Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

Well, let's say it's a fair enough answer.
But still, as asked previously, what makes you believe that they're guilty? The bra clasp and the knife evidence?

It can't be just that, because Fine said he/she would revert to undecided (thus around 50% probability) if those were eliminated. I'd like to know where the rest of that probability mass is coming from.

 

[Fine]

Hi Fine.
First, kudos for giving to the Knox Defense Fund.
So in your view without the DNA evidence on the knife and bra clasp they are not guilty due to reasonable doubt?BTW - that could explain the judge's ruling ordering the independent review and deferring other tests/re-examination of evidence the defense wanted. No need to review anything else if the DNA evidence goes out the window and voila (sorry French not Italian) you have reasonable doubt.

___________________

Onofarar,

Well, yeah, that's my personal judgement. Without the knife and bra clasp evidence the lovebirds would not have been convicted.

And the bra clasp and knife evidence doesn't have to be "thrown out" (which is very unlikely) to aid the defense. The experts need only express reservations to lower the value of that evidence. We'll see which reservations---if any---they express.

Personally, if I were looking for Innocenti hope in the APPEAL court, I'd find it in the mere appointment of these experts. Appointment of the experts is recognition of an error by the Massei court, which denied such an independent review. So the APPEAL court is saying---without saying it---that the Massei court made a serious mistake.

///

 

[snook1]

It can't be just that, because Fine said he/she would revert to undecided (thus around 50% probability) if those were eliminated. I'd like to know where the rest of that probability mass is coming from.

You're right. I'm eagerly waiting for an answer.

 

[Onofarar]

___________________

Onofarar,

Well, yeah, that's my personal judgement. Without the knife and bra clasp evidence the lovebirds would not have been convicted.

And the bra clasp and knife evidence doesn't have to be "thrown out" (which is very unlikely) to aid the defense. The experts need only express reservations to lower the value of that evidence. We'll see which reservations---if any---they express.

Personally, if I were looking for Innocenti hope in the APPEAL court, I'd find it in the mere appointment of these experts. Appointment of the experts is recognition of an error by the Massei court, which denied such an independent review. So the APPEAL court is saying---without saying it---that the Massei court made a serious mistake.

///

Fair enough - good of you to take a clear position. Thanks.
BTW - I meant "thrown out"more in a common law context than civil law. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Fine]

(1) Why do you currently consider them guilty of murder? (2) What would convince you that they are innocent?

___________________

Komponisto,

(1) I consider them guilty for the same reason the court found them guilty, because of the cumulative evidence. Such as......what appears to be a staged burglary through an unfriendly window, few (if any) defensive wounds, Amanda's blood discovered on the bathroom faucet, the luminol bare footprints compatible with the lovebirds' feet, the bloody bathmat bare footprint compatible with Raffaele's foot, Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp, Meredith's DNA on Raffaele's knife, the rare cannabis-induced "amnesia" suffered by both lovebirds, their confused and contradictory statements to the cops on the night of November 5, 2007, and no confirmation that either lovebird surfed the web, or otherwise used the computer, that night at the time of the murder. I'll mention also Raffaele's refusal to testify. (Note I've disregarded Amanda's purchase of underpants.) The best explanation for this set of data is that the lovebirds did it.

I know some prefer to think that the best explanation for the "evidence" is ill-starred coincidence conjoined with police coercion and police incompetence. (Some would add police planting of evidence.) But until there's evidence for police misconduct, of a serious nature, I disregard the claim. (Or is Capanne Prison full of innocent people?)

(2) I'd think them innocent, if, for instance, Rudy were to confess, in detail, to committing the murder by himself, and told us where to find the knife he used and where to find Merdith's credit cards and keys. And let him explain why Meredith had few, if any, defensive wounds.

