Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

I don't know how you can conclude that we (meaning the general public who have taken more than a casual interest in the case) have been privy to "only a small amount of the evidence." Do you have some way of calculating the total amount of evidence, compared to the amount that has been made public?

Here's a list of 89 people who testified at the trial (I probably missed a few):

Luca Altieri
Fabrizio Angeluce
Anna Aprile
Mauro Bacci
Mauro Barbadori
Michele Battistelli
Jade Bidwell
Mauro Bigini
Saverio Binetti
Renato Biondo
Pietro Boemia
Stefano Bonassi
Gioia Brocci
Robyn Butterworth
Carlo Caltagirone
Pietro Camplongo
Nara Capezzali
Marco Chiaccheria
Mariano Cingolani
Angelo Cirillo
Aida Colantone
Pasqualino Coletta
Antonio Curatolo
Antonio D'Ambrosio
Fabio D'Astolto
Rosa Natalia Guaman Fernandez De Calle
Corrado De Candia
Mario De Martino
Anna Donnino
Alessandro Elisabetta
Giannetta Elisabetta
Lana Elisabetta
Carolina Espinilla
Leonardo Fabio
Paolo Fazi
Marta Fernandez
Rita Ficarra
Armando Finzi
Alessandra Formica
Antonino Francaviglia
Amy Frost
Spyros Gatsios
Sara Gino
Edgardo Giobbi
Agatino Giunta
Paola Grande
Natalie Hayworth
Alberto Intini
Francesco Introna
Claudio Ippolito
Amanda Knox
Luca Lalli
Letterio Latella
Vincenza Liviero
Riccardo Luciani
Carlo Maria Scotto di Rinaldi
Marco Marzan
Fabio Marzi
Edda Mellas
Laura Mezzetti
Monica Napoleone
Gianaristide Norelli
Francesco Pasquali
Bruno Pellero
Marco Perla
Jovana Popovic
Helen Powell
Giuseppe Privetera
Domenico Giacinto Profazio
Sophie Purton
Marco Quintovalle
Lorenzo Rinaldi
Samantha Rodenhurst
Filomena Romanelli
Giacomo Silenzi
Stefano Sisani
Francesco Sollecito
Patrizia Stefanoni
Simone Tacconi
Adriano Tagliabracci
Francesco Tavernise
Carlo Torre
Francesca Torricelli
Gabriele Traverso
Marco Trotta
Giancarlo Umani Ronchi
Marco Zaroli
Lorena Zugarini

Of these 89 witnesses, we have the verbatim testimony of only ONE - Amanda Knox.

 

[piktor]

What, again was Nara Capezzali's testimony? What did she say, and I don't mean what those in the court room said she said, I mean what did she say, word-for-word? Oh, that's right you don't know.

You cannot substitute "being there" with internet hearsay which is what we do here.

The more than 20 judges that have heard this case have ruled the same way.

They were there, hearing all sides, all witnesses, all experts, the defense.

They heard and saw Mrs. Nara in court. No one writing here has.

Being there is what this mystery is all about.

Italian rules, Italian language, Italian law.

 

[Dan O.]

Ignoring the SC ruling that Guede and others are responsible for Meredith’s murder, doesn’t alter the legal ruling by Italy’s highest court. I would speculate the ruling could have an impact on the appeal lay jury’s mindset; it is a fact that no one else has been arrested and sent to trial apart from Raffaele, Guede and Amanda.

Here we see CoulsdonUK continues to ignore the facts and evidence and relies on wishy-washy speculation. Despite numerous reminders that the Italian Supreme Court does not rule on the findings of the lower court but only on whether the procedures have been properly followed, he continues to blithely state otherwise.

I believe (and will until they prove otherwise) that the Italian courts are ultimately fair and that if Amanda's case goes before the supreme court and they find that the lower court used in any part the uncontested findings from Guede's trial to find Amanda guilty, the supreme court will vacate that verdict and remand the case back to the lower court.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the Italian legal system allows witch trials to be conducted partially in absentia. And though it is apparent that certain prosecutors are attempting to play that game, I will wait for the courts to confirm it is the case before I condemn them for such a practice.

