Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

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

Have you never studied any mathematics beyond arithmetic?

There are entire branches of the subject where numbers scarcely enter at all.

More to the point here, you seem not to have noticed that I wrote "explicit numbers" above. There is indeed some particular number that represents (e.g.) my probability that Amanda Knox killed her roommate; but it isn't necessary to determine that number to a high degree of precision in order to have a meaningful discussion. An order-of-magnitude estimate will suffice for purposes here. (If you want to know, my estimate is about 0.001, or 0.1%; that's meant to be distinguished from 1%, 10% or 50%, not from 0.2%.)

Though it may be beyond your experience, when I write something like "low prior probability + weak evidence = low posterior probability", that is legitimate mathematics. But if it helps you understand, you may substitute "0.0001*10 = 0.001".

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.

If your acquaintance with the subject is good enough, why don't you try pointing out where I've been mistaken in any of my arguments?

BTW It was ~26 yrs ago - numbers again.

Wrong. It was published in 1994. Look it up. And 2011-1994 = 17, which is between 15 and 20.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I suppose since Fine and Platonov are back with us it's time to get back to the point.

Do you guys have any coherent theory of the crime that fits with the facts as we now know them, which has Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito involved in Meredith Kercher's murder?

Michael's "rape prank"/"hazing" theory, if you missed it, turns out to have the problem that "rape pranks" in the relevant sense don't appear to exist, "hazing" outside of sporting and social groups victimising new in-group members doesn't appear to exist either, and the original "rape prank" rumour when run to ground turns out to be baseless and in addition to have no element of rape (or knives).

So if you want to run with that theory, you're going to need some evidence that "rape pranks", well, exist. Because as far as I can tell they don't. Google for yourself. As such calling it a "rape prank" theory appears to be no improvement over calling it a "****** if I know, it just happened" theory.

In the absence of any coherent theory, I submit that a rational person has to give a great deal of weight to the fact that the pro-innocence narrative has a simple, clear theory which explains all of the relevant facts satisfactorily.

Secondly, what do you think are the best pieces of evidence for the guilt of Knox and Sollecito? What would be a minimum set of evidence that would make you more than 50% certain that Knox and Sollecito murdered Meredith Kercher?

I further submit that if you hold X to be true, but cannot give a clear and coherent account of why you believe X to be true, then your belief in X is immediately shown to be irrational.

 

[TomCH]

Such a shame that Italy permits the prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the case.

Italy 'permits' the prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the case? That is their job!

Ummmm, who else should do it?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh hey, it's been ages since I posted this. While we're at it, just in case anyone is still trying to defend the Massei narrative (as opposed to accepting the earlier time of death established by posters here and the consequent falsification of the Massei narrative), here are some questions to chew on.

1. How do you explain the fact that all of Meredith's last meal was still in her stomach, and none of it was in her bowel, if she was undisturbed until 10:30pm and died after 10:30pm? This is completely inconsistent with everything we know about human digestion. Estimating time of death by stomach contents is imprecise to a degree, but not to anything like the degree needed to explain this. No credible source claims that the time for stomach contents to begin moving into the duodenum in a healthy adult having eaten a small-to-moderate meal with no alcohol, extreme stress or other confounding factors can plausibly exceed four hours, and exceeding three hours is very unlikely indeed. Since there was no digested matter in Meredith's duodenum, and we can establish from the statements of Meredith's friends that she ate her last meal no later than 18:30, there is reasonable medical certainty she died before 22:30, and it is very unlikely indeed that she died later than 21:30.
   
2. How do you explain the fact that Meredith's mobile phone pinged a tower in between her house and the final resting place of her phones at 22:13, if she was not murdered until 23:30 or similar? Meredith's phone had never pinged that tower before so while it was physically possible for her phone to reach that tower if she stuck it out the window, there is no evidence that it ever did so in the normal course of things. This is nigh incontrovertible evidence that at 22:13 the killer had left her house and was en route to the place where they dumped her phones.
   
3. Do you acknowledge that Rudy confessed in his prison diary to being at the site from 20:30 onwards, and claimed that Meredith was murdered some time not long after that? Do you have any explanation for why Rudy would lie to put the time of death back so far, if indeed he was lying about Meredith's time of death?
   
4. Do you acknowledge that there is absolutely no positive evidence for a later time of death, and that Massei's conclusion about the time of death was arrived at by assuming that Knox and Sollecito were guilty and confabulating a time of death consistent with that assumption, rather than by determining the time of death and then checking whether Knox and Sollecito could possibly have been present at that time?
   
