Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Draca]

It's funny how your mind can get snagged on a certain point. I have thought about the lamp from time to time wondering why it would be on the floor. My little pea brain never opened up to the idea that it wasn't on the floor to start with. It may have been on the desk - wow - that makes sense. Embarrassing really. I've studied the bedroom more than most.

 

[Chris C]

It's funny how your mind can get snagged on a certain point. I have thought about the lamp from time to time wondering why it would be on the floor. My little pea brain never opened up to the idea that it wasn't on the floor to start with. It may have been on the desk - wow - that makes sense. Embarrassing really. I've studied the bedroom more than most.

Though I will play Devil's advocate for the guilters. It only shows the lamp wasn't used in a clean up. It doesn't disprove Meredith was murdered by more than one person. There is other evidence for that.

 

[Draca]

Though I will play Devil's advocate for the guilters. It only shows the lamp wasn't used in a clean up. It doesn't disprove Meredith was murdered by more than one person. There is other evidence for that.

I'll play Kevin Lowe then. As a guilter what is your theory of the lamp taking into account that there was already light in the room, there was no clean-up and no shoeprints other the Rudi Guede's? How does the lamp fit into a senario of a guilty AK and RS?

 

[Draca]

Thought I will play Devil's advocate for the guilters. It only shows the lamp wasn't used in a clean up. It doesn't disprove Meredith was murdered by more than one person. There is other evidence for that.

You nailed this BTW. !
There is a mountain of evidence afterall.

 

[Chris C]

I'm surpriseed Frank hasn't blasted off on his site over Curatolo's appearance in court. I wonder if the heroin Curatolo was distributing was from the same drug dealer Rudy's claims to have seen that night.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Actually Charlie, I'm saying the lamp was there when Rudy opened the door to leave. During the struggle the door closed and the lamp fell behind the door. We know the door was pulled open because there is blood on the inside door handle.
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/meredith_door04.jpg

We know that IF the lamp was used for a clean up or search after the murder, the door would have been left opened, because they would have had to clean the door handle to leave the room and an open door is extra light. Since the lamp was behind the door we know it was not used in a clean up or search of the room. When they kicked the door open the next day they just assumed it was them that broke the lamp. Where as it could have already been broken before the kicking in of the door.

The lamp by the night stand was clearly plugged in prior to the murder and wasn't used in the clean up. So she didn't have a lamp on her desk. Where it happens her computer was sitting at.

Whats even more absurd when considering Knox's lamp was used as part of a clean up is considering that the door would have had to been closed and the lamp plugged in and placed in the pathway of the door opening. If the lamp was sitting there then the only place it would give light to clean up would be behind the door. If you tried to clean up any other spot in the room with the lamp sitting there, whoever was doing the cleaning would have a problem with their body blocking the light from the lamp. Plus their body would have to be on the floor to use that lighting. Why not just set the lamp on the desk to use it for cleaning. There is no reason for them to set the light behind the door as part of a clean up.

We're essentially in agreement. This is yet another one of these facts of the crime scene that doesn't have a clear explanation and has thus been freighted with incriminating speculation. It's like the luminol footprints that tested negative for blood, the mixed DNA found everywhere except in the room where the murder took place, etc.

 

[Kaosium]

As I understand it, "appeals" in the Italian system are just stages in a standard process that plays out in every case. Yes, they could be foregone, but that doesn't seem to be common, certainly not in serious cases like this, and certainly not by the defense. Full exonerations at the Appello or Cassazione level are, however, common enough from what I understand. This case is a textbook wrongful conviction; there's no reason they shouldn't try for an outright reversal. I've gone on record estimating their chances of that at the Appello level at 60%, now that we know there will be expert review of the DNA.

Apparently the prosecution have said they won't appeal the decision of the Appello court. I'll believe it when I (don't) see it. After the first-level verdict, they said they wouldn't appeal; but after Massei and Cristiani failed to express enough hatred for the defendants to satisfy them, they changed their mind.

(Think that's harsh of me? Read Mignini and Comodi's appeal document; it sounds like TJMK in Italian.)