 

[Kaosium]

How would you know? You haven't read these transcripts either, so how do you know what they contain?

The same way I know there's no monster down there even though I've never been snorkeling in Loch Ness. At some point absence of evidence must suggest evidence of absence otherwise we don't live in a rational universe.

I don't know if it's true, but the 10K number has been reported in various media reports. If not 10K, it certainly is a large case file. I want to read what the witnesses actually said.

There's more out there than you might realize. Whose testimony in particular would you like to read?

Do you think the Innocence Project would take on a case without first reading the trial transcript? Do you think they would be satisfied with only having what the media reported?

In those cases there's no Motivations report, nor is there as much raw footage of the crime scene, documents pertinent to the case, and for most I doubt there was nearly as much media resources dedicated to the case. Consider that in this case there is a website dedicated to their guilt with people posting there who attended trial sessions and would broadcast throughout the ether any more evidence of their guilt that might have been missed.

 

[Kaosium]

Well I think others have demonstrated that the tabloid media coverage of this case was not unusual, I believe Italians are use to sections of their media sensationalising their coverage in order to sell more newspapers or magazines. However, it is not possible to prove that this coverage actually had any bearing on the jury’s deliberations.

I would image this is why change of venue and sequestered juries are used for high profile cases elsewhere, regardless of 'proof.'

 

[Antony]

Bottom line is that for every murder case there will always be those advocating innocence, doesn't mean it's true.

Sorry, that's a gross exaggeration. Many murder cases are clear-cut, and there's no particular doubt about the justice of them. Most don't attract much public attention. It's only in a few cases that the grounds for doubt over the verdict are such as to sustain a wide-ranging campaign. The Knox/Sollecito case is a particularly odious example.

Similarly, it's not true to say "every convicted criminal protests his innocence." Most don't. Those who do, years into their sentence, usually are innocent.

To say "for every murder case there will always be those advocating innocence" is just a self-delusion tactic, aimed at convincing yourself that this case is no different from any random murder case.

 

[Justinian2]

More on DNA absurdities

From “The Monster of Perugia”:

If you can make 1 DNA molecule into 2, you can make those 2 into 3, those 5 into 8… and after 28 cycles of this, the typical number performed in a PCR reaction for profiling, you have roughly 2^28 power molecules of DNA for every single one that you started with. That’s roughly 268 million copies made of every starting molecule”

That’s a huge number. Recall that the lab had been testing Meredith’s DNA for a few days when they found the knife at Raffaele’s. Assume that they had 1 gram of DNA material (just assume this much for a moment) from all the blood samples of Meredith that they had collected. Copying that much material 2^28 times would give 2^28 grams of DNA, enough to fill a 2000 sq ft house from floor to ceiling. OK, agreed, that’s an absurdly large number. But the amount of Meredith’s DNA floating around the lab could have been huge. Our extraordinary pseudo forensic scientist claims to have found 30 pico grams on the knife blade. That’s about 3 DNA molecules. Do you believe that those molecules came from the non-super clean lab or Raffaele’s house?

But that’s not all. The results were down in the noise. The process doesn’t produce 100% perfect results for each molecule. (Read “The Monster of Perugia” to find out why.) You need a few molecules to create a statistically adequate result. Recreating an accurate DNA profile from 3 DNA molecules would be a bit like recreating a radio message from 3 cycles of the transmission. The point is, that the more DNA molecules you have at the start, the more accurate the result will be. The electronic data wasn’t released probably because the results were absurd.

If you told Mignini and Dr. Stefanoni that they would be executed if their results were wrong, I don’t think it would take them a picosecond to admit that their results could be wrong. If you even suggested that they would get the same sentence that they gave to Amanda if they knowingly used incorrect results, I think they again would quickly decide not to stand behind their findings.

 

[Justinian2]

So the prosecutor of Amanda Knox should get the same punishment as the architects of a war that resulted in the deaths of about 65 million people.

The cult of Amanda Knox is begining to crack.

People are executed for killing one person.

What is 50 years in jail but a lifetime? That's one lifetime ended by bars and lies.

(I'm consulting in another state at the moment.)