5. How do you explain the fact that the characteristics of Amanda's "confession" (vagueness, doubts about its authenticity, obvious errors of fact, conformity with police theories at the time, later retraction) match with those of an internalised false confession, a well-recognised and objectively documented psychological phenomenon? There is no evidence Amanda knew enough about such false confessions to fake one so convincingly, and indeed if she knew enough to fake one she would almost certainly know that such confessions often lead to the confessor being convicted. If it is highly implausible that she faked an internalised false confession, the only alternative was that this was a real internalised false confession.
   
6. Do you acknowledge that since Meredith died long before 23:30, the witnesses who claim to have heard a scream at about that time cannot have been hearing Meredith scream, and that this destroys the claim that these witnesses confirm Amanda's internalised false confession because they heard the scream Amanda described? If not, why not?
   
7. If you believe Curatolo's testimony, how do you explain the fact that the computer records provided by the police show that an episode of Naruto was opened on Raffaele's computer at 21:26, which would have lasted for at least twenty minutes, covering the time period when Curatolo very specifically claims to have seen them out of the house?
   
8. If you still believe Curatolo's testimony, and cannot present scientific evidence to dispute the time of death based on Meredith's stomach contents, doesn't Curatolo give Amanda and Raffaele an alibi for the time of death?
   
9. If you do not believe Curatolo's highly specific testimony, what alternative do you suggest to the obvious hypotheses that Curatolo was either mistaken about the date on which he saw Amanda and Raffaele, or was a police stooge who committed perjury, and that his whole statement was false?
   
10. Do you acknowledge that Amanda's DNA on the "double DNA" knife proves absolutely nothing regarding her guilt or innocence, because it could have been deposited on the handle by completely innocent means? If not, why not?
    
11. Do you acknowledge that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood found in the house proves absolutely nothing, because it could have been deposited by completely innocent means before Meredith's death? If not, why not?
    
12. Do you acknowledge that without this DNA evidence, absolutely no forensic evidence links Amanda to Meredith's murder at all?
    
13. What hard evidence do you have that there was a staged break-in given that we have Filomena's statement that there was glass on the floor of her room as well as on top of her clothes? The fact that nothing was stolen from this room is not evidence of a staged break-in, the lack of fingerprints or DNA from Rudy in that room is in no way unusual even if he did search the room without gloves, and the unsupported word of police who did not document their observations is not hard evidence.
    
14. Do you acknowledge that the available evidence regarding the potential entry to the house via the window fits equally well or better with Hendry's theory that Rudy manually widened the hole in the glass after the initial throw, and placed the glass chunks he removed on the sill as he did so, when compared with Massei's theory? Hendry's theory explains the glass inside the room and the glass outside on the sill perfectly well. Massei's theory does not explain the glass on the sill.
    
15. How do you explain the scuff marks on the wall below Filomena's window, the freshly-made holes in the wall below Filomena's window consistent with nails being there which someone knocked out in the process of climbing the wall, and the white powdery substance found on clothes on the floor in Filomena's room consistent with someone's foot having scuffed the white surface of the wall? (See previous link for photographs). How do you explain that police claimed that there was absolutely no sign of anyone climbing the wall yet we can clearly see these signs in photographs, if the police are not untrustworthy witnesses? There are additional photographs showing the white powdery substance on dark objects on the floor of Filomena's room here. You can certainly argue that they do not add up to conclusive proof somebody climbed that wall and walked around in Filomena's room, but it is not credible to argue that they do not raise reasonable doubt about the Massei narrative where the break-in was totally staged.
    
16. Do you acknowledge that the police destroyed the evidence, in the form of the Spotlight metadata for Stardust on Raffaele's computer, which could potentially have confirmed their alibi, that they were at home at the prosecution's alleged time of death?
    
17. Finally, doesn't it ever strike you as weird that Mignini "figured out" that this was a once-in-history three-way sex crime (where relative strangers ganged up on one of their housemates) more or less on sight, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that theory? Isn't it just a bit convenient that when absolutely all the forensic evidence failed to confirm his theory, miraculous and unreproducible LCN DNA evidence gathered at the eleventh hour popped up out of Stefanoni's lab to save his theory, but they refuse to show their raw data or their log files? Isn't it cause for concern that the best evidence for the prosecution can't be reproduced and they refuse to show their work, and that the vital piece of evidence that could have confirmed Amanda and Raffaele's alibis (the Spotlight data for Stardust) was destroyed by police?

Thanks in advance. Take as long as you need.

 

[katy_did]

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?

Do we have any evidence that Filomena was usually tidy anyway? I dunno, the room looks pretty cluttered to me. I think what you describe is probably what happened: a few piles of clothes fell over/out of the wardrobe as Rudy was breaking in. Again, this is another occasion where Massei draws absolute conclusions (clothes=staging) from something for which there are quite a few plausible explanations.