///

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let's not forget the open letter

___________________

Komponisto,

(1) I consider them guilty for the same reason the court found them guilty, because of the cumulative evidence. Such as......what appears to be a staged burglary through an unfriendly window, few (if any) defensive wounds, Amanda's blood discovered on the bathroom faucet, the luminol bare footprints compatible with the lovebirds' feet, the bloody bathmat bare footprint compatible with Raffaele's foot, Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp, Meredith's DNA on Raffaele's knife, the rare cannabis-induced "amnesia" suffered by both lovebirds, their confused and contradictory statements to the cops on the night of November 5, 2007, and no confirmation that either lovebird surfed the web, or otherwise used the computer, that night at the time of the murder. I'll mention also Raffaele's refusal to testify. (Note I've disregarded Amanda's purchase of underpants.) The best explanation for this set of data is that the lovebirds did it.

I know some prefer to think that the best explanation for the "evidence" is ill-starred coincidence conjoined with police coercion and police incompetence. (Some would add police planting of evidence.) But until there's evidence for police misconduct, of a serious nature, I disregard the claim. (Or is Capanne Prison full of innocent people?)

(2) I'd think them innocent, if, for instance, Rudy were to confess, in detail, to committing the murder by himself, and told us where to find the knife he used and where to find Merdith's credit cards and keys. And let him explain why Meredith had few, if any, defensive wounds.

///

Fine,

I strongly question whether either Amanda or Raffaele has used the word amnesia to describe their state of mind. I agree that their accounts of that evening were not perfectly consistent, and I suspect that the use of cannabis had something to do with this. However, their interrogations would be expected to produce a great deal of confusion if they are innocent and yet they kept being told that they were not remembering things correctly, etc.

The luminol prints were probably not made in Meredith's blood for reasons already discussed. How, specifically, do you tie them to the crime? How do you answer the criticisms of the knife and bra clasp as put forth in the Johnson/Hampikian open letter?

 

[CDHost]

___________________

(1) I consider them guilty for the same reason the court found them guilty, because of the cumulative evidence. Such as......what appears to be a staged burglary through an unfriendly window, few (if any) defensive wounds, Amanda's blood discovered on the bathroom faucet, the luminol bare footprints compatible with the lovebirds' feet, the bloody bathmat bare footprint compatible with Raffaele's foot, Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp, Meredith's DNA on Raffaele's knife, the rare cannabis-induced "amnesia" suffered by both lovebirds, their confused and contradictory statements to the cops on the night of November 5, 2007, and no confirmation that either lovebird surfed the web, or otherwise used the computer, that night at the time of the murder. I'll mention also Raffaele's refusal to testify. (Note I've disregarded Amanda's purchase of underpants.) The best explanation for this set of data is that the lovebirds did it.

I think other people are going to deal with the rest. But its important since this is a legal matter to separate different levels of assuredness. The standard isn't "best explanation" its reasonable doubt. So for example (and I'm making this more extreme to make it clear) is you have 200 explanations:

M1, M2... M9 which are murders with different activities
O1, O2... O191 which are non murders with different activities
and probability wise I order them as:

M1 = 1%
O14 = .98%
.....

M6 = .00001%
O134 = .00001%

M1 is the best explanation but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Malkmus]

let him explain why Meredith had few, if any, defensive wounds.

Fine, had Meredith been laying on her back being stabbed multiple times all over her torso you would expect there to be defense wounds on her hands as she shielded herself from the cuts. However, Meredith was stabbed just three times in the throat, most likely from behind, and probably within the span of a couple minutes (possibly less than one). Hence, the lack of defense wounds.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Fine, had Meredith been laying on her back being stabbed multiple times all over her torso you would expect there to be defense wounds on her hands as she shielded herself from the cuts. However, Meredith was stabbed just three times in the throat, most likely from behind, and probably within the span of a couple minutes (possibly less than one). Hence, the lack of defense wounds.

That does not explaine no defense wounds, she gets stabbed in the throat, she uses her hand or hands to grab her throat, unless Rudy is holding both of her hands in one of his, while his other is doing the stabbing, I don't think that is very likely. Care to explain how this action is likely?