I must have been mistaken as I thought the system allowed for two appeals, but not that they were a requirement for those who bypassed the 'fast-track' option. Thus anything that goes to the first appeal, must therefore be ratified by the second in all cases?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think it's very interesting that people spend so much time on staring at the murder room photos, speculating about the location of the lamp and mop and so forth.

Someone on Less Wrong suggested that it might be the result of people learning about criminology from fictional detective stories, where minor details like the dog that did not bark, the scratch on the bridge or the left-handed corkscrew on the butler's lapel turn out to be decisive clues and the brilliant detective deduces every important aspect of the crime from a succession of such clues.

There's always that elusive hope, it would seem, that you'll be the one to spot something entirely game-changing from your armchair.

While it wouldn't normally be very probable that you could learn anything that would lead a court to revise its views that way, I have to say that in this case it's been done successfully, albeit by a professional (Ron Hendry). I think it's only possible in this case though because the court's initial findings were so disastrously wrong on every major point.

 

[TomCH]

No mystery. The door was cracked from where Raf had tried to break down the door, so we know they didn't have the key

anymore, as they had ditched it!

 

[Draca]

I think it's very interesting that people spend so much time on staring at the murder room photos, speculating about the location of the lamp and mop and so forth.

Someone on Less Wrong suggested that it might be the result of people learning about criminology from fictional detective stories, where minor details like the dog that did not bark, the scratch on the bridge or the left-handed corkscrew on the butler's lapel turn out to be decisive clues and the brilliant detective deduces every important aspect of the crime from a succession of such clues.

There's always that elusive hope, it would seem, that you'll be the one to spot something entirely game-changing from your armchair.

While it wouldn't normally be very probable that you could learn anything that would lead a court to revise its views that way, I have to say that in this case it's been done successfully, albeit by a professional (Ron Hendry). I think it's only possible in this case though because the court's initial findings were so disastrously wrong on every major point.

The bedroom photos have been studied less here than the studying of the break in window. If you look back on the posts of the bedroom being analyzed on this thread the results for the most part coordinated with Ron Hendry's work when it was released. I have since studied his work.

I think in a discussion about the murder it is actually a bit ridiculous NOT to look at the photos and try to gain a clear understanding. Especially photos from the room the murder occurred in. I've learned a lot about the case and dynamics of the attack by observing those photos. My interest in doing so came after Steve Moore said he could tell by looking at the photos and video that it is not possible three people were involved. Even as an untrained professional it increased my understanding substantially.

If you don't personally find that it has helped you, it doesn't mean it hasn't helped others. No need to insinuate they watch to much CSI.

As far as the Lamp, Ron Hendry didn't offer a theory on that yet. I think a solid theory of how the lamp fits in has been created. It helps end speculation on it being used as part of a cleanup or cover up with there being a clear theory as to why it was found where it was.

 

[Supernaut]

Or, you could check the CV (if they have one) of the people criticizing her. Thereafter, the appropriate targets of derision I suspect would become clear.

Candace Dempsey is a good writer and has done a lot of interesting work on this story. I'll bet she's also a pretty good cook, too. Though I haven't had the pleasure of being able to speak on that from personal experience.

She is indeed a good writer - and prolific (which is part of being a good writer). Compare the amount of work she produces (on her own blog alone)compared to the "travel writer", who seems to struggle to compose more than a few thousand words a year.

 

[komponisto]

I must have been mistaken as I thought the system allowed for two appeals, but not that they were a requirement for those who bypassed the 'fast-track' option. Thus anything that goes to the first appeal, must therefore be ratified by the second in all cases?

That's my understanding. Every defendant gets an initial trial, an appeal trial, and a Cassazione hearing.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The bedroom photos have been studied less here than the studying of the break in window. If you look back on the posts of the bedroom being analyzed on this thread the results for the most part coordinated with Ron Hendry's work when it was released. I have since studied his work.

I think in a discussion about the murder it is actually a bit ridiculous NOT to look at the photos and try to gain a clear understanding. Especially photos from the room the murder occurred in. I've learned a lot about the case and dynamics of the attack by observing those photos. My interest in doing so came after Steve Moore said he could tell by looking at the photos and video that it is not possible three people were involved. Even as an untrained professional it increased my understanding substantially.

If you don't personally find that it has helped you, it doesn't mean it hasn't helped others. No need to insinuate they watch to much CSI.