 

[babycondor]

Here's a list of 89 people who testified at the trial (I probably missed a few):
<snipped list>
Of these 89 witnesses, we have the verbatim testimony of only ONE - Amanda Knox.

Assuming your list is from a reliable source, I concede your point that only a tiny percentage of those witnesses' testimonies has been translated into publicly accessible English versions.

 

[Amazer]

From “The Monster of Perugia”:



That’s a huge number. Recall that the lab had been testing Meredith’s DNA for a few days when they found the knife at Raffaele’s. Assume that they had 1 gram of DNA material (just assume this much for a moment) from all the blood samples of Meredith that they had collected. Copying that much material 2^28 times would give 2^28 grams of DNA, enough to fill a 2000 sq ft house from floor to ceiling. OK, agreed, that’s an absurdly large number. But the amount of Meredith’s DNA floating around the lab could have been huge. Our extraordinary pseudo forensic scientist claims to have found 30 pico grams on the knife blade. That’s about 3 DNA molecules. Do you believe that those molecules came from the non-super clean lab or Raffaele’s house?

Lots of claims... no supporting evidence.

But that’s not all. The results were down in the noise. The process doesn’t produce 100% perfect results for each molecule. (Read “The Monster of Perugia” to find out why.) You need a few molecules to create a statistically adequate result. Recreating an accurate DNA profile from 3 DNA molecules would be a bit like recreating a radio message from 3 cycles of the transmission. The point is, that the more DNA molecules you have at the start, the more accurate the result will be. The electronic data wasn’t released probably because the results were absurd.

More claims without evidence to back it up... I'm starting to sense a pattern here.

If you told Mignini and Dr. Stefanoni that they would be executed if their results were wrong, I don’t think it would take them a picosecond to admit that their results could be wrong. If you even suggested that they would get the same sentence that they gave to Amanda if they knowingly used incorrect results, I think they again would quickly decide not to stand behind their findings.

Wishful thinking on your part if you ask me.

 

[Justinian2]

Lots of claims... no supporting evidence..

It's just math. 2^28 is a huge number.

OK, 1 gram times 2^28 is 256*1024*1024 or over 256 million grams. There are 454 grams in a pound. There are 64 pounds of water per cubic foot of water - the approximate density of the human body. There are 2000 * 8 cubic feet in a house. You figure it out. Remember that the result is compatible with the amount of DNA that would fill a house and not a precise number.

The actual amount of DNA subjected to this multiplication would be far less than a gram. Perhaps nano grams. I'm just trying to give you a 'feel' for what is going on. It is easy to get the feeling that the number of DNA molecules in the lab would be greater than the number of Meredith's DNA molecules in Raffaele's home. There are probably be a few DNA molecules in Raffaele's flat, you know, because a large percentage of household dust is comprised of dead cells. Amanda would have carried some dust from her home with Meredith to Raffaele's flat.

If the analysis was done in a lab that had never analyzed Meredith's DNA before AND the amount analyzed was more than 30 pico grams (about 3 DNA molecules) then the result might have been sufficient to mean something if the knife had been found in Meredith's room, had blood on it and had been the only murder weapon. Otherwise it is more compatible to believe that Meredith's ghost had been seen wandering around her old room.

 

[Antony]

So what the actual witnesses said doesn't matter at all, got it.

This has got it backwards. You're the one trying to dismiss a whole category of evidence as of no account, not us. If you can show us evidence in the transcripts then it will be considered on its merits. The point being made is that there's no reason to think that there's anything of merit in the transcripts that isn't already known.

In a past case, also involving DNA:



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E0DC1F31F934A2575AC0A9639C8B63

Yes, and your point is ... ? In the case you quote here, the prosecution case might have been flawed because the transcripts weren't taken into account. In the Knox/Sollecito case, the prosecution case is already flawed from top to bottom. Reviewing the trial transcripts can't turn a flawed case into a sound one.

It's a load of tosh according to the Internet slueths and their super-duper Googling skills!

Ad hominem. Dismissive name-calling won't make up for failing to address our points. Oh, and it's "sleuths" not "slueths".

In the real world where actual evidence and witness testimony is needed, nothing has been tossed out and the defendents remain in prison.