 

[komponisto]

___________________

Komponisto,

(1) I consider them guilty for the same reason the court found them guilty, because of the cumulative evidence. Such as......what appears to be a staged burglary through an unfriendly window, few (if any) defensive wounds, Amanda's blood discovered on the bathroom faucet, the luminol bare footprints compatible with the lovebirds' feet, the bloody bathmat bare footprint compatible with Raffaele's foot, Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp, Meredith's DNA on Raffaele's knife, the rare cannabis-induced "amnesia" suffered by both lovebirds, their confused and contradictory statements to the cops on the night of November 5, 2007, and no confirmation that either lovebird surfed the web, or otherwise used the computer, that night at the time of the murder. I'll mention also Raffaele's refusal to testify. (Note I've disregarded Amanda's purchase of underpants.) The best explanation for this set of data is that the lovebirds did it.

I know some prefer to think that the best explanation for the "evidence" is ill-starred coincidence conjoined with police coercion and police incompetence. (Some would add police planting of evidence.) But until there's evidence for police misconduct, of a serious nature, I disregard the claim. (Or is Capanne Prison full of innocent people?)

(2) I'd think them innocent, if, for instance, Rudy were to confess, in detail, to committing the murder by himself, and told us where to find the knife he used and where to find Merdith's credit cards and keys. And let him explain why Meredith had few, if any, defensive wounds.

///

Thanks, Fine, now we're getting somewhere.

(1) Are you aware of the defense's responses to the points you mentioned? I ask because they (we) have an argument against every single one, but you didn't mention any of these counterarguments, let alone explain why you think any of them is wrong.

(2) Suppose Rudy confessed and gave a detailed account that agreed with the defense theory: he broke in through Filomena's window, looked for money, found Meredith, panicked, etc. How would you then reconcile that with the evidence you cited above, and how/why would it differ from the way you think about that evidence now?

 

[Malkmus]

That does not explaine no defense wounds, she gets stabbed in the throat, she uses her hand or hands to grab her throat, unless Rudy is holding both of her hands in one of his, while his other is doing the stabbing, I don't think that is very likely. Care to explain how this action is likely?

If this all happened while standing, I could see what you're saying. However, Meredith had marks on her hands where she planted her hands down on broken glass on the floor, most likely when she was all on fours after the first stab wound.
So, continuing with your scenario, Meredith grabs her throat with her hands, Rudy shoves her down on the floor to finish the job, gets her on all fours, grabs her jaw with one hand from behind still, and inflicts the final two wounds in her throat.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

___________________

Komponisto,

(1) I consider them guilty for the same reason the court found them guilty, because of the cumulative evidence. Such as......what appears to be a staged burglary through an unfriendly window, few (if any) defensive wounds, Amanda's blood discovered on the bathroom faucet, the luminol bare footprints compatible with the lovebirds' feet, the bloody bathmat bare footprint compatible with Raffaele's foot, Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp, Meredith's DNA on Raffaele's knife, the rare cannabis-induced "amnesia" suffered by both lovebirds, their confused and contradictory statements to the cops on the night of November 5, 2007, and no confirmation that either lovebird surfed the web, or otherwise used the computer, that night at the time of the murder. I'll mention also Raffaele's refusal to testify. (Note I've disregarded Amanda's purchase of underpants.) The best explanation for this set of data is that the lovebirds did it.

Okay let's examine each of these pieces of evidence rationally. In each case we'll ask whether it's more likely in a scenario where they are guilty than a scenario where they are innocent.

1. "What appears to be a staged burglary through an unfriendly window". The Massei arguments for staging are very poor, and I know of none better. Whereas Hendry has a very well explained and supported hypothesis that explains all of the evidence without needing to invoke the staging theory.

2. "Few (if any) defensive wounds". It has not been established that the wounds on Meredith's body are indicative of multiple attackers. The wounds are entirely consistent with one attacker striking with the knife from behind.

