Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

Precisely. And when SuperSleuth releases his "findings," in mode emotive, and starts making the rounds of the "progressive" talk show soap boxes, how do you suppose the general public is going to react to the disclosures (and they will surely come) that the defendants aren't quite so immaculate as they've been portrayed?

They mostly are that "immaculate"; there is virtually no evidence to suggest that Knox and Sollecito are anything other than benign university students.

 

[Danceme]

Such explanations have been presented and you've apparently ignored them. How are you going to see the truth if you won't open your eyes?

I haven't ignored anything, I just don't buy it all.

Filomena's window was chosen because it was the most logical point of entry for the perpetrator at the time. Claiming otherwise has no evidentiary value because if it is illogical for an actual break-in, it is illogical for a staged break-in.

You're entitled to your opinion but it's not the most logical choice for many.

If the clothes were on the floor before the crime, the window glass is going to fall on them. If the cloths were thrown to the floor after the break-in, additional glass can fall out of the broken window and it would land on top of the pile of clothes which were directly under the broken window.

Agreed.

We don't have a record of the interview with Filomena that reconstructs the state of the room as it was before the crime. This would be instrumental in ferreting out the truth. Who's fault is it that this record doesn't exist?

How do you know it doesn't exist? Do you think you have seen every transcript of every interview conducted so can say this with some reliability.

We don't contemporaneous notes and photographs showing the condition of the wall and grounds under the window. These would be instrumental in reconstructing the truth. Who's fault is it that these records don't exist?

We have testimony. What makes you so certain ILE didn't take any notes at all? Have you seen all 10,000 or so pages that supposedly make up the case file?

Do you at least accept that the rock was thrown from outside? There isn't any other plausible explanation for the evidence. Do you really think that someone stood in the half open window (standing right where the bag was that the rock eventually ended up in) and broke the window with enough force to spread glass throughout the room? Why didn't glass fall to the ground outside? All similar attempts to explain how the window could have been broken from the inside fall apart. The simplest explanation is that the rock was thrown through the window from the outside.

Yes, I do believe the rock being thrown from the outside makes the most sense with the glass scatter pattern. The size of the rock makes no sense however! Wasn't there also a smaller rock found in the room?

Have you looked at the photographs of Filomena's room? There is clutter on the desk and night table. Do you think someone sat there and meticulously rearranged these items to make it look cluttered while there is the dead semi-naked body of one of the residents in another room and another resident could walk in at any time?

If Filomena's room was tossed to make it look like a burglary, why weren't the other rooms tossed too? Laura's room was in comparison kept in immaculate shape. That's why her open drawer and the slight wrinkles on the bed spread stand out as if somebody were looking for something. Filomena's drawer on the bedside table had been opened too. The simple explanation is that someone opened drawers and looked under the beds in each of the rooms. The only added disorder in Filomena's room is the broken window and knocking over the clothes under the window (plus some of the items may have been picked up afterwards by Filomena and tossed on the bed).

Amanda and Raffaele were describing the condition of Filomena's room to people they were calling over to see for themselves. It's ludicrous to say they were lying about the mess.

I did not say they were lying. The room was obviously a mess, as they both noticed. I am saying that accepting the argument it was messy because Filomena was a slob doesn't jive with two people familiar with her expressly speaking of it being messy as if that was unique to that morning.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Precisely. And when SuperSleuth releases his "findings," in mode emotive, and starts making the rounds of the "progressive" talk show soap boxes, how do you suppose the general public is going to react to the disclosures (and they will surely come) that the defendants aren't quite so immaculate as they've been portrayed? By "general public" I do not mean the career bleeders who wash down the latest revelations from Amnesty International with their morning coffee. I mean the people so mired in superstition that they still attend church, and the prudes who agonize over the exposure of their children to drugs and the risk that their daughters will swell "out-of-wedlock" statistics. Filter the "whole truth" through their value system, and what comes out the other end? Promiscuity. Dope smoking. Falsehood heaped on falsehood, a veritable "load of bs." And y'all nurse the expectation that the State Department, in response to a swell of public indignation, will take the point on this? Threaten Italy with a "diplomatic crises," perhaps? What are you smoking?

