Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

I don't think you understood the question, but it seems your basic philosophy is, all laws are just no matter where. Thanks.

What your original principle seemed to be stating was, if you make an accusation and then you're charged with defamation, you should have to prove its true. I doubt you actually understand the policy implications of that given principle. It seems you let whatever gut feeling you have guide whatever principles you espouse for reasons of convenience. No surprise that your arguments usually have no foundation.

Edit: Also, there's a HUGE difference between your Timbuktu analogy and this situation at hand. A pretty lame analogy all in all.

Yes. If Amanda is telling the truth about being slapped on the back of the head (and I have seen a couple of Italian posters on the guilty side say they could believe that it happened), then she is not violating any law, including the one she is charged with. The analogy does not fit if this is the case.

 

[act1roson]

One person did (sort of); but they didn't respond to a followup asking if they were aware of the defense's response to their points.

So the question is still out there.

Komponisto - what is your estimate of probability that those who believe in guilt will 1) Answer your question in the manner requested 2) Respond to your subsequent follow-up questions asking for clarification or other points 3) Respond to your follow-up posts pointing out inconsistencies or actual falsehoods based on what was presented at trial and other reputable sources.

Thank you for your time. I find this particular issue fascinating.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

She wrote about it in her note directly after the interrogation night. She couldn't avoid being asked about it. I suppose her lawyers advised her not to point out anyone specifically. She did anyway When facing life in jail why would she withhold truth because of some laughable slander charges?
In my opinion it didn't turn out so bad for her. First of all the callunia charge revealed the truth about the interrogation. Nice chat over a cup of tea? With 12 interrogators? It also brought into attention that they "forgot" to tape that interrogation and that it was unlawful.

The "forgotten" tape sets up the situation as her word vs theirs. That she wrote about it the next morning works in her favor. The missing interrogation recording is very telling, too.

Thankyou Katody - that was the kind of answer I was looking for. Would have loved to be a fly on the wall when her lawyers were discussing this with her though.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes. If Amanda is telling the truth about being slapped on the back of the head (and I have seen a couple of Italian posters on the guilty side say they could believe that it happened), then she is not violating any law, including the one she is charged with. The analogy does not fit if this is the case.

I believe she's guilty to some extent and I too believe she was cuffed as well and possibly even recorded - but regardless, why didn't her lawyers tell her not to reveal this cuffing, perhaps they didn't think the police would deny it.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe she's guilty to some extent and I too believe she was cuffed as well and possibly even recorded - but regardless, why didn't her lawyers tell her not to reveal this cuffing, perhaps they didn't think the police would deny it.

The interesting thing about this is that Amanda's charge was known about for some time (over two years) and was not acted on until Mignini brought it up during her questioning in her trial and she repeated the claim. Reading the testimony it seemed to me to be one of the main focuses of his examination. I wonder why?

 

[Alt+F4]

While I'm at it, here's another question for guilt-believers: can you give an example (either real or hypothetical) of a wrongful conviction where you would have been convinced the defendant was innocent (in advance of any appeals court reversal)? How does (or would) that case differ from this one? (Remember, in any such case there must necessarily have been enough evidence of guilt to convince prosecutors and jurors!)

Lindy Chamberlain. She was wrongfully convicted then exonerated when there was absoulte proof that she did not murder her baby.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Lindy Chamberlain. She was wrongfully convicted then exonerated when there was absoulte proof that she did not murder her baby.

What do you see as being the important differences?

Bear in mind that at the time of her conviction there was claimed DNA evidence of baby blood in the front seat of her car, an expert medical opinion that Azaria's throat had been cut and that a small adult handprint could be seen in the blood, and "clear" inconsistencies between her story and the available evidence.

Plus there was the oh-so-damning inside-out singlet, the fact that she was part of a "weird cult", the "fact" that Azaria supposedly meant "sacrifice in the wilderness", the allegation that she did not behave in the way that a grieving mother was supposed to, the claim she was a witch... why, there was all sorts of excellent evidence that she was guilty, for those with the "emotional intelligence" to see past the total lack of motive and the the wild implausibility of the prosecution narrative. With any "emotional intelligence" at all one could see that Lindy Chamberlain was a deeply emotionally disturbed woman who was obviously capable of a senseless murder.

In any case, the police believed she was guilty, and a court found her guilty, and another court upheld the verdict and that's an end to the matter.

I don't know what "absolute proof" of her innocence you are talking about... so they found Azaria's jacket, so what? How do you know they didn't plant it there, or have someone plant it there? Just because one jacket turns up years later near a dingo lair doesn't prove anything.

