Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

See below for another example.



This kind of thinking is so convoluted. It's completely illogical to think Guede staged the break-in. How come you never think of the simple solution, such as he waylaid her at the front door as she was opening it, forced his way in with her, and would not be afterward thinking of how many people in Perugia did or didn't have an alibi for that night? Even the police, who supposedly had CCTV footage of her arriving home, would likely try on the theory she was accosted as she tried to get in the house.

There is no reason to jump through hoops.

Ah, you see what you've done is that you've overlooked the portion in parentheses near the start of my post: not that I think this is what happened.

The entire point of my post was to counter the following way of thinking: that it would be illogical under any circumstances for Guede to have staged the break-in (why would a known burglar stage a break-in to deflect attention from himself? etc etc). This line of thinking then evolves to something like this: if there was a staged break-in, then this necessarily points to Knox's and Sollecito's guilt, since Guede would never have staged a break-in, and Knox/Sollecito were the only other people who could have staged it, therefore they were involved in the murder. This was one of Massei's (many) gems of deductive reasoning.

I was therefore postulating a scenario where it actually would make some sense for Guede to have murdered Meredith on his own, and then to have faked a break-in. But....... I only did so in order to try to show that there is no way to make the logical inference that a staged beak-in necessarily means Knox and Sollecito did the staging (and are therefore culpable in the murder).

Of course, it ought to go without saying that my personal view is that the break-in was not staged - by Guede or by Knox/Sollecito - and that it was an actual break-in perfomed by Guede before he confronted and murdered Meredith shortly after 9pm on 1st November 2007.

 

[bobc]

I think the way to visualise the argumentative structure is this:

1. There is no proper evidence to support the theory that there was a staged break-in, just the unsupported word of a police force that was demonstrably both unethical and incompetent, hence a rational person should not believe there was a staged break-in.

So if we ignore the word of the police, what proof do we have that there was a break-in at all? And not for example a vandal throwing a rock at the window.

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe it could have been called manslaughter. My precident is the following case (from Wikipedia):



Junta repeatedly stuck Michael Costin in the neck with his fists until a blood vessel ruptured. Then Junta bragged about his conquest. Because he had so little remorse, he served almost his full ten year sentence.

A knife is a different weapon than a fist, but the fist worked more quickly.

There is a huge difference in the mens rea (the "guilty mind" - which in this case is tantamount to the intent of the action, or the expectation of the outcome).

If you punch someone in the face - even hard and repeatedly - you cannot (in most instances) be expected to reasonably expect that the victim might die as a result. The law generally allows that a person might reasonably expect his victim to suffer facial injuries, lose consciousness, and maybe experience long-lasting brain injury as a result of these sorts of actions. They'd therefore be classified as a serious assault (there's a specific charge of GBH (grievous bodily harm) in the UK) if the victim is injured but survives. If the victim dies as a result of a punching assault, it's far from uncommon for a manslaughter charge to be brought, rather than murder, because of the lesser mens rea of the act.

An exception to this, however, might be if a 6ft bodybuilder punched a thin 5ft woman: in an instance such as this, prosecutors (and courts) might judge that the perpetrator should have known that his punches had a sufficient likelihood of causing the victim's death to warrant a murder charge.

By contrast, stabbing through someone's neck is almost universally judged as an action that any perpetrator should reasonably have expected might result in the victim's death. To put it another way, a "reasonable" person would not plunge a knife into someone's neck with anything other than a significant expectation of the victim's death. And therefore, if the victim dies (as I'd suggest is the outcome with at least a significant minority of people who get stabbed through the neck), the only suitable charge is murder.

 

[Justinian2]

There is a huge difference in the mens rea (the "guilty mind" - which in this case is tantamount to the intent of the action, or the expectation of the outcome).

If you punch someone in the face - even hard and repeatedly - you cannot (in most instances) be expected to reasonably expect that the victim might die as a result. The law generally allows that a person might reasonably expect his victim to suffer facial injuries, lose consciousness, and maybe experience long-lasting brain injury as a result of these sorts of actions. They'd therefore be classified as a serious assault (there's a specific charge of GBH (grievous bodily harm) in the UK) if the victim is injured but survives. If the victim dies as a result of a punching assault, it's far from uncommon for a manslaughter charge to be brought, rather than murder, because of the lesser mens rea of the act.

An exception to this, however, might be if a 6ft bodybuilder punched a thin 5ft woman: in an instance such as this, prosecutors (and courts) might judge that the perpetrator should have known that his punches had a sufficient likelihood of causing the victim's death to warrant a murder charge.