3. "Amanda's blood discovered on the bathroom faucet". I don't see how this is in any respect a better fit with the three-way murder theory than the lone wolf theory. In either case someone who attacked Meredith could (and indeed did) clean themselves in that bathroom. So I do not see how this should incline a rational person to believe in Kox/Sollecito's guilt.

4. "The luminol bare footprints compatible with the lovebirds' feet". As previously stated there is no proven link at all between these footprints and the murder. They did not test positive for blood, they are not part of a trail consistent with someone walking from the murder room with blood on their feet, and the luminol reactions at Raffaele's house are proof (if any were needed) that unexplained luminol reactions are not an unexpected result of hosing down a randomly selected house with luminol. Once again I do not see how the presence of these footprints fits better with their guilt than their innocence, since there is no evidence they are related to the crime at all.

5. "The bloody bathmat bare footprint compatible with Raffaele's foot". It's equally compatible with Rudy's foot if not more so, so this too does not seem like an item of evidence which should incline a rational person towards believing Knox/Sollecito to be guilty. If anything it should slightly incline one towards the lone wolf theory.

6. "Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp". This is a legitimate piece of evidence, at least arguably.

7. "Meredith's DNA on Raffaele's knife". This is a legitimate piece of evidence, at least arguably.

8. "The rare cannabis-induced "amnesia" suffered by both lovebirds". You might want to rephrase this so it fits with the actual facts. As stated this is just a factually false guilter meme, not a sound basis for thinking Knox/Sollecito are guilty.

9. "Their confused and contradictory statements to the cops on the night of November 5, 2007". I think we've established thoroughly that false confessions can be induced by exactly the methods used by the police to interrogate Knox and Sollecito, and that Knox's statement fits better with an internalised false statement than a true confession. The fact that the tape of this interrogation was conveniently "lost" should also incline a rational person to think that the police's version of events is suspect.

10. "No confirmation that either lovebird surfed the web, or otherwise used the computer, that night at the time of the murder". This is just plain wrong - there was computer activity up until 21:10 by prosecution admission, someone started watching a Naruto movie at 21:26 according to the appeals team (and I think this is very highly unlikely to turn out to be wrong since it is easily and objectively checkable) , and Meredith died somewhere in the 21:00-21:30 range. These facts should incline a rational person very strongly towards thinking that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

Add it all up and the sole decent pieces of evidence for their guilt are the DNA results, and I don't need to tell you that there are ample reasons to question those, ranging from numerous specific methodological concerns through to the large number of independent experts who have gone on the record as saying that the analysis was improperly conducted and interpreted.

I know some prefer to think that the best explanation for the "evidence" is ill-starred coincidence conjoined with police coercion and police incompetence. (Some would add police planting of evidence.) But until there's evidence for police misconduct, of a serious nature, I disregard the claim. (Or is Capanne Prison full of innocent people?)

What would count for you as evidence of police misconduct of a serious nature? I take it that lying about bleach receipts, lying about the Harry Potter book, lying about Amanda's jacket, taking a victory parade through Perugia, leaking Amanda's HIV test results and her list of partners, assaulting a "witness" during an interrogation, leaking a misleading picture of a red-covered bathroom, "losing" the tapes of the vital interrogations, "somehow" overwriting the metadata for Stardust on Raffaele's computer to make his alibi impossible to confirm, "accidentally" destroying all four hard drives after doing so, handing the bra clasp around with dirty gloves and putting it on the floor to photograph, taking the double DNA knife out of it's sealed bag in transit and keeping Patrick Lumumba's business closed until he was driven bankrupt don't count as "serious", so what would?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If this all happened while standing, I could see what you're saying. However, Meredith had marks on her hands where she planted her hands down on broken glass on the floor, most likely when she was all on fours after the first stab wound.
So, continuing with your scenario, Meredith grabs her throat with her hands, Rudy shoves her down on the floor to finish the job, gets her on all fours, grabs her jaw with one hand from behind still, and inflicts the final two wounds in her throat.