If the appeal is based on objective evidence and not the hysteria of the original trial, then nothing will be left of the prosecution case. There's already reason to be cautiously optimistic that this will happen.

 

[Antony]

Antony



Ignoring the SC ruling that Guede and others are responsible for Meredith’s murder, doesn’t alter the legal ruling by Italy’s highest court. I would speculate the ruling could have an impact on the appeal lay jury’s mindset; it is a fact that no one else has been arrested and sent to trial apart from Raffaele, Guede and Amanda.

Which police officers are under investigation or have been disciplined for misconduct?

SC ruling; lay jury; arrests; police under investigation or discipline. Is this all you're prepared to discuss?

I'm not particularly interested in why the authorities act they way they do - all I'm interested in is the evidence showing what the facts are. As far as I am concerned, if a court ruling doesn't correspond to the facts, then it's not reality that's at fault.

Of course it would be gratifying if the courts and police were to start showing some integrity, but if they don't it doesn't alter the question of factual involvement of Amanda, Raffaele or any other supposed co-conspirator. The same is true of police misconduct - it's to be hoped that ultimately the Perugia police and others responsible for this travesty will be held to account, but if they're not then it doesn't mean that misconduct hasn't occurred.

 

[snook1]

What makes you believe they are innocent when you haven't even read the actual trial testimony of those testified for and against them? What makes you believe one over the other when you don't even know what those people actually said? What are you basing your belief on?

I believe RS and RG are guilty of the actual murder and AK is guilty of tampering with evidence and being an accessory after the fact. Of course, since I haven't read the trial transcript this is only my opinion based on the information that is available to me. What I don't get is how folks can say they are absolutely certain that AK and RS are innocent when they are privy to only a very small amount of the evidence that was introduced at the trial.

I believe RS and AK are innocent. My opinion is based on the information that is available to me. What I don't get is how some of the guilters believe they're guilty when there's no trace of AK in the room and the only trace of RS is the bra clasp that was collected 47 days later. It's beyond amazing.

To date I haven't heard a plausible explanation on how, why and at what time AK and RS killed Meredith Kercher.

 

[RoseMontague]

Very funny, considering you don't even know what the evidence is, you only know what has been filtered and feed to you via the Internet.

You have no idea if Nara Capezzali heard a "bloodcurdling scream", a "prolonged scream" or just "a woman’s scream". All three versions were reported in the media. In addition Frank Sfarzo reported that:

She [Mrs. Capezzali] also claimed to have seen the next morning’s newspaper’s posters about Meredith’s crime. This wouldn’t be possible, since the news couldn’t have been in print yet. It was an inconsistency in her testimony.

Wow, if that's true it's a pretty big inconsistency yet no one other than him reported on this. Why? I understand that English isn't Frank's first language but when he write's "Meredith's crime" it's not accurate reporting.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to believe what others say, rather then what the actual person said, good for you. I have this bridge I'm selling in Brooklyn you might be intrested in. It's a great deal according to Frank Sfarzo and Barbie Nadeau. No, you can't actually see it, you'll have to take their word for it.

Yes, can I say Wow, just Wow. That's probably why Amanda's appeal makes a point of this here:

And, indeed, Capezzali said repeatedly that she had news of the murder early in the morning of the next day. That fact makes implausible the chronology of events since the body of Meredith Kercher was found after 13.00.

Amanda's appeal also points out she had said on numerous occasions in statements and in the pretrial hearings that she couldn't tell where the scream was coming from, until she got on the stand in the main trial.

 

[Justinian2]

What makes you believe they are innocent when you haven't even read the actual trial testimony of those testified for and against them? What makes you believe one over the other when you don't even know what those people actually said? What are you basing your belief on?
I believe RS and RG are guilty of the actual murder and AK is guilty of tampering with evidence and being an accessory after the fact. Of course, since I haven't read the trial transcript this is only my opinion based on the information that is available to me. What I don't get is how folks can say they are absolutely certain that AK and RS are innocent when they are privy to only a very small amount of the evidence that was introduced at the trial.

I am basing my belief on what was said by Mark Waterbury, Candace Dempsey, Bruce Fisher, and FriendsofAmanda, Amanda, Raffaele, the Knoxes, Steve Moore and Ron Hendry.