By contrast, stabbing through someone's neck is almost universally judged as an action that any perpetrator should reasonably have expected might result in the victim's death. To put it another way, a "reasonable" person would not plunge a knife into someone's neck with anything other than a significant expectation of the victim's death. And therefore, if the victim dies (as I'd suggest is the outcome with at least a significant minority of people who get stabbed through the neck), the only suitable charge is murder.

A 240 pound man sitting on top of a 150 pound man and punching him in the neck and jaw could have a reasonable expectation of killing him. The lady at the counter said "Stop! You're going to kill him!" moments before he died. He had his head almost ripped off. The ligaments on one side of his neck were all ripped loose.

After administering the final blows Junta proudly said of his kill: "He sat up, **** his pants and fell back dead"

The family said he was "Unrecognizable" in the hospital before they took him off life support.

I think Junta knew he was killing the man.

By the way, it didn't take others to hold down the victim even though he was strong.

 

[LondonJohn]

A 240 pound man sitting on top of a 150 pound man and punching him in the neck and jaw could have a reasonable expectation of killing him. The lady at the counter said "Stop! You're going to kill him!" moments before he died. He had his head almost ripped off. The ligaments on one side of his neck were all ripped loose.

After administering the final blows Junta proudly said of his kill: "He sat up, **** his pants and fell back dead"

The family said he was "Unrecognizable" in the hospital before they took him off life support.

I think Junta knew he was killing the man.

By the way, it didn't take others to hold down the victim even though he was strong.

Well, if it's as you describe, then it sounds like the wrong charge might have been brought. Either that, or there was some sort of plea bargain for a guilty plea in return for a lesser charge of manslaughter........

 

[Justinian2]

Well, if it's as you describe, then it sounds like the wrong charge might have been brought. Either that, or there was some sort of plea bargain for a guilty plea in return for a lesser charge of manslaughter........

I think the judge said that he would have given a longer sentence if the prosecutor had asked for it.

I knew the man that was killed. I thought he was one of the kindest men I've ever met. The defense made him seem like a monster.

The Zamboni operator said he only saw two blows, but the woman at the counter said there were thirty. I think the key word is saw. The Zamboni operator was driving his machine during the early part of the fight.

Oh yeah, Junta came in from the parking lot after having landed a couple of blows before being thrown out by the Zamboni operator (a college hockey player). He returned and killed the man.

A person doesn't have to be held down by another to be killed.

 

[Danceme]

I agree, it is illogical to think he staged the break-in. But your theory doesn't account for the evidence of a break-in.The simplest explanation that accounts for the evidence of a break-in is that Guede broke the window and climbed in to gain access to the cottage, where he murdered and raped Meredith. The break-in was not staged. Imagining a staged break-in and then trying to explain it violates Occam's Razor.

Unfortunately, the evidence of a break-in doesn't seem so clear cut, just like many aspects of this case or this forum wouldn't be so active. If it really was straightforward we wouldn't be constantly rehashing it. It could be real, it could be staged, depending on whether you believe Rudy chose the least logical point of entry and the glass was on top of the clothes etc. therefore it's not real as some believe, or whether the broken glass evidence etc. supports an actual break-in as others believe.

Ah, you see what you've done is that you've overlooked the portion in parentheses near the start of my post: not that I think this is what happened.

The entire point of my post was to counter the following way of thinking: that it would be illogical under any circumstances for Guede to have staged the break-in (why would a known burglar stage a break-in to deflect attention from himself? etc etc). This line of thinking then evolves to something like this: if there was a staged break-in, then this necessarily points to Knox's and Sollecito's guilt, since Guede would never have staged a break-in, and Knox/Sollecito were the only other people who could have staged it, therefore they were involved in the murder. This was one of Massei's (many) gems of deductive reasoning.

I was therefore postulating a scenario where it actually would make some sense for Guede to have murdered Meredith on his own, and then to have faked a break-in. But....... I only did so in order to try to show that there is no way to make the logical inference that a staged beak-in necessarily means Knox and Sollecito did the staging (and are therefore culpable in the murder).

Of course, it ought to go without saying that my personal view is that the break-in was not staged - by Guede or by Knox/Sollecito - and that it was an actual break-in perfomed by Guede before he confronted and murdered Meredith shortly after 9pm on 1st November 2007.

I know you are a firm believer in their innocence. The only issue I had was with the convoluted stories often presented to explain certain scenarios.

Why not present a convincing theory on why both Amanda and Raffaele described Filomena's room as being in a complete mess, (seemingly contrary to it's usual state or why say it at all), and aligning this with the "accepted" notion that her room was messy because she was basically a slob (see Bruce's explanations). You could also couple this with their contradictory remarks about the door to the room being both open and closed, which should have been pretty difficult to get wrong when it's right off the main living area when you walk in.