While it is not impossible, it is very unlikely. Like so many things in this case, Rudy could have ran out to the front door, taken his shoes off there, returned in bare feet and locked the door as well, but it is highly unlikely as well. A far more likely explanation is, someone was holding her hands, there is even DNA evidence supporting this.

 

[Dan O.]

(1) I consider them guilty for the same reason the court found them guilty, because of the cumulative evidence. Such as......

what appears to be a staged burglary through an unfriendly window

Can you explain how this evidence of a breaking could have been staged? Many have tried and none have succeeded. They keep running into similar problems that the evidence doesn't support the scenario they propose. The latest attempt has the rock thrower standing in the very bag that the rock landed in.

The prosecution never proved the breaking was staged. They simply asserted that it was stages and bolstered that assertion with testimony from a couple of officers that had no evidentiary backing. They left it up to the defense to prove that it wasn't staged which is exactly what you are doing, shifting the burden of proof.

Your claim that the window is unfriendly is not supported. Mignini could never have fit through that window and perhaps that is why he doesn't see the window as fit for a break-in. Rudy on the other hand is plenty fit and could easily slip into the cottage through that window. We've done the measurements that show that the shutters can be reached from the edge by the porch (no climbing from below is necessary) and the latch is reachable by somebody of Rudy's stature standing on the window grate below. We've shown the apparent scuff marks on the casement of the lower window and on the wall beneath Filomena's window. In short, we've done the work that Mignini and his cohorts in ILE should have done and showed that the police lied when they said there was no such evidence. For this we were met with an assertion that a burglar would have entered through a different window again with no evidence to back up this assertion.

So why is it that you still believe the break-in was staged?

 

[komponisto]

While it is not impossible, it is very unlikely. Like so many things in this case, Rudy could have ran out to the front door, taken his shoes off there, returned in bare feet and locked the door as well, but it is highly unlikely as well. A far more likely explanation is, someone was holding her hands, there is even DNA evidence supporting this.

The only DNA on Meredith's body (other than her own) was Rudy's.

You appear to believe that the nature of Meredith's wounds very strongly implies there were multiple attackers. (Despite the opinion of e.g. Carlo Torre, a leading expert in this sort of thing.)

For comparison, let me ask you this: how strongly do you think that the stomach evidence implies that Meredith was killed before 21:30, when Knox and Sollecito were known to be out of the house? Less strongly, as strongly, or more strongly?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

While it is not impossible, it is very unlikely. Like so many things in this case, Rudy could have ran out to the front door, taken his shoes off there, returned in bare feet and locked the door as well, but it is highly unlikely as well. A far more likely explanation is, someone was holding her hands, there is even DNA evidence supporting this.

Has anyone ever seriously suggested that as a theory?

The theory generally settled upon here for the Lone Wolf hypothesis is that Rudy got blood on the leg of his pants and other places other than the soles of his shoes, walked to the bathroom without leaving a blood trail, removed his shoes, washed the blood off himself using the sink, bidet and shower, in the process leaving the footprint on the bathmat in a mixture of blood and water, returned to Meredith's room with towels, stole some stuff, and then got a small amount of blood on the bottom of his shoes as he left the murder room for the second time and exited via the front door.

What DNA evidence do you think exists that supports the idea that someone was holding her hands, and how does this evidence support the theory that someone was holding her hands?

 

[Kaosium]

The timeline for the night of the long interrogations is somewhat sketchy still. This is what I've collected so far:

== Nov 5, 2007 ==​

Amanda and Raffaele have classes today.

After class Amanda "met Patrick in front of the Universita per Stranieri". (Amanda Testimony)​

CP: Listen, in the statement of Nov 6 at 5:45, you declared to the police that you met Patrick in the morning of Nov 5, in front of the Universita per Stranieri.​

14:00 Rosa Natalia Guman Fernendez de Calle, RS' cleaning lady, cleans RS' apartment for the last time.