What does this have to do with the factual guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito?

I don't see any purpose in either side of this debate posting fantasies about what they think the general public will think.

 

[platonov]

If you say so - But if you are just going to use terms as opposed to actual maths in your arguments can I suggest that 'The Bell Curve' might be more appropriate than 'Bayes Theorem'.

Bayes' theorem is "actual maths".

Whoosh

 

[Chris_Halkides]

narrative versus reality

Precisely. And when SuperSleuth releases his "findings," in mode emotive, and starts making the rounds of the "progressive" talk show soap boxes, how do you suppose the general public is going to react to the disclosures (and they will surely come) that the defendants aren't quite so immaculate as they've been portrayed? By "general public" I do not mean the career bleeders who wash down the latest revelations from Amnesty International with their morning coffee. I mean the people so mired in superstition that they still attend church, and the prudes who agonize over the exposure of their children to drugs and the risk that their daughters will swell "out-of-wedlock" statistics. Filter the "whole truth" through their value system, and what comes out the other end? Promiscuity. Dope smoking. Falsehood heaped on falsehood, a veritable "load of bs." And y'all nurse the expectation that the State Department, in response to a swell of public indignation, will take the point on this? Threaten Italy with a "diplomatic crises," perhaps? What are you smoking?

nopoirot,

What can you possibly mean by “aren’t so immaculate as they have been portrayed?” The defendants, particularly Ms. Knox, have been portrayed in such a negative light, that it has at least equaled what DA Nifong did to three demonstrably innocent lacrosse players, aided by a segment of the press that was more interested in narrative than in facts. Ms. Knox is no more a she-devil than Collin Finnerty was a wolf in blazer and khakis. The humdrum reality is that all four flatmates were sexually active and smoked marijuana. Mr. Sollecito has not drawn the same volume or concentration of vitriol that Ms. Knox has, but he has been attacked with gusto as well.

Falsehood heaped upon falsehood? I count two or three lies. But you are asking utterly wrong questions. Here are some that I wish the state department would ask: Are electronic data files necessary for a vigorous defense when DNA is brought in as evidence? Did the prosecution withhold these and other files? I’ll give you a hint; the answer to either question does not begin with the letter “n.” Given the answers to these two questions, how can anyone conclude that the trial was fair?!

As the commenter who brought up Amnesty International, I take offense at your use of the term “bleeders.” This is just a personal attack in lieu of any factual or logical response to the issues that AI raised. Did you actually go to the Perugia-Shock link I provided for your benefit? If you had, you would have seen a photograph that that mother of an eighteen year old should never have to see.

post script
The photograph which I remembered was actually elsewhere.

 

[Danceme]

OT, but what do you make of the news that Misty Croslin was just sentenced to 25 years for selling drugs, worth a whopping $3900. Seems to me this is retribution by the good ole USA for her believed participation in the death of Hayleigh Cummings even if they couldn't prove it. Fair? It's just a year under the sentence Italy handed out for murder!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You're entitled to your opinion but it's not the most logical choice for many.

Barring access to a TARDIS and a mind reading device none of us will ever know what Rudy Guede was thinking at the time, or what seemed like the most logical entry point to him.

However for this exact reason I am comfortable saying that anyone who has a high degree of certainty that his choice of entry point was implausible did not arrive at that belief rationally. The armchair-psychological and armchair-criminological arguments for entering by the side or the rear seem roughly equally plausible and hence are not compelling.

How do you know it doesn't exist? Do you think you have seen every transcript of every interview conducted so can say this with some reliability.

Some of us think that the Massei report includes the best evidence Massei had, and that it is an implausible exercise in wishful thinking to believe that knock-down evidence which papers over the holes in the narrative was left out, entirely unmentioned, accidentally.

Of course we cannot know anything with certainty until we have ascertained the occult significance of [403].

We have testimony. What makes you so certain ILE didn't take any notes at all? Have you seen all 10,000 or so pages that supposedly make up the case file?

A good point. Also, do we know for certain that [403] does not refer to a photograph of Amanda Knox covered in Meredith's blood with a bloody kitchen knife in one hand and a mop in the other, with Sollecito fondling a bra hook in the background? I put it to you that we do not.