Logical explanations to contradictions such as above go a long way toward convincing those who swing back and forth that they really are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[nopoirot]

I believe her argument here (at this point in time) is that the police convinced her that she had been traumatized by the murder and persuaded her to make a false accusation, the real trauma was coming from the cops and she buckled under the pressure from the cops not the trauma of having been in the kitchen during a murder. Whether she actually believed it or not when the false accusation statement was made is a matter of opinion. Regardless, we know the accusation was false so her being in the kitchen during Patrick's murder of Meredith is also false. I believe it is clear the cops knew they had a very weak statement that needed more proof and more verification but they proceeded anyway.

The arguments I have seen that Amanda accused Patrick to throw the cops off track makes no sense as she was just giving the cops the track the cops were pushing for. She made herself an accessory and also dropped Raffaele's alibi confirmation by doing so so it was an especially dumb way to throw the cops off track if that was her intention.

Why this disinclination to believe the police officer who testified that Amanda "broke down" when informed that Raffaele had changed his story, and that she had "confessed" shortly thereafter? It's hardly as though Amanda claims to have accepted this news with aplomb.

 

[nopoirot]

Would the majority agree that, according to its assessment of Amanda's personality and character, she, and everyone like her, would be totally unfit for military service or any other responsibility involving a risk of confrontation with "authority"?

 

[Kaosium]

Why this disinclination to believe the police officer who testified that Amanda "broke down" when informed that Raffaele had changed his story, and that she had "confessed" shortly thereafter? It's hardly as though Amanda claims to have accepted this news with aplomb.

How would you expect her to react were she innocent? She's just been told her new boyfriend said something she thought she 'knew' was not true, and that her memories were suspect. I'd imagine that picture they show of her hearing the verdict howling in anguish pretty much sums up how she felt that night alone in the backroom of the police station in Perugia when told that Raffaele 'said' she went out.

What's she supposed to think now?

 

[Danceme]

How would you expect her to react were she innocent? She's just been told her new boyfriend said something she thought she 'knew' was not true, and that her memories were suspect. I'd imagine that picture they show of her hearing the verdict howling in anguish pretty much sums up how she felt that night alone in the backroom of the police station in Perugia when told that Raffaele 'said' she went out.

What's she supposed to think now?

I wouldn't expect her to howl in anguish. I would expect her to say "That's not true! He's a liar! It's not true! I don't know him very long so maybe he's the sort who makes things up." anything but what she did say. If she had maintained her innocence perhaps the heat would have just shifted to Raffaele instead.

 

[Kaosium]

I wouldn't expect her to howl in anguish. I would expect her to say "That's not true! He's a liar! It's not true! I don't know him very long so maybe he's the sort who makes things up." anything but what she did say. If she had maintained her innocence perhaps the heat would have just shifted to Raffaele instead.

Maybe she did, ten or twenty times even, but perhaps they didn't listen, called her a liar, and threatened her some more. Raffaele made his statement at 9:40, it was at 1:45 AM that Amanda broke down, that's four hours later. They doubtless went over this again and again, each time escalating the ante. She'd be in jail thirty years, she'd never see her mommy again.

What if she started to believe it? Why would Raffaele lie, why would the police lie about having 'hard evidence' she was at the scene of a crime? What is she supposed to think? What if she just freaked out and believed them for a little while?

 

[LondonJohn]

Unfortunately, the evidence of a break-in doesn't seem so clear cut, just like many aspects of this case or this forum wouldn't be so active. If it really was straightforward we wouldn't be constantly rehashing it. It could be real, it could be staged, depending on whether you believe Rudy chose the least logical point of entry and the glass was on top of the clothes etc. therefore it's not real as some believe, or whether the broken glass evidence etc. supports an actual break-in as others believe.



I know you are a firm believer in their innocence. The only issue I had was with the convoluted stories often presented to explain certain scenarios.

Why not present a convincing theory on why both Amanda and Raffaele described Filomena's room as being in a complete mess, (seemingly contrary to it's usual state or why say it at all), and aligning this with the "accepted" notion that her room was messy because she was basically a slob (see Bruce's explanations). You could also couple this with their contradictory remarks about the door to the room being both open and closed, which should have been pretty difficult to get wrong when it's right off the main living area when you walk in.

Logical explanations to contradictions such as above go a long way toward convincing those who swing back and forth that they really are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

First off, I'm not a "firm believer" in the innocence of Knox and Sollecito. I lean towards believing that they had nothing to do with the murder (or, by extension, any post-murder clean-up), but at this point it appears that nobody except Knox and Sollecito themselves (and probably Guede) truly know whether or not they are innocent*.

