Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

The interesting thing about pink (or magenta) is that it doesn't actually exist as a single wavelength of light, so it can't be said to "have a wavelength". I assume Fine chose "pink" for that very reason.

That's why I referred to its peak wavelength, not its wavelength, because I assumed that since pink is normally called a mixture of white and red that its spectrum would turn out to be a mix of low peaks all over the visible spectrum with a nice spike in the red area.

However you know what they say about assumptions... I did some looking because I know that light and vision do some counterintuitive things sometimes, and it turns out it's more complicated than that.

Here is an awesome page about it. If you search for pink you can go straight to the cool bit where they explain that your brain perceives pink if you hit the eye with 405nm purplish light and 675nm red light at once, which is weird but also really cool.

So just because Fine came up with a really bad example, I've learned all sorts of interesting things. It's more work than just sitting on my backside thinking that there is no rational basis for beliefs about pinkness, but it's lots more fun. Join us, Fine!

 

[Kaosium]

You don't think that the different aims for either the actual break in or the staged break in might influence the choice? Is not possible that what is illogical for one, might actually be logical for the other?

I think you have a point in the sense that the aims diverge at the nexus of how hard the task is. To stage one and have it believable you'd want to pick what would seem the easiest point of entry. Conversely a burglar knowing what he can accomplish might pick a 'harder' one for various reasons, including that the police might not think it a likely entry point...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Also since we won't be seeing Treehorn/Jackie for a long time, I've updated my avatar just for him.

 

[Justinian2]

Massei took the word of a Postal Police officer that the burglary was staged. The same officer who claimed to have arrived before the defendants called the police and claimed to have not entered Meredith's room after the door was forced open.

page 89 of the Massie report:

The problem for Amanda and Raffaele in distancing themselves from being suspects was, in the absence of a forced front door, the need to create another possibility of access into the house; broken glass and disarray in the room of Romanelli seemed to fit this purpose independently of the theft of actual objects. Raffaele Sollecito therefore could think that, saying there had been nothing stolen (which was true and shortly would actually be checked out) would not compromise the aim of the staged scene and would also gain additional credibility in the eyes of the carabinieri - as indeed there had been no theft - and that in little time this fact would be confirmed anyway: might as well, then, say immediately that there was no theft.

If this was a conspiracy between Guede, Amanda and Raffaele, then:

1) Why wouldn't they have just let him in the front door and planted evidence suggesting that Meredith had invited someone over?

2) Why would they stage a faked break-in that was similar to Guede's MO and earlier break-ins?

3) Why would they even invite Guede? They didn't even know him.

4) Why would they clean up evidence of themselves and leave the evidence of their conspirator knowing that conspirators usually squeal on each other?

5) Why did the conspirators not squeal on each other?

6) If this wasn't a conspiracy, then how can Amanda and Raffaele be involved since a person cannot be murdered twice?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, well, well: what have we here? Todays Corriere dell'Umbria (thanks to Jools from PMF) reports that Antonio Curatolo stood in a Perugia courtroom yesterday, accused of dealing heroin to at least one addict in Perugia twice every week over a period of three months in 2003 - it appears from this report that the police have got photos of the "transactions". The report says that Curatolo's case has been adjourned until November:

http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=23

Surely this can't be true.....can it?? This "very decent brave man" (by SomeAlibi's expert judgement) who looked, sounded and smelled utterly credible? There must be a terrible mistake here, mustn't there.......?

ETA: Another reason why these allegations simply cannot be true is that surely the police and prosecutors would have bought the charges against Curatolo way back in 2003 or 2004, since that's when they were alleged to have happened, and it's also when the alleged police surveillance operation took place. After all, what conceivable reason could there have been for the authorities to delay bringing charges - it's not as if Curatolo could offer them anything in return now, is it........?

 

[tsig]

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

Ummmm, who else should do it?

Anonymouse internet posters.

 

[Supernaut]

Are you talking about what actually happened, or about what should or will happen in Court? With respect to the latter, I think that certainly if Amanda's two statements had been deemed admissible, her lawyers should have called an expert to testify on her behalf (it's unfortunate, in some respects, that they weren't admissible against her, since it would've allowed them to be addressed more directly). This has no bearing on whether the statements actually were coerced though, obviously.

Jaysus. It makes you wonder;

As you say, if they HAD been admitted it would have cut both ways - not only allowing 'expert analysis' but also wouldn't the defence have been able to call the cops who were present at the questura on Nov 5th/6th as witnesses?

IF this is so - what a damned shame!

It would mean the statements being ruled inadmissable absolutely benefited the cops and prosecution, NOT Amanda and her defence.

I'd go as far as saying that Mignini definitely did NOT want them scrutinised in court, once they'd served to get the arrests and indictments (and had been used to kick off his defamation campaign against AK), but it suited him perfectly that they were endorsed by another court (Lumumba's civil action against AK) without any such scrutiny.