There is so much damning evidence that could have existed and been left out of the Massei report! Can we ever say with absolute certainty that it wasn't?



Sarcasm aside, I think Massei put the best evidence into his report, not the worst. Anyone who holds out much hope that the other 10 000 pages are not even worse rubbish than the 400 pages or so that made it into the report is the victim of wishful thinking overriding rational expectations in my view.

Yes, I do believe the rock being thrown from the outside makes the most sense with the glass scatter pattern. The size of the rock makes no sense however! Wasn't there also a smaller rock found in the room?

I believe you refer to what is believed to be a small fragment that came off the larger rock at some point.

What is your basis for your judgment about the rock? What size would make sense to you? Is there evidence that Rudy had access to an arsenal of rocks of all sizes and hand-picked the perfect tool for the job considering the range, size of the target, and degree of damage to the window he desired to cause?

If not it might be the case that any perceived inefficiency in the exact size of the missile chosen could be explained by either a lack of choice in which rocks were available, or incomplete information at the time of rock selection about the target. Or it might turn out that Rudy, knowing more about it than we do, had a better idea of the ideal rock size than you do - possibly he had learned by experience that if you plan to crawl through a window, it saves a lot of effort to put a big rock through it than a small rock? I don't think there is any kind of solid grounds for incredulity about the rock here.

 

[platonov]

They mostly are that "immaculate"; there is virtually no evidence to suggest that Knox and Sollecito are anything other than benign university students.

Mary H, Is this not heresy ?

For some reason 'Nuns run bald thru Vatican halls' comes to mind.

But if it worked for Joseph - I believe he also ignored the previous 'visitation' of an Italian ( or a Roman at any rate ) - why not here

 

[komponisto]

Whoosh

Yes, on your part. You're the one who doesn't understand that reasoning mathematically does not necessarily involve explicit numbers.

For my part, I got your reference. Whether you were making an off-topic point about a 15-20-year old book or an accusation of racism is something I didn't bother to speculate about.

 

[HumanityBlues]

OT, but what do you make of the news that Misty Croslin was just sentenced to 25 years for selling drugs, worth a whopping $3900. Seems to me this is retribution by the good ole USA for her believed participation in the death of Hayleigh Cummings even if they couldn't prove it. Fair? It's just a year under the sentence Italy handed out for murder!

That federal drug enforcement and drug laws in the US are draconian is hardly unknown. What's your point?

 

[RWVBWL]

Exemption...

RWVBWL,
You probably know that Dr. Stefanoni had to apply for an exemption to the general rule that a one forensics team collects the evidence and a different team does the analysis.

Hi Halides1, and others,
I still find this very strange, especially in light of learning that the lab she worked in was very busy...

What happened?
Was she at home or at work and got an important phone call that said "Hey Patti, a foreign student has been stabbed to death, possibly by Tunisian drug dealers, which will probably cause lots of foreign students to flee. Get here quick!"...

Why would Dr. Stefanoni go to the trouble of applying for and geting an exemption to help collect evidence that she will probably also be testing shorty?

Do you or anyone else know if Dr. Stefanoni had done this previously too in any other murder case
or was this the first time she did so?
Thanks for any replies,
RWVBWL

 

[Dan O.]

You're entitled to your opinion but it's not the most logical choice for many.

I wasn't stating an opinion. I was pointing out that the perpetrator of a break-in and the perpetrator of a staging would have the same input with which to make their logical choice. Nothing has been presented to differentiate between these two to say one would pick one option and the other would pick something else. Of course, if one were a seasoned criminal, that might make a difference.

How do you know it doesn't exist? Do you think you have seen every transcript of every interview conducted so can say this with some reliability.

I should have said: "it doesn't exist as far as we know"

We have testimony. What makes you so certain ILE didn't take any notes at all? Have you seen all 10,000 or so pages that supposedly make up the case file?

Have you seen any testimony refer to contemporaneous notes concerning the evidence that the break-in was staged? A written note of facts witnessed at the time is significantly stronger than a verbal testimony made over a year later after the prosecution has established a theory of the crime. Massie should know this and make note of the documentation where it exists.