If you took that as a slam on people who look at the photos to understand the crime, that wasn't my intention at all.

I just don't think it's very likely that we're going to find a misplaced lamp, or a shard of glass, or a mop or anything like that which will turn out to be game-changing.

As far as the Lamp, Ron Hendry didn't offer a theory on that yet. I think a solid theory of how the lamp fits in has been created. It helps end speculation on it being used as part of a cleanup or cover up with there being a clear theory as to why it was found where it was.

Mmm. Part of me thinks that is good, part of me thinks that we should emphasise that the focus on the lamp enigma in some quarters is just the result of a kind of fundamental error about what evidence is.

To a Bayesian/rationalist evidence is something that should make you change your view on something, because your hypothesis is more or less likely once you know about it. For the lamp to do that we'd have to have reason to believe that the lamp being where it is, is more likely in the guilty scenario than the innocent scenario, or vice versa. I've never seen any coherent argument for either case.

What the pro-guilt people sometimes seem to think is that something is evidence if you can work it into a narrative, and that you get evidence points for doing so. If you can make up a story where Amanda used the lamp light to mop up blood, that makes the lamp evidence of her guilt, or something.

An oddity with no perceptible link to the crime isn't evidence for or against anything. Until a link is found it's just an oddity.

 

[komponisto]

To a Bayesian/rationalist evidence is something that should make you change your view on something, because your hypothesis is more or less likely once you know about it. For the lamp to do that we'd have to have reason to believe that the lamp being where it is, is more likely in the guilty scenario than the innocent scenario, or vice versa. I've never seen any coherent argument for either case.

What the pro-guilt people sometimes seem to think is that something is evidence if you can work it into a narrative, and that you get evidence points for doing so. If you can make up a story where Amanda used the lamp light to mop up blood, that makes the lamp evidence of her guilt, or something.

Bingo. You've nailed it. Exactly this mistake is made by Massei and Cristiani repeatedly throughout the motivation -- and they are even explicit about it in the following passage about the bathroom bloodspots (p.405):

E' stato sostenuto che tale uso comune dovrebbe rendere del tutto insignificanti le tracce rinvenute in tale ambiente. Trattasi di un assunto che non si ritiene condivisibile ove si conisderi la situazione complessiva riscontrata in questo bagno e che appare quasi documentare, in sequenza, i comportamenti posti in essere.

It has been maintained that such ordinary use should render the traces found in this area totally insignificant; [but] this is an assumption which cannot be accepted when we consider the entirety of the situation observed in this bathroom, which appears almost to sequentially document the actions taken.

In other words, "we were able to come up with a narrative assuming guilt, hence the traces can't possibly have been deposited innocently".

Of course, the whole point of the legal "presumption of innocence" is that you're not supposed to reason this way.

But the error is in fact purely probability-theoretic in nature. Legal principles aside, it's just plain mathematically incorrect.

 

[Amazer]

In other words, "we were able to come up with a narrative assuming guilt, hence the traces can't possibly have been deposited innocently".

You're bias is showing here.

Of course, the whole point of the legal "presumption of innocence" is that you're not supposed to reason this way.

Explain

But the error is in fact purely probability-theoretic in nature. Legal principles aside, it's just plain mathematically incorrect.

Show us the math please.

 

[colonelhall]

“It also doesn't make sense to borrow the lamp to clean up, when there was no sign of a clean up.”

Apparently there was not one iota of DNA from Knox, so there must have been a clean up.

Have you also not considered the possibility that the murderers dropped something, which they then had to search for? If they found it, then it would not be there.

“Actually IMO the lamp rules out the possibility of a clean up because they would have needed the door open for a clean up. The lamp was behind the door.”

Have you not considered the possibility that the lamp had been used in various locations during the clean up or search and then placed there?

“It got knocked on the floor during the struggle and landed in the arc of the swinging door. When the door was broken open the next day, the lamp got pushed over to the far wall and the plug was torn out of the socket.”

Have you ever tried to yank a plug from its socket. Can you seriously believe that a door pulled the lamp out of its socket?

“If Raffaele and Amanda are guilty of murdering Meredith and locking her inside the room with her own key, then if they needed to get back in to retrieve a lamp they had left in there, they would have just unlocked the door and gotten it. Why would they try to break it down?”