I know the PMF has classified me as the villiage idiot for believing in these people.

And you, presumably, are basing your beliefs on the deeds and sayings of Mignini and the outstanding work done by Stefanoni. Perhaps you also believe in the sayings of Guede. I presume they are all examples of the people you admire and love.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What, again was Nara Capezzali's testimony? What did she say, and I don't mean what those in the court room said she said, I mean what did she say, word-for-word? Oh, that's right you don't know.

Do you have any basis at all to think that the text on pages 95 to 99 inclusive of the Massei report is not the best possible version of her testimony for the prosecution?

Here's a relevant passage:

In spite of some inaccuracies in the presentation, especially in reference to the time when the newspaper kiosk posters published news of the homicide, it is held that the deposition of the witness is reliable with regard to the scream and to the noises then heard on the iron staircase and in the square in front of the house in Via della Pergola.
Several times in the course of her own deposition Mrs. Capezzali spoke of a special scream, heart-rending to the point that after she heard it she could not get back to sleep; a scream the likes of which she had never heard before. If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it.

The fact that other people, who were heard on this point, stated that they did not hear any such scream, does not detract from the reliability of the statements of Mrs. Capezzali, having declared that she had heard a scream when she had woken up to go to the bathroom.

It is also held that the indication given by Mrs. Capezzali at some points of her deposition, according to which the day after she heard the scream she is supposed to have seen the posters with the news of the murder, should not weigh upon the reliability of the deposition and on the exactitude of her memory relating to the scream and its date.

So what exactly do you think he left out?

Or is the sum total of your inane argument that we cannot know absolutely for certain that there isn't miraculous, game-changing evidence hidden in her testimony, and hence we aren't allowed to say that any court's decision ever in the history of humanity was wrong, no matter how absurd it is, unless we've read all the transcripts ourselves?

If so, where the heck do you get off having your own oddball theory of the crime when you haven't read the transcripts yourself? Isn't that colossally hypocritical?

 

[Chris C]

Very funny, considering you don't even know what the evidence is, you only know what has been filtered and feed to you via the Internet.

You have no idea if Nara Capezzali heard a "bloodcurdling scream", a "prolonged scream" or just "a woman’s scream". All three versions were reported in the media. In addition Frank Sfarzo reported that:


Wow, if that's true it's a pretty big inconsistency yet no one other than him reported on this. Why? I understand that English isn't Frank's first language but when he write's "Meredith's crime" it's not accurate reporting.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to believe what others say, rather then what the actual person said, good for you. I have this bridge I'm selling in Brooklyn you might be intrested in. It's a great deal according to Frank Sfarzo and Barbie Nadeau. No, you can't actually see it, you'll have to take their word for it.

So there is some Double Secret Probation evidence out there? I guess you got us now. I guess the pro innocence movement should just roll over because the Perugian authorities have proof of Knox's guilt located in the Vatican's Secret Archives.

The claim that there is secret evidence kept from the public that proves guilt is borderline conspiracy theory.

 

[RoseMontague]

So there is some Double Secret Probation evidence out there? I guess you got us now. I guess the pro innocence movement should just roll over because the Perugian authorities have proof of Knox's guilt located in the Vatican's Secret Archives.

Four Hundred pages, did Massei's printer run out of ink before he could get to the good stuff? I believe there is certainly enough evidence that we can find to come to a reasonable conclusion of innocence or guilt. The simple fact is that I have seen this claim many times and it is simply based on the fact that much of the court's reasoning can't be explained by those applauding it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Four Hundred pages, did Massei's printer run out of ink before he could get to the good stuff? I believe there is certainly enough evidence that we can find to come to a reasonable conclusion of innocence or guilt. The simple fact is that I have seen this claim many times and it is simply based on the fact that much of the court's reasoning can't be explained by those applauding it.

I think you're right. It's a bit like the Bible apologists who insist that if something in the Bible looks evil, stupid or nonsensical it just means that we fallible humans can't always understand its perfection.

They believe Massei is always right (except when he disagrees with guilters), and if it seems like he's wrong that just means that there is super-duper secret evidence we haven't seen yet.