Yes, I do believe the rock being thrown from the outside makes the most sense with the glass scatter pattern. The size of the rock makes no sense however! Wasn't there also a smaller rock found in the room?

I'm glad we have one point that we don't need to keep rehashing.

There was only 1 rock. However, a small piece broke off the main rock on impact.

I did not say they were lying. The room was obviously a mess, as they both noticed. I am saying that accepting the argument it was messy because Filomena was a slob doesn't jive with two people familiar with her expressly speaking of it being messy as if that was unique to that morning.

If i'm catching your drift correctly, the fact that Filomena is a slob is a red hearing. I can accept that. The actual condition of Filomena's room is immaterial since the search/staging activity carried over into the other rooms. Any additional disruption above that caused by the real or staged break-in can be equally attributed to a real or simulated burglary.

 

[RWVBWL]

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.

Hi LondonJohn,
Thanks for the refresher, I vaguely seem to remember you were at 1st a guilter, as I was once too a looong time ago!

You know something that I find strange?
Filomena can not even seem to remember how she left the window shutters in her bedroom, but yet Amanda is supposed to remember everything...
Later, RWVBWL

 

[platonov]

Imaginary vs made up numbers

Yes, on your part. You're the one who doesn't understand that reasoning mathematically does not necessarily involve explicit numbers.

For my part, I got your reference. Whether you were making an off-topic point about a 15-20-year old book or an accusation of racism is something I didn't bother to speculate about.

OK, you are going to have to explain how this works.
How does one do math's without using numbers ??????????

Throwing around phrases like 'Bayes Theorem' wont cut it, well not when you are dealing with somebody who has a passing acquaintance with the subject.

Again, If you say so - but how would you then account for the earlier 'snip' upthread in a post of mine you quoted.
BTW It was ~26 yrs ago - numbers again.

 

[tsig]

They mostly are that "immaculate"; there is virtually no evidence to suggest that Knox and Sollecito are anything other than benign university students.

Well there was the dead room mate.

 

[Draca]

Well there was the dead room mate.

If Amanda Knox didn't want to be wrongfully convicted of murder in Italy, then she should have not killed her roommate in her own country.

 

[tsig]

Hi Halides1, and others,
I still find this very strange, especially in light of learning that the lab she worked in was very busy...

What happened?Was she at home or at work and got an important phone call that said "Hey Patti, a foreign student has been stabbed to death, possibly by Tunisian drug dealers, which will probably cause lots of foreign students to flee. Get here quick!"...

Why would Dr. Stefanoni go to the trouble of applying for and geting an exemption to help collect evidence that she will probably also be testing shorty?

Do you or anyone else know if Dr. Stefanoni had done this previously too in any other murder case
or was this the first time she did so?
Thanks for any replies,
RWVBWL

She was in on it from the beginning, probably got an email calling in an old favor and she jumped to comply. The only logical thing to do is to seize her computers and examine her emails.

Given the occult connection she could be in a coven and he's the warlock so she would have to follow his orders.

The possibilities for speculation are endless.

 

[platonov]

Well there was the dead room mate.

That's just the kind of comment a 'hater' who doesn't understand mathematics would make.
Statistically MK is still alive.

BTW The African origin of your avatar tells us all we need to know about you.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

OK, you are going to have to explain how this works.
How does one do math's without using numbers ??????????

A = (Platonov made the above post)
B = (Platonov's passing acquaintance with mathematics does not extend to discrete mathematics)

A->B

Throwing around phrases like 'Bayes Theorem' wont cut it, well not when you are dealing with somebody who has a passing acquaintance with the subject.

 

[Fine]

Danceme,

IIRC the computer was originally on the desk. Suppose there was some glass on top of it from the broken window. Filomena would probably have brushed the glass off, and it might have landed on some clothes. Speculative, I admit.

I will not be commenting much for a few days, to focus on other tasks, but I will try to keep up with the reading.

_________________________

Halides,

You are mistaken. Filomena said that she had left her laptop computer on the floor, upright, on the afternoon of November 1st, 2007. She discovered her laptop on the afternoon of November 2nd, 2007, still on the floor, in the same position, but now having fallen over onto its side.

///