But, as I've discussed before, if the state (or anyone, for that matter) brings an accusation against a person or persons, then it's entirely incumbent upon the accusers to provide proof of the accusation. In the case of criminal matters in Italy in 2007, proof must be provided beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. And the one thing that I'm very confident of is that there was insufficient evidence offered in the first trial to prove the guilt of Knox and Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt. That's where I stand - and that's also the only decision that the courts have it within their power to make (guilty or not guilty).

I don't really understand your point about Filomena's room. It was in a mess. You seem to have illogically jumped to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito made special mention of this because it was in contrast to its "usual" state. Who knows how many times Knox had even been into Filomena's room before? And I'm suspecting Sollecito had never been in that room before 2nd November. And even if Filomena "usually" kept her room fairly tidy, why couldn't she have left it messy after (by her own admission) rushing to get ready on the 1st? And what if someone breaking in knocked the wardrobe on his way in, thereby increasing the visible mess?

I'd also caution you (again) that inconsistencies in Knox's and Sollecito's accounts of the morning of the 2nd November cannot be sufficient to convict them of murder - unless perhaps they were caught in a lie which clearly indicated evasiveness or an attempt to pervert the course of justice. And of course most of the other players in this drama made errors in their recollection**. It's natural, especially when emotions became so dramatically heightened by the mounting suspicion during the morning, followed by the horrific discovery of the murder.

* If the computer system files show human interaction throughout most of the night of 1st/2nd November, then I will evolve to holding a belief in Sollecito's innocence, and it would also greatly strengthen my belief in Knox's innocence.

** Filomena, for example, got details of the telephone exchange with Knox incorrect. This is not to denigrate Filomena, but it's intended to illustrate just how easily people can get confused in such dramatic circumstances.

 

[LondonJohn]

Would the majority agree that, according to its assessment of Amanda's personality and character, she, and everyone like her, would be totally unfit for military service or any other responsibility involving a risk of confrontation with "authority"?

Huh?

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe she did, ten or twenty times even, but perhaps they didn't listen, called her a liar, and threatened her some more. Raffaele made his statement at 9:40, it was at 1:45 AM that Amanda broke down, that's four hours later. They doubtless went over this again and again, each time escalating the ante. She'd be in jail thirty years, she'd never see her mommy again.

What if she started to believe it? Why would Raffaele lie, why would the police lie about having 'hard evidence' she was at the scene of a crime? What is she supposed to think? What if she just freaked out and believed them for a little while?

Such a shame that nobody can listen to the tapes of this interrogation, isn't it..............

 

[daydreamer]

More questions for any guilters interested in answering:

(1) When did you first arrive at your current belief that Knox and Sollecito most likely participated in the killing of Kercher? (Immediately when the story broke? After the first-level verdict? After reading the Massei report? etc....) (2) If you were following the story from the beginning, what effect did the discovery of Rudy Guede's involvement have on your beliefs? Did your probability of K/S's guilt go down? If not, why not? If so, and yet it is now as high as it was originally, what pushed it back up?

I have a similar question:
Quite few folks on this site (including myself) starting out assuming guilt based on the media depictions and forums like PMF. But after looking closer at the case, many have changed their view of guilt to innocence based on police, interrogators, and court room mishandling of the case. I was wondering if anyone here or elsewhere initially assumed innocence then was persuaded to the pro-guide side based on the Massie report or discussion on these forums.

 

[Poppy1016]

Such a shame that nobody can listen to the tapes of this interrogation, isn't it..............

Such a shame that Italy permits the prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the case. Also a shame that Stephony is permitted to collect evidence and test the same evidence.
Can anyone say conflict of intrest?

 

[christianahannah]

Such a shame that Italy permits the prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the case. Also a shame that Stephony is permitted to collect evidence and test the same evidence.
Can anyone say conflict of intrest?

Is there a list of evidence items that Stefanoni personally collected or what areas of the flat she was responsible for collecting evidence?

I know she collected the feces attributed to Rudy in the large bathroom but I am unsure of the other items she collected.

 

[Poppy1016]

Is there a list of evidence items that Stefanoni personally collected or what areas of the flat she was responsible for collecting evidence?

I know she collected the feces attributed to Rudy in the large bathroom but I am unsure of the other items she collected.

Did you see her ridiculous handling of the mop? How about the sampling she did in the bathroom.?

 

[komponisto]

I wouldn't expect her to howl in anguish. I would expect her to say "That's not true! He's a liar! It's not true! I don't know him very long so maybe he's the sort who makes things up." anything but what she did say. If she had maintained her innocence perhaps the heat would have just shifted to Raffaele instead.

With what confidence do you expect this? Remember, there is a great deal of variation of human personalities and ways people react to stress. What percentage of innocent people do you think would react the way you suggest, and what percentage do you think would react the way AK did? (And what percentage would react in a different way entirely?)