Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Oh, and the report says that the police seemed to think that the guy had been a "lover" of Knox's - yet this mystery man categorically doesn't seem to appear in Knox's prison HIV list of previous lovers - amongst whom the only two Italian entries are Daniel (an infrequent visitor to the boys below, who lived in Rome) and Sollecito. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Are we sure the paper isn't getting knox and meredith confused. After all Meredith was dating the drug dealer downstairs and there was 3 of them. I have also never heard what happened to the 3 guys downstairs over their grow house.

 

[tsig]

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):



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.

The "presumption of innocence" doesn't apply to the prosecution. They have to think she's guilty or they wouldn't be trying her.

 

[CDHost]

Curatolo and heroin

What the double standard! In the appeal the defense wants to call a man serving a life sentence for murder (Allesi) and another man serving a 17-year sentence for Mafia activity (Aviello).

Who could be more accussed of "untrustworthy conduct" than Allesi, a man who murdered a baby with a shovel?

If it's ok for the defense to use vile criminals to prove their point, why can't the prosecution use small time drug sellers to prove theirs?

Alt. The issue here is whether Mignini had influence he didn't disclose to the defense, or worse yet used. That Curatolo is a heroin dealer 9 years ago is not such a big problem. That the Perugian police had a heroin charge hanging over Curatolo's head when he suddenly remembered seeing our AK and RS. That's a bit more of a problem. It creates an incentive to lie.

Especially since:
a) his testimony contains provably false elements
b) his testimony is a key aspect in putting AK and RS near the scene

Remember if we exclude one high pressure interview we have a pretty good alibi for AK&RS they were at RS's house. There are a few weak pieces of evidence which attack this alibi Curatolo being one. If those weak pieces fall apart then suddenly AK&RS do have an alibi for the murder.

As an aside, I don't know this so its a guess but I would imagine that non violent criminals are likely less truthful than violent criminals. Many con artists abhor violence, a Bernie Madoff has to be a lot less honest than a Richard Kuklinski.

 

[Chris C]

Alt. The issue here is whether Mignini had influence he didn't disclose to the defense, or worse yet used. That Curatolo is a heroin dealer 9 years ago is not such a big problem. That the Perugian police had a heroin charge hanging over Curatolo's head when he suddenly remembered seeing our AK and RS. That's a bit more of a problem. It creates an incentive to lie.

Especially since:
a) his testimony contains provably false elements
b) his testimony is a key aspect in putting AK and RS near the scene

Remember if we exclude one high pressure interview we have a pretty good alibi for AK&RS they were at RS's house. There are a few weak pieces of evidence which attack this alibi Curatolo being one. If those weak pieces fall apart then suddenly AK&RS do have an alibi for the murder.

As an aside, I don't know this so its a guess but I would imagine that non violent criminals are likely less truthful than violent criminals. Many con artists abhor violence, a Bernie Madoff has to be a lot less honest than a Richard Kuklinski.

Not just at Knox and Sollecito's trial. Didn't he testify at another trial while he had the drug charge. Plus did he testify against his supplier, he went 8 years without going to court for selling heroin.

Whats the count of trials Curatolo has testified at? 3 murder? Do you think he testified against the heroin supplier behind a screen like the mafia guy? I mean you don't pull 3 months of surveillance on a homeless guy unless your trying to find his source. I'm betting that if Curatolo's testimony gets tossed it could effect every trial he has testified in.

 

[Alt+F4]

That the Perugian police had a heroin charge hanging over Curatolo's head when he suddenly remembered seeing our AK and RS. That's a bit more of a problem. It creates an incentive to lie.

Avellio and Allessi also have an incentive to lie as well, they would get a chance to get out of their cells for awhile, and more importantly, get attention.

 

[lane99]

Well if the rule is that you've got to have equal or better qualifications to criticize someone this thread is done.

Don't worry. No qualifications, or even any knowledge of the case, is required to comment here. Post away to your heart's content.

 

[lane99]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Originally Posted by komponisto
Bingo. You've nailed it. Exactly this mistake is made by Massei and Cristiani repeatedly throughout the motivation....

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...
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The "presumption of innocence" doesn't apply to the prosecution. They have to think she's guilty or they wouldn't be trying her.

The prosecution? You obviously do not know whom komponisto was referring to.

But, no worries.

 

[CDHost]

Avellio and Allessi

Avellio and Allessi also have an incentive to lie as well, they would get a chance to get out of their cells for awhile, and more importantly, get attention.