James Cameron was a professional forensic scientist and he actually examined the evidence himself - did you? I don't know what makes you think you have the right to contest his opinion on the matter. Are you a pathologist?

To return to seriousness, at the time of her conviction the forensic evidence against Lindy Chamberlain looked pretty damning. Yes the prosecution narrative was pants-on-head nutty, but then again the prior probability of the defence narrative (that a dingo took the baby) was also widely believed to be very low at that time. It's not like there was a perfectly ordinary alternative explanation, as there was with the Knox case.

Can you explain why you think at the time of the conviction the case against Lindy Chamberlain was so much weaker than the case against Knox and Sollecito?

 

[RWVBWL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfA7rrmfedE

he was busted in Milan for burglary, he also had stolen items in his backpack, or thats the victims story in this video. Some would prefer to blame the victim and choose Rudy as being totally innocent based on the fact he wasnt convicted of anything.

nick pisa wrote-
Murderer Rudy Guede was identified by police after his bloody fingerprint was found on a cushion at the scene of the crime.

The 21-year-old Ivory Coast national had given his fingerprints when he applied for an Italian identity card several years earlier.

He was known to police after being stopped and searched several times and was known as a petty thief and small time drug dealer.


another-Rudy's finger prints were on file from a previous arrest in Milan.

The owner of a Milan nursery school testified in court that Rudy Guede had broken into her school and stolen a big kitchen knife. Nursery school owner Maria del Prato testified that she had stopped by her school Saturday Oct. 27, when it was closed, and came upon Guede in her office.

"I asked him who he was," she told the court, "and he replied perfectly calmly, even though I had caught him red-handed." Del Prato said he told her he was "a kid from Perugia" who had arrived the night before and had nowhere to sleep.

Del Prato doubted his story, as her locker had been opened, and she said she believed Rudy was looking for something to steal. Some small change was missing, and Del Prato noticed Rudy had a laptop, but he told her it was his.
When police arrived at the school, they searched Rudy's backpack and found a large knife with a 16-inch blade that had been taken from the school kitchen.

Rudy was later booked at a Milan police station and accused of theft, receiving stolen goods, and in possession of a weapon. He was also fingerprinted and then released. It was this arrest that put his finger prints on file allowing the police to identify him.



edit> i see now, you ask about the picture on the far left, from Perugia....not the two mugshots on the right from Milan. I wonder too, why did the Perugia Police have his mug shot before the murder?

Hi JREF2010,
Thank you for the Youtube link, I had expected it to be in Italian but but was pleasantly suprised to hear Maria del Prato speak perfect English. As you noted, Rudy was busted in Milan, which explains the mug shots taken at the Questura di Milano.

But why were his mug shots taken by the Polizia Scientifica Perugia before Meredith Kercher was brutally killed? In the photograph, Rudy Guede still has his bling-bling necklace on, and there is only the front shot, not a side profile shot.

Here are the photo's again:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/179047.asp

This is weird...
What did Rudy Guede do to warrant his being at the Questura di Perugia, and having the Polizia Scientifica Perugia photograph him before the murder of Meredith Kercher? Is it something simple, like he had a loud party too, as Amanda Knox did, but he had to show up at the police station, pay the fine and get his mug shot taken? Or is it something else, like maybe a mug shot of a police informant? How come there is no public information on this?

I also wonder why this information not been discussed before in such detail as Amanda Knox's party ticket? Especially since Amanda Knox, -(whom we know did get a ticket for having a loud party), did not even have to go to the police station and she did not have her mug shot photograph taken before Meredith Kercher's brutal murder.

Thanks everyone for any further input,
RWVBWL

PS-Here is a link that gives insight into the other male convicted of the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher:
http://www.raffaelesollecito.org/en/amici.html
Raffaele Sollecito has, it seems, many friends who think very highly of him...

 

[Dan O.]

What did Rudy Guede do to warrant his being at the Questura di Perugia, and having the Polizia Scientifica Perugia photograph him before the murder of Meredith Kercher?

Rudy was an immigrant. Perhaps immigrants in Italy have to register with the local authorities when they establish residence in the community. He would have needed a photo ID just to use the internet in a cafe. How long had Rudy been living in Perugia?

 

[RWVBWL]

Rudy was an immigrant. Perhaps immigrants in Italy have to register with the local authorities when they establish residence in the community. He would have needed a photo ID just to use the internet in a cafe. How long had Rudy been living in Perugia?