Sollecito and Knox were there then. [http://www.zimbio.com/Amanda+Knox/articles/80/Report+Courtroom+How+Saturday+Went]​

??:?? AK and RS are having a pizza at a friends home, police call and ask Raffaele to come to the station.
15:00 Raffaele picked up

"police picked up Rafaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher's body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn't alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza" [http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/88398897.html]​

17:00 Student Memorial for Meredith [http://www.monstersandcritics.com/n...pects_over_British_students_murder__Roundup_]

"A picture taken on Monday night November, 5 2007 shows a tribute from Meredith Kercher's friends in Perugia who held held a candlelight vigil on the steps of the town's cathedral.The English girl was brutally murdered at her apartment late last week."​

??:?? AK and RS arrive at station.
22:29 Amanda makes a 3 minute phone call to Filomena

Amanda says she "Just arrived" and Raffaele is being questioned.
The call ends with Amanda saying: "Now somebody wants to talk to me."​

22:40 Raffaele's statement

On November 5 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of November 1, after Meredith left the house, he was with Knox Amanda until 1800 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre, around 2030 to 2100. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1568860/Meredith-Kercher-murder-Judges-report.html (Telegraph:Judges Report)]​

??:?? The infamous cartwheel.​

If anyone has more details of this night (with references) I'd like to flesh this out. This segment of the timeline cuts off at midnight. I'll pick up with Nov. 6 later.

I don't claim these times area accurate. When the timeline is better filled in I'll strike or grey the obvious errors that were reported.

Thank you, Dan-O. This confirms something I suspected, that it was only a matter of minutes that Raffaele was with the police before the statement was official, thus Monica Napoleoni's account is found to be in error yet again. Another nice reminder was that Raffaele and Amanda had been there earlier in the day, I'd seen something about that but had totally forgotten about it.

It simply makes it even more curious that they called him so late at night, and suggests even more so to me that either they knew Amanda would come with him, or told him and then he forgot or did not bother to tell her, or Monica didn't realize she was to come which would explain her berating Amanda for tagging along, which might have caused Amanda to think later she'd not been invited. I'm searching for at least something that might be true in Napoleoni's testimony!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The only DNA on Meredith's body (other than her own) was Rudy's.

You appear to believe that the nature of Meredith's wounds very strongly implies there were multiple attackers. (Despite the opinion of e.g. Carlo Torre, a leading expert in this sort of thing.)

For comparison, let me ask you this: how strongly do you think that the stomach evidence implies that Meredith was killed before 21:30, when Knox and Sollecito were known to be out of the house? Less strongly, as strongly, or more strongly?

I think it's highly likely Meredith was killed between 9 and 10:00 and even possibly til 10:30, but for her to be killed before 9:30, who knows, once the attack starts, digestion stops, how long did the attack go on for, no one knows, if it was short, then yes, before 9:30, if not, then after.

 

[Malkmus]

While it is not impossible, it is very unlikely. Like so many things in this case, Rudy could have ran out to the front door, taken his shoes off there, returned in bare feet and locked the door as well, but it is highly unlikely as well. A far more likely explanation is, someone was holding her hands, there is even DNA evidence supporting this.

What is unlikely about it? That Rudy stabbed her once from behind while she was standing, and that she either fell/was pushed to her knees and that he finished her while she was bent over on the floor? Which part seems strange?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What is unlikely about it? That Rudy stabbed her once from behind while she was standing, and that she either fell/was pushed to her knees and that he finished her while she was bent over on the floor? Which part seems strange?

That she isn't grasping her throat with at least one hand, regardless of what position she is in, try and picture somesone stabbing you in the throat and what your reaction would be. The second or third stabs/slash should have hit her hand, its kind of almost impossible to hold both her hands away and stab her twice more, the first stab is easy, the next two are the troublesome ones.