friends that he and Amanda were having sex 3 - 4 times a day, usually under the influence of marijuana or hashish."

So Amanda still liked gettin' high and havin' sex!
I guess Amanda had not yet graduated unto "happy Hour" sex, you know, down a few and with inhibitions down, let's get busy...
Amanda Knox cheatin'?
I doubt it...

This illustrates one of the more far-fetched implications of the prosecution fairy-tale: that after 6 days, Amanda and Raffaele's relationship was so stale that it allegedly needed a little 4-way sex to liven it up ... with one of Amanda's women friends as an unwilling participant.

 

[nopoirot]

It is not always apparent whether a poster is expressing a thought about what actually happened here, or about what the court should or will do. With respect to the latter, I would suggest that a couple of contested issues have become academic. It is reasonably apparent that Sollecito is not going to take the stand (even assuming he would be permitted to do so by the appeal court), precluding any courtroom debate about what he "really" intended to say in his 11-5 "declaration," and whether his speech was involuntary. With respect to the "internalized false memory" hypothesis, this obviously requires expert testimony, and if this contention was not introduced in the first trial, I think it may be considered abandoned.

 

[el buscador]

The following is from the church discipline blog:

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2011/01/evidence-and-very-unlikely.html

From the Massei report: "Encase forensic analysis software determined, for such time period, that the only files created (last created) or written (last written) were generated, automatically, either by the computer’s operating system or the Firefox web-browser within its own cache: being files generated at regular intervals."

From Church Discipline: "I'm going to get a bit techie for this paragraph, explain how this is total nonsense, feel free to skip it as just an example. I'd like you if you are on a mac or a linux box to open up a terminal right now and type the phrase man touch. If you are stuck on a windows box here is what you would have seen link. Touch is a program designed to change timestamps because it is such a common activity. Changing those dates are standard Unix activities, I have tons of scripts that modify those dates to things other than their defaults that run on my machine; for example when I push data to the TIVO I script changes to mtime so that it sorts the way I want it on my TV. Mac's internally have 5 timestamps they associate with files: createDate, contentModDate, attributeModDate, accessDate and backupDate. accessDate implements atime, attributeModDate implements ctime and contentModDate implements mtime. The fsCatalogInfo attribute for a file in objective-C (the default language for system's programming on an Apple) has those five as variables (i.e. for example fsCatalogInfo.createDate), which is to say this is not some deeply hidden attribute, Apple invested money in making these timestamps alterable because programs need to do that so frequently. Other than those 5 attributes there is no obvious place any time information is stored. You can in 3 seconds have a file on your mac that was last modified 10 years before you owned the computer, heck before it was created as far as the filesystem is concerned. And there is no secondary record of these changes. With an average user timestamps are obviously good evidence. By definition average users are people who think about how to work their computer not how their computer works. But Raffaele is a computer science graduate who is doing a degree in genetic programming, he's spending all day thinking abut how computers work. For him, the timestamp mean nothing more than the times he choose to assign to files. He's probably 10x the programmer I am, I'm way over the hill he's in his prime. If this were Amanda's computer I'd think "determined that the only files created" was too strong I'd weaken it to something like "indicates that most likely the only files created". For Raffaele's I'd say "a weak easily modifiable record which at the time of analysis showed..." is a fair characterization."

I'm curious about what CD said above and wonder if his point is valid but I lack the technical knowledge. Anyone here know more than I do?