Have you considered that they had made a half-hearted attempt in order to make it look as I f they were breaking down the door in order to find Meredith?

“We know that IF the lamp was used for a clean up or search after the murder, the door would have been left opened, because they would have had to clean the door handle to leave the room and an open door is extra light. Since the lamp was behind the door we know it was not used in a clean up or search of the room. When they kicked the door open the next day they just assumed it was them that broke the lamp. Where as it could have already been broken before the kicking in of the door.”

We know nothing of the sort. This argument is not logical. Once again, the final resting place of the lamp has nothing to do with how it had been used.

“No mystery. The door was cracked from where Raf had tried to break down the door, so we know they didn't have the key, which means they didn't lock the door because Rudy did, which also negates the notion of any sort of clean-up occurring.”

Once again, this pre-supposes that the attempt at knocking down the door was not a ruse.

“You nailed this BTW. !
There is a mountain of evidence after all.”

Wrong on both counts.

“I think a solid theory of how the lamp fits in has been created. It helps end speculation on it being used as part of a cleanup or cover up with there being a clear theory as to why it was found where it was.”

You may think that the above comments that had been posted by Knox supporters constitute a “solid theory” but I would suggest that most people would say that the lamp remains a mystery.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

saliva and DNA

In other words, "we were able to come up with a narrative assuming guilt, hence the traces can't possibly have been deposited innocently".

Of course, the whole point of the legal "presumption of innocence" is that you're not supposed to reason this way.

But the error is in fact purely probability-theoretic in nature. Legal principles aside, it's just plain mathematically incorrect.

komponisto,

You wrote the above comment in response to "It has been maintained that such ordinary use should render the traces found in this area totally insignificant; [but] this is an assumption which cannot be accepted when we consider the entirety of the situation observed in this bathroom, which appears almost to sequentially document the actions taken."

I agree with you. Massei's choice of words about sequential documentation is very strange. DNA cannot be dated. Moreover, even Colonel Garofano, whom I do not trust as an unbiased expert, was worried about taking samples from the drain plug in the bidet, which is where one sample came from, IIRC. There is a fairly straightforward test. One could sample a bunch of drain plugs and see how many times DNA comes up. Given that saliva contains DNA, my prediction is that a substantial percentage would show DNA.

 

[el buscador]

Don't know what to make of this:

http://www.asca.it/news-MEREDITH__D...ESE_CONDANNATO_PUSHER_AMANDA-981715-ORA-.html

Google Translation:

MEREDITH: ENGLISH DEATH INVESTIGATION ORDERED BY AMANDA PUSHER
(AGI) - Perugia, Jan. 14 - The murder of Meredith Kercher, and the context in which 'emerged, one related to approvals''of youth between behavioral, values and deviance,''continues to talk about'. Back to highlight this morning, the local daily newspaper''The Umbria''(always attentive to each other in investigation and trial) that giving notice of the sentencing to 2 years and 8 months in prison for a drug dealer of cocaine, which would known and popular Amanda Knox, wonders whether this has had on crime investigation and assessments, especially if, now, could have implications in the appeal process in respect of the American and Raffaele Sollecito. At the pusher and the police 'came through the mobile phone number found in the list stored on the phone to Amanda. Calls between the two utilities would that occurred in the days before and after the murder of Mez encouraging, therefore, a study that led to the discovery of a drug ring for college students and professionals. A traffic featuring 3 guys (hypothesized as a provider and a lover of the American) and in respect of which 'opened a case file. In particular, disclosure of the police reports attached to the file which stresses''in the course of 'criminal investigation on the 9066/07 (the one for murdering Kercher, ed) is established that an Italian person. ..

would supply the drug occasionally Amanda Knox, as well as having allegedly had with her sexual relations.'' The activity 'of the police also carried out through wiretaps found that the three supplied the acropolis of the capital and also part of the periphery of cocaine, in response to customer orders and also to meet the demand of the Maghreb.