Given they constituted the only "evidence" justifying the arrests of AK, RS and PL, Amanda had little else to discuss with her lawyers in their first interviews, and the latter must have been perfectly aware that the illegality went WAY beyond "not providing council". Assuming it was they who petitioned for inadmissability (and not the Supreme court acting unilaterally) then they made a mistake with their knee-jerk lawyers' reaction - they didn't think strategically, and actually did Mignini and the cops a favour.

Then again, it's possible they considered all this carefully, but are so inured to the 'culture' of Italian law, with its quaint tradition of sueing people who "slander" it in defending themselves, that they simply dismissed out-of-hand any course of action that would have been remotely antagonistic or confrontational toward Mignini and the cops. They just wanted the issue to go away - they have careers to think about and the last thing they want to do is make enemies inside these 'venerable' institutions. I wouldn't necessarily blame them - it's just the way it is over there.

(As far as I can tell, they left it entirely to Amanda to describe her "questioning", during her cross-examination by the prosecution, which of course left her open to the asinine "calunnia" charges, and were otherwise completely passive).

Depressing.

 

[tsig]

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.

Pure speculation.

 

[Kaosium]

Well, well, well: what have we here? Todays Corriere del'Umbria (thanks to Jools from PMF) reports that Antonio Curatolo stood in a Perugia courtroom yesterday, accused of dealing heroin to at least one addict in Perugia twice every week over a period of three months in 2003 - it appears from this report that the police have got photos of the "transactions". The report says that Curatolo's case has been adjourned until November:

http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=23

Surely this can't be true.....can it?? This "very decent brave man" (by SomeAlibi's expert judgement) who looked, sounded and smelled utterly credible? There must be a terrible mistake here, mustn't there.......?

ETA: Another reason why these allegations simply cannot be true is that surely the police and prosecutors would have bought the charges against Curatolo way back in 2003 or 2004, since that's when they were alleged to have happened, and it's also when the alleged police surveillance operation took place. After all, what conceivable reason could there have been for the authorities to delay bringing charges - it's not as if Curatolo could offer them anything in return now, is it........?

I have heard this is Curatolo's third murder trial, I believe it was Curt Knox who said that on some clip I viewed recently. I wonder just when Curatolo started testifying in murder cases? When was the first instance? Wouldn't it be just another one of those mysterious Perugian 'coincidences' if it was 2004 or shortly thereafter?

 

[tsig]

Well, the possibilities for speculation are in fact fairly limited. Stefanoni worked in the Police Forensic Science unit's laboratory in Rome - some 85 miles away from Perugia. Every police force in the developed world (including Italy) has specialist crime scene examiners (in the UK, they are called SOCOs - scene of crime officers). They are usually not regular police officers, and usually haven't attended police colleges/academies. They are trained specifically and exclusively to identify and collect potential evidence at crime scenes. That's all. And there would have been plenty of such specialised individuals available in Perugia on 2nd November 2007.

Once the crime scene examiners have done their work, the evidence is then sent to laboratories (whether affiliated to the police force or independent); specialist lab analysts then examine the evidence, and they then communicate the results of their analysis to the relevant police team investigating the crime.

There are many good reasons for the separation of personnel identifying/collecting the evidence and those examining the evidence in laboratories: the main reason is that there are different skill-sets involved in each job. SOCOs get specially trained to do a specific task, and they also evolve their expertise through accumulated experience in the field. That's why they're the best people for the job. Another reason is that lab analysts are usually highly-trained (and are consequently fairly well-paid) scientists, whereas crime scene examiners do not need to have a rigorous scientific background (and are consequently less well-paid). It's therefore a bad allocation of resources to have a lab analyst performing a SOCO's job.

I can't think of any precedent in any police investigation anywhere in the developed world where the person who conducted the lab analysis had previously been part of the team collecting the evidence at the crime scene. Of course, it often happens in slick TV shows such as CSI, NCIS or Silent Witness, but this is for reasons of dramatic licence and character continuity rather than for reasons of accuracy. There's simply no reason whatsoever that a lab analyst from Rome should have been involved in collecting the forensic evidence from a murder scene in Perugia. The task should have been undertaken by specialised crime scene examiners, and the first that Stefanoni should have seen of the evidence is when it arrived on her lab bench.

I wonder what prior relationship (professional, but perhaps also personal) there was between Mignini and Stefanoni. I'm guessing that they had worked closely together before on other cases. And I also wonder whether there's any precedent in Italy (or any other country or that matter) for a laboratory analyst to be invited - and to accept the invitation - to participate in the collection of evidence from a crime scene. One might almost say: hmmmmmmmmmmmm........

When you say "the possibilities for speculation are in fact fairly limited" then engage in wide-ranging speculation it could seem you are contradicting yourself. hummmmm.....

 

[Matthew Best]

So one of the main prosecution witnesses turns out to be a dealer in street drugs. I wonder if he was also a user?

Still, at least he was fragrant.