Agreed. Which is Avellio evidence is being used by the defense to prove laxness not to prove facts. The defense agrees they had an incentive to lie, and that Avellio's charges are most likely not true. But... the court had an obligation to consider and plausibly dismiss this alternative which they failed to do. In other words the defense is using Avellio to prove bias not fact. Now if the defense were constructing a counter case Avellio could be important but they didn't in the initial trial and until they can prove how flawed the initial trial was they won't be allowed to prove a counter case.

I don't know how the defense plans to use Allessi.

 

[Malkmus]

anymore, as they had ditched it!

Hasn't the common pro-guilt theory been that Amanda and Raf locked the door to Meredith's bedroom so they could "finish the clean-up" in the morning? Why would they throw the key out before finishing?

 

[LondonJohn]

What the double standard! In the appeal the defense wants to call a man serving a life sentence for murder (Allesi) and another man serving a 17-year sentence for Mafia activity (Aviello).

Who could be more accussed of "untrustworthy conduct" than Allesi, a man who murdered a baby with a shovel?

If it's ok for the defense to use vile criminals to prove their point, why can't the prosecution use small time drug sellers to prove theirs?

You're assuming that neither Alessi nor Aviello can corroborate their stories in any way, I presume? What if Aviello can corroborate his story with hard physical evidence? What if Alessi can do something similar? What if the defence want to introduce their testimony merely in order to illustrate that the police/prosecutors did not properly investigate all angles of the crime?

When it boils down to it, you (and we) have no real idea of how and why the defence wants to use these two witnesses - and there are a number of perfectly legitimate reasons why they might be useful to the defence. Or do you know something that the rest of us don't?

 

[LondonJohn]

The "presumption of innocence" doesn't apply to the prosecution. They have to think she's guilty or they wouldn't be trying her.

Ermmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................

Massei and Christiani were the judges.

 

[Alt+F4]

But... the court had an obligation to consider and plausibly dismiss this alternative which they failed to do. In other words the defense is using Avellio to prove bias not fact.

How did they fail to do that? Avellio said his brother is the lone killer and that he (Avellio) hid the keys and knife in his home. I think Avellio's refusal to tell anyone the location of these it items is enough to plausibly dismiss his story.

I don't know how the defense plans to use Allessi.

Perhaps to make the point that it's possible someone other than the original three could have committed the murder? if this is what they are attempting, it is going to backfire. If it's their contention that a fourth person could have murdered Meredith and leave zero evidence in the murder room then it's also possible that Amanda could have done the same thing too.

Both sides should drop convicted criminals as witnessess.

 

[Malkmus]

How did they fail to do that? Avellio said his brother is the lone killer and that he (Avellio) hid the keys and knife in his home. I think Avellio's refusal to tell anyone the location of these it items is enough to plausibly dismiss his story.

I thought he had said they were plastered in a hole in a wall in his old house where he resided at the time of the murder.

 

[Alt+F4]

You're assuming that neither Alessi nor Aviello can corroborate their stories in any way, I presume? What if Aviello can corroborate his story with hard physical evidence?

We're expected to believe that Aviello cares so much about the innocence of these three that he's willing to turn in his own brother, but unwilling to tell anyone where the two pieces of evidence are that will find them innocent without a single doubt?

What if Alessi can do something similar?

We already know what his statement is. He's a jailhouse rat. There is no way he can corroborate his story. It's his word (convicted baby killer) vs. Rudy's word (convicted sex killer). Or do you know something that the rest of us don't?

 

[Alt+F4]

I thought he had said they were plastered in a hole in a wall in his old house where he resided at the time of the murder.

He did. I think it was a rented house in Perugia (or was it Rome?). Boy, you would think the defense would really like to have that house searched. Did they make any attempt to find it?

 

[LondonJohn]

How did they fail to do that? Avellio said his brother is the lone killer and that he (Avellio) hid the keys and knife in his home. I think Avellio's refusal to tell anyone the location of these it items is enough to plausibly dismiss his story.



Perhaps to make the point that it's possible someone other than the original three could have committed the murder? if this is what they are attempting, it is going to backfire. If it's their contention that a fourth person could have murdered Meredith and leave zero evidence in the murder room then it's also possible that Amanda could have done the same thing too.
Both sides should drop convicted criminals as witnessess.

I think you still don't get the whole "burden of proof" issue. The entire point about a criminal trial is not that defendants get convicted "if they did it" - the point is that they get convicted if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it.