 

[Mary_H]

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

Exactly the same thought came to my mind, RW.

 

[Mary_H]

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

You've lost me, platonov, although that's nothing new.

 

[Mary_H]

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?

I think the State Department has already acted on this case. My suspicion is they worked with Girlanda on his public request to take Amanda's photo down from the "Wall of Shame." Of the many things that offend people about this case, the concept of being assumed guilty before being tried is one of the most offensive, especially to Americans. Even "prudish" Americans, of which there are no longer very many, tend to cling tightly to their civil rights.

I also believe the State Department has conveyed its position to Perugian magistrates or to their colleagues elsewhere in the country, and that is why Pratillo Hellmann chose to have the most essential components of the evidence reviewed independently. I suspect he is predisposed to hearing a decision of innocence from the jury panel, but he wants the scientific evidence to become public before acting.

I'm not sure the value system you are describing still exists in many places. Drug abuse seems to be a bigger problem in the suburbs and in middle America than in some of the big cities. Sarah Palin's family and reality shows have taken care of the out-of-wedlock Scarlet Letter, and church attendance has plummeted. A large percentage of the Baby Boomers, who are quickly becoming the older generation, are more "experienced" than Amanda and Raffaele, by far.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

That has been my question, Bob. Rudy could have thrown a rock through the window before Meredith got home to see if anyone was there, and he could have thrown one through the window after he left, in order to attract attention and get some to call the police.

It's interesting that Mrs. Capezzali heard a scream but not a breaking window.

 

[Justinian2]

Oh hey, it's been ages since I posted this. [...]

Excellent post.

 

[Justinian2]

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

From my own relatively small episode with the police-->courts, all the witness accounts, police accounts and my own recollections got somewhat smeared together in an attempt to find the truth.

There are some things that do NOT get smeared and these are the memories of muscle actions and pain. What you see sometimes gets added to the collective recollection. In other words, Amanda is likely to remember accurately being hit on the head, but it would be probably impossible for any of the police to remember Amanda getting bumped on the head. The police are likely to 'remember' the group recollection.

 

[LondonJohn]

And so the ever spinning Cartwheel of Doubt comes back to "the missing tapes" - a subset of the fixation on the 'internalized false confession' / 'waterboarding' [IFS/Wb] trope both of which have been dealt with over and over and over and over and over and over again on this thread.

I believe you have even used this actual phrase before in this precise context at least once already without making any further argument.

It puts your false claim here in context and actually proves* the point that you seek to contest.




Why is this false ?
Not alone have I repeatedly highlighted the repetitive nature, often with links, of the Foaker arguments on this thread ( quadraginta recently has referred to it also ) but this has been constantly pointed out since at least last June and probably much earlier.

* See also 'Groundhog Day'

.

Nice to see you back platonov. Groundhog Day is one of my favorites.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say in this post. What are you smoking?

 

[Justinian2]

Yikes. Suddenly there's a foot of snow outside. See you guys in the spring.

Speaking of the Spring, I just had a vision of Amanda returning home in the Spring. Or was it Mary's avatar? Yeah, I believe in psychic senses, but I make my living with what I see, feel and hear.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Brilliant!

EDIT: D'oh! I'm an idiot!

*fixes faulty irony-o-meter*

 

[LondonJohn]

Well there was the dead room mate.

Brilliant!

 

[Mary_H]

Yikes. Suddenly there's a foot of snow outside. See you guys in the spring.

Speaking of the Spring, I just had a vision of Amanda returning home in the Spring. Or was it Mary's avatar? Yeah, I believe in psychic senses, but I make my living with what I see, feel and hear.

We got 2 or 3 inches of snow in Seattle tonight, too. But now it's raining.

That picture was taken in the spring, Justinian.

 

[Mary_H]

Brilliant!

Draca's comment requires very careful reading.

 

[snook1]

Oh hey, it's been ages since I posted this. While we're at it, just in case anyone is still trying to defend the Massei narrative (as opposed to accepting the earlier time of death established by posters here and the consequent falsification of the Massei narrative), here are some questions to chew on.
Thanks in advance. Take as long as you need.

Absoluetely amazing piece of work. I look forward to see what the guilters have to say now, including the ones at PMF.

 

[RoseMontague]

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say in this post. What are you smoking?

I think what nopoirot is saying is that the general public has no idea of all these negative things about Amanda, like the sex with several men in a short period of time and the fact that she smoked pot. The general public will not support Amanda once they know these things and the State Department is also staying away because even if she is not guilty, they would rather back the perfect poster girl of All-American wholesomeness and perfection.