 

[tsig]

Oh gawd, the danger of a very little knowledge...

This is just wrong. You've made two different things P. Let me help you out here.

X = Knox was deliberately lying and she deliberately produced a statement that had all the characteristics we would expect to see in an internalised false confession.
P = Knox is far more knowledgeable about how police interrogations can go wrong than the vast majority of the public, and hence knows that internalised false confessions get people long prison sentences.
Q = Knox is a complete, barking idiot.

X -> P&Q

P and Q are not mutually exclusive, hence you can't call them P and -P.

If you want to set the actual argument I made in formal notation you need a bit more than first year content to do it and I'm sure it would bore and annoy non-mathematical readers so I will skip it. In informal terms the argument would be "If X is true then P and Q must also be true, but Q is very improbable, especially if P is true. Hence X is also very improbable".



I won't bother pulling this apart in detail, it all falls over as soon as you get the initial equation right anyway.



As previously noted, you evidently lack the ability to correctly identify a false dilemma in the first place.



No you didn't. You have not posted one scrap of evidence that her statement was not exactly what we would expect of an internalised false statement. This is because you have no such evidence, which in turn is because her statement as "internalised false statement" written all over it.

What you tried to do was resurrect the mole that Amanda Knox didn't fit the profile of the kind of person who would give an internalised false statement. However that mole was already hammered down: Knox was indeed the type, and moreover people who aren't the type can and do make internalised false statements sometimes.

Kevin, how can we tell the difference between a lie and and an internalized false accusation?

 

[Justinian2]

The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution.

You don't have to accept the federalist laws.

Nonetheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws.

You're literate, listener?

- Jared Lee Loughner -

"she (Gabrielle Giffords) was 'stupid & unintelligent."

- Jared Lee Loughner -

Are people acting as 'ENABLERS' by not applying the appropriate peer pressure on people like Jared Lee Loughner?

I think that the PMF, by allowing some posts, is enabling the distorted beliefs of some of their members.

JREF probably is applying the appropriate peer pressure on the PMF and some of their members. The FOAKers, JREF and the big authors are probably applying the appropriate peer pressure on the Italian judicial system. The trouble is that the MAJORITY probably have to help apply the appropriate peer pressure and that is just NOT happening.

 

[tsig]

Just Asking Questions, Amazer?

One of the stock arguments that the break-in must have been staged has been something like (and I emphasise for the benefit of those with amazingly or perhaps strategically poor reading comprehension skills that I claim to be quoting no particular person) "It's soooooo obvious that no real burglar would break in that way, I can tell from my armchair with some carefully selected pictures that don't give a correct sense of scale that Knox and Sollecito staged the break-in!".
That particular argument is directly self-defeating, which I think was Dan O.'s point, because if it was that obvious then nobody would have staged it that way either.

Massei's arguments were slightly different but equally inane: He expressed incredulity about the idea that a burglar would open the shutters, go get a rock, throw it through the window and then climb up, seeing it all as far too much work or something. He uncritically accepted the word of the police that there was no sign of climbing, and ignored the photos showing what could easily be scuff-marks on the wall, what could easily be fresh brickwork where a nail might have been knocked out, and what could easily be whitewash from the wall on objects on the floor of Filomena's room.

Massei never, as far as I can tell with a quick look, tried out the argument that a real burglar would have used the back door. That appears to be a bit of guilter fanfic that never appeared in the official theory.

Unless you have visited the cottage yourself the hilited statement argues equally well against your position.

 

[Supernaut]

Kevin, how can we tell the difference between a lie and and an internalized false accusation?

You must be new to this thread. It's been discussed in great detail over the past year or so.

If you search the thread (you could try using "internalised" "false" and "confession") you will find a great deal of information, replete with links.

 

[samba]

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

You'll get responses like "yeah....but AK & RS' statements are contradictory, so therefore they are guilty".

The actual evidence in this case seems to be of little interest to many. If they do point to evidence, it's the stuff like "and there is clearly evidence of a cleanup."

 

[LondonJohn]

When you say "the possibilities for speculation are in fact fairly limited" then engage in wide-ranging speculation it could seem you are contradicting yourself. hummmmm.....

Maybe you could point out to me where my speculation became "wide-ranging"?

 

[LondonJohn]

Unless you have visited the cottage yourself the hilited statement argues equally well against your position.

No it doesn't. A knowledge of the window dimensions (particularly the lower one, which is very small) is all that is necessary - not a personal visit to the scene (although a certain person seems hell-bent on trying to convince everyone that it's literally impossible to express any cogent opinions on the case unless one has actually walked (and smelled) the streets of Perugia.....)

 

[Supernaut]

Maybe you could point out to me where my speculation became "wide-ranging"?

LJ, tsig vill ask ze questions around here.

 

[tsig]

Also since we won't be seeing Treehorn/Jackie for a long time, I've updated my avatar just for him.

Well they say that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".