The defendants (defended by counsel Maria Laura Antonini, Angelo Pugliese and Aurelio Frioni), have opted for different strategies, a request for continuation of proceedings in criminal matters pending with other positions, a request for settlement, rejected by the court and a fast-track trial, concluded precisely with a sentence of 2 years and 8 months.

pg / gc / lv

 

[Chris C]

“It also doesn't make sense to borrow the lamp to clean up, when there was no sign of a clean up.”

Apparently there was not one iota of DNA from Knox, so there must have been a clean up.

What did she clean up?

Have you also not considered the possibility that the murderers dropped something, which they then had to search for? If they found it, then it would not be there.

What did they drop?

“Actually IMO the lamp rules out the possibility of a clean up because they would have needed the door open for a clean up. The lamp was behind the door.”

Have you not considered the possibility that the lamp had been used in various locations during the clean up or search and then placed there?

Blood or DNA on lamp? Must have cleaned the lamp before placing it behind the door also.

“It got knocked on the floor during the struggle and landed in the arc of the swinging door. When the door was broken open the next day, the lamp got pushed over to the far wall and the plug was torn out of the socket.”

Have you ever tried to yank a plug from its socket. Can you seriously believe that a door pulled the lamp out of its socket?

So they unplugged the lamp and put it behind the door?

“If Raffaele and Amanda are guilty of murdering Meredith and locking her inside the room with her own key, then if they needed to get back in to retrieve a lamp they had left in there, they would have just unlocked the door and gotten it. Why would they try to break it down?”

Have you considered that they had made a half-hearted attempt in order to make it look as I f they were breaking down the door in order to find Meredith?

Have you considered Sollecito didn't want to bust down the door and find nothing?

“We know that IF the lamp was used for a clean up or search after the murder, the door would have been left opened, because they would have had to clean the door handle to leave the room and an open door is extra light. Since the lamp was behind the door we know it was not used in a clean up or search of the room. When they kicked the door open the next day they just assumed it was them that broke the lamp. Where as it could have already been broken before the kicking in of the door.”

We know nothing of the sort. This argument is not logical. Once again, the final resting place of the lamp has nothing to do with how it had been used.

Your opinion. Though why would they put the light behind the door to clean up? The illogical thing would be to bring the light in the room and toss it behind the door without cleaning anything up.

“No mystery. The door was cracked from where Raf had tried to break down the door, so we know they didn't have the key, which means they didn't lock the door because Rudy did, which also negates the notion of any sort of clean-up occurring.”

Once again, this pre-supposes that the attempt at knocking down the door was not a ruse.

see above statement.

“You nailed this BTW. !
There is a mountain of evidence after all.”

Wrong on both counts.

Maybe you could point us to where the room was cleaned, where it was searched and what evidence there is that either was actually in the room. What happens if the Bra clasp gets tossed or its not Sollecito DNA. Does your opinion still stand that they helped kill Meredith?

“I think a solid theory of how the lamp fits in has been created. It helps end speculation on it being used as part of a cleanup or cover up with there being a clear theory as to why it was found where it was.”

You may think that the above comments that had been posted by Knox supporters constitute a “solid theory” but I would suggest that most people would say that the lamp remains a mystery.

So now its presence is a mystery. Funny how guilters claim Knox brought it in the room to help clean up or search the room. Yet now that its a mystery it must mean Knox killed Meredith.

 

[moodstream]

It is very suspicious.

Why tell the police? Because the police would notice the damage to the door, so they had to invent something!

1) Why break down a door they themselves had locked?

2)Since they murdered Meredith, and have taken her keys, they have her keys and could unlock the door.

3)They have just spent several hours completing the most successful clean up of a murder room in the history or clean ups ( and on their first try) erasing even invisible traces of themselves while cleaning around obvious traces of their co assailant Guede ( one would have to guess for a laugh), even leaving a big visible bloody trace on the inside handle of the door knob ( which they somehow knew would not contain evidence pointing to them), yet they would risk contaminating their own clean up and risk depositing their own fingerprints and shoe prints, to retrieve a common lamp that they could easily say Meredith borrowed, or perhaps Meredith borrowed without their knowing?

4)Saying 'It is very suspicious' does not make it at all suspicious. The prosecution was simply creating in image for the benefit of the jury. They simply wanted to make any actions AK/RS did look like something suspicious.
There had to be some guilty explanation. Otherwise, AK/RS's actions would reflect their innocence.