So if a defendant denies the charge(s), the court must satisfy itself that the case against the defendant has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt* before it awards a conviction. The only way to do this is by way of evidence - whether direct (reliable eyewitnesses to the crime, or video/photo/audio evidence of the crime) or indirect (everything else). If there's not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, then the court must acquit.

So it doesn't actually matter whether or not someone could have participated in that murder and left no physical evidence of their presence in the murder room. For all I know, Knox actually DID participate in the murder**, yet - whether by luck or design - she left no evidence of herself behind in the room. And if there's no evidence putting her in the room at the time of the murder, then - in the absence of other evidence - it's impossible to convict her of murder. Of course, there actually is other evidence here, but I personally think it's nowhere near strong enough (particularly when coupled with the lack of evidence in the murder room) to convict Knox.

* which is to say ALL doubt that a reasonable person might have.

** which is indicative of the fact that in the absence of a cast-iron alibi it's usually impossible to prove someone's innocence.

 

[CDHost]

How did they fail to do that? Avellio said his brother is the lone killer and that he (Avellio) hid the keys and knife in his home. I think Avellio's refusal to tell anyone the location of these it items is enough to plausibly dismiss his story.

Then there needs to be a finding of dismissal, and a rational that proves the dismissal was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember the trial has already happened. The pro guilt side has to assert these things occurred and are documented. The question is where is this finding? I don't see any mention of him in Massei. That's a problem.

The defense needs to show:

1) This should have been considered
2) This wasn't considered

And to really go in for the kill
3) It wasn't considered for reasons of systematic bias.

If they can prove the judge was ignoring evidence favorable to the defense, because he didn't think it was plausible without bothering to check it out....

Perhaps to make the point that it's possible someone other than the original three could have committed the murder? if this is what they are attempting, it is going to backfire. If it's their contention that a fourth person could have murdered Meredith and leave zero evidence in the murder room then it's also possible that Amanda could have done the same thing too.

And if 4 people killed Meredith then the prosecution's case is false. They've established who was holding what and when and an entire theory of the conspiracy. Remember the trial happened. They have supposedly proved beyond a reasonable doubt murder based on circumstantial evidence because the circumstantial evidence gives them such a clear picture of what happened. Massei in one passage argues he can successfully read Meredith's mind from the grave and thereby is able to dismiss the possibility she let Rudy in.

If Massei couldn't even tell how many people were in the room then his brilliant deductions have been falsified.

 

[LondonJohn]

We're expected to believe that Aviello cares so much about the innocence of these three that he's willing to turn in his own brother, but unwilling to tell anyone where the two pieces of evidence are that will find them innocent without a single doubt?



We already know what his statement is. He's a jailhouse rat. There is no way he can corroborate his story. It's his word (convicted baby killer) vs. Rudy's word (convicted sex killer). Or do you know something that the rest of us don't?

No, I've already said that I don't know, and neither do you. The defence teams do, presumably. We shall all have to wait until this part of the appeal trial crops up again before we find out, shan't we?

 

[Alt+F4]

Then there needs to be a finding of dismissal, and a rational that proves the dismissal was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember the trial has already happened. The pro guilt side has to assert these things occurred and are documented. The question is where is this finding? I don't see any mention of him in Massei. That's a problem.

It's my understanding that both of these men made their statements after the initial trial and that's why they are not included in the report. Aviello said he wrote to the court in 2007 and 2008 but there is no evidence of it. My question is, why didn't he write to the defense?

 

[CDHost]

It's my understanding that both of these men made their statements after the initial trial and that's why they are not included in the report. Aviello said he wrote to the court in 2007 and 2008 but there is no evidence of it. My question is, why didn't he write to the defense?

Alessi definitely. Like I said, I don't know where the defense is going with him. Even if I 100% believed Alessi I'm not sure it is grounds for an appeal because Guede isn't credible.

Aviello it all depends if he is telling the truth about writing the court. I believe prisoner's outgoing mail is recorded. If I'm the defense, I can prove he wrote the court and they lie in the appeals court about it. This is such an easy to verify fact either:

He's lying about writing the court in which case Aviello is just a distraction
or
Aviello is telling the truth and we find Massei ignored it because his buddy Mignini didn't think it was worth looking into....
or
Their record keeping sucked
or
Massei was overwhelmed and discarding evidence that was complex
or

Try and think of any version not terrible for the prosecution.