Hi Dan O.,
I've wondered if that was the case, however on page 217 of Candace Dempsey's book 'Murder in Italy' it says this:
<snip>
"His mother had abandoned him at birth in the Ivory Coast and he'd immigrated to Italy, -with his father, Roger Guede- from Abidjan when he was 5. They could have settled in Lecco, near Milan, where Rudy had an aunt, but Roger found a job as a laborer in Perugia and they went there instead. They lived in Ponte San Giovanni, outside of the city walls, where Rudy went to the local schools. His teachers knew that he had no one to care for him, so they took him home after school each day and let him stay with them until his father could pick him up."
Then in 2002, when Rudy was 16, his father turned his world upside down. Roger decided to move back to the Ivory Coast. Incredibly, Paulo Caporali, a wealthy Perugian businessman, then informaly adapted the twice-abandoned boy, having met Rudy when the teenager played on a local basketball team that the Caporali family sponsored."
<snip>

So Rudy Guede had lived in Perugia pretty much most of his life.
Would he need to go to the Quesura di Perugia and have his mug shot taken when he turned 18 or 21? Is the photograph I am curious about simply his drivers license or ID photo? Or did he do something wrong that we do not know about? Well, that's what I wonder a bit about...
Take it easy, RWVBWL

 

[komponisto]

Komponisto - what is your estimate of probability that those who believe in guilt will 1) Answer your question in the manner requested 2) Respond to your subsequent follow-up questions asking for clarification or other points 3) Respond to your follow-up posts pointing out inconsistencies or actual falsehoods based on what was presented at trial and other reputable sources.

Thank you for your time. I find this particular issue fascinating.

Well, me too! Though, I must admit, I also find it depressing, even alarming. For some reason, this case is what finally caused me to come to grips, on a gut level, with just how little people are to be trusted to evaluate evidence rationally. Somehow, religion, homeopathy, and UFO cults -- though technically worse mistakes -- never quite did it. Obviously, I knew, in intellectual terms, that people were fallible, but it hadn't really hit me; I wasn't quite scared of human folly in the way that I am now.

What's more, discussing this (to whatever extent possible) with those on the opposite side has forced me to confront the fact that some people's brains seem to work in completely different ways from mine. I could actually see myself -- at least, a previous version of myself, perhaps -- making epistemic mistakes similar to those that cause people to believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty; but the kind of things I've been saying here and on Less Wrong, the kind of arguments offered by folks such as Kevin_Lowe (to take one example) would have caused me to snap out of it fairly quickly. Yet they don't seem to have this effect on other people! It's as if there's some sort of fundamental personality difference between people like me and those who believe in guilt, resulting in an unbridgeable cultural gap that makes communication difficult to impossible.

I've been searching in vain to find people who "speak my language" and yet believe in guilt; they just don't seem to exist. The closest I know of is Rolf Nelson, but he never took me up on my debate offer, and anyway I have no idea whether he still believes in guilt a year later or not.

So, to answer your questions, the evidence thus far seems to demand low probabilities for all three. The whole ethos of argument as inquiry, or truth-seeking (as opposed to status-competition), and the whole idea of beliefs as thermometer-readings that go up and down with the flow of information (as opposed to propositions that have been "certified" or not according to some or other "authoritative" procedure), seem to be utterly foreign to almost all guilters, making them very unlikely to be able to participate in the sort of dialogue I'd like to see.

I still eagerly await the discovery of an exception.

 

[Dan O.]

So Rudy Guede had lived in Perugia pretty much most of his life.
Would he need to go to the Quesura di Perugia and have his mug shot taken when he turned 18 or 21? Is the photograph I am curious about simply his drivers license or ID photo? Or did he do something wrong that we do not know about? Well, that's what I wonder a bit about...
Take it easy, RWVBWL

According to this site, long tern residents must renew their permit every five years by submitting a current photo. A personal visit to the police station does not appear to be required but it may be an option.

ETA: (here): "Renewal is made at the Police Headquarters of the place of residence."

 

[snook1]

Yes. If Amanda is telling the truth about being slapped on the back of the head (and I have seen a couple of Italian posters on the guilty side say they could believe that it happened), then she is not violating any law, including the one she is charged with. The analogy does not fit if this is the case.

Adding something :
She was slapped. The story about police being violent and slapping her came the next morning. I find it hard to believe that on her own right after the arrest, she just came up with the story. As much as she was portrayed as lying all the time, I believe, on this one she told the truth from the start. It's easy to imagine she was slapped.

 

[snook1]

She wrote about it in her note directly after the interrogation night. She couldn't avoid being asked about it. I suppose her lawyers advised her not to point out anyone specifically. She did anyway When facing life in jail why would she withhold truth because of some laughable slander charges?
In my opinion it didn't turn out so bad for her. First of all the callunia charge revealed the truth about the interrogation. Nice chat over a cup of tea? With 12 interrogators? It also brought into attention that they "forgot" to tape that interrogation and that it was unlawful.

The "forgotten" tape sets up the situation as her word vs theirs. That she wrote about it the next morning works in her favor. The missing interrogation recording is very telling, too.

Exactly. It all works in her favor. Even some guilters agreed on this one and didn't exclude the possibility that she in fact was slapped.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I've been searching in vain to find people who "speak my language" and yet believe in guilt; they just don't seem to exist. The closest I know of is Rolf Nelson, but he never took me up on my debate offer, and anyway I have no idea whether he still believes in guilt a year later or not.

He makes a typical argument that the amount of evidence against Guede is somehow comparable to what there is against the other two.

Let's see what and how much was there on Guede, let's begin with Meredith's room (correct me if I'm missing something):

At least 8 shoeprints in blood - 3 on the floor, 5 on the pillowcase.
A fingerprint in blood - that's what led ILE to him.
DNA traces - on the purse, on the side of the bra, on the sleeve of the jacket, inside Meredith's body.

Apart from this there was the infamous hair - not included into evidence.​

Let's compare it to what they found on Amanda: ZERO.
on Raffaele: a single very questionable trace of DNA on a metal hook of the bra.

 

[snook1]

It still leaves me amazed whenever I hear that the evidence against the three of them is similiar. People actually says that alot, well at least on the pro guilt sites.

The truth is, as you've put it, there's no evidence against Amanda Knox. None. The evidence against Guede on the other hand, are simply overwhelming and shows clearly that he was the one who attacked and killed Meredith Kercher.

After all these years that went by, I still can't understand how some people are unable to see that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. It's like they got on a rollercoaster ride with Mignini from day one and now they're unable to get off, even though some of them definitely want to. Most probably they're ashamed, they were tricked, they believed in all those stories and now it's too late.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

he was there

It still leaves me amazed whenever I hear that the evidence against the three of them is similiar. People actually says that alot, well at least on the pro guilt sites.

The truth is, as you've put it, there's no evidence against Amanda Knox. None. The evidence against Guede on the other hand, are simply overwhelming and shows clearly that he was the one who attacked and killed Meredith Kercher.

After all these years that went by, I still can't understand how some people are unable to see that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. It's like they got on a rollercoaster ride with Mignini from day one and now they're unable to get off, even though some of them definitely want to. Most probably they're ashamed, they were tricked, they believed in all those stories and now it's too late.

And there is additional evidence that Guede was there: his bowel movement in the bathroom, shoeprints in the hallway, his own admission that he was present, and the fact that he left the country. Given that he did not live in the flat and cannot produce any evidence that he was invited in, this is a persuasive case.

 

[Dan O.]

The irrefutable counter argument is that the court found them guilty. Many have tried to refute that but it simply isn't possible. Only when a higher court overturns the verdict of the lower court will the guilty status change.

(Life is easy being an authoritarian. You don't have to worry about what to think because somebody else has already made that decision for you)

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't know what "absolute proof" of her innocence you are talking about... so they found Azaria's jacket, so what? How do you know they didn't plant it there, or have someone plant it there? Just because one jacket turns up years later near a dingo lair doesn't prove anything.

Maybe the police also pushed the British tourist off the top of Ulurur, the event that started the search of the previously unknown dingo lair.

Why in the world would the police plant the jacket six years later? They had their conviction, why would they want to exonerate her and make themselves look bad? Since you have zero evidence that the police planted the jacket and the jacket did indeed belong to Azaria, yes that is "absolute proof" that Chamberlain was not guilty.

Can you explain why you think at the time of the conviction the case against Lindy Chamberlain was so much weaker than the case against Knox and Sollecito?

I think at the time of her conviction the evidence against her was strong (based on early 1980s science). The authorities got it wrong and she would still be sitting in prison now if it was for the "smoking gun" - the babies jacket. As for AK and RS, the evidence against them is also strong, maybe they too will be exonerated if their "smoking gun" shows up - the other knife and Meredith's would be helpful.

 

[Matthew Best]

I think at the time of her conviction the evidence against her was strong (based on early 1980s science). The authorities got it wrong and she would still be sitting in prison now if it was for the "smoking gun" - the babies jacket.

The question asked was whether you could name a case of a wrongful conviction where you would have been convinced the defendant was innocent in advance of any appeals court reversal. So at what point did you become convinced that Chamberlain was innocent? Was it literally just before the reversal, after the new evidence had been revealed, or was it at the time of her original conviction?