Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Use google. search terms site:forums.randi.org

Thank you Groucho, will try that tomorrow.

 

[capealadin]

My sypathies to Mary H.

Happy Birthday, Alt. My Sisters birthday was on the 10th.

 

[Antony]

Halides1

Katody Matrass did everything but answer what were simple questions, as I am sure you realise.

I conclude that people of like mind put forward assertions which then transform into hard facts in some people’s minds. Raffaele and Amanda are part of a legal process which may or may not end in their release; some of their supporters would strangely argue that they are innocent until their release or confirmation of their sentence, yet Mignini is “guilty”, so people are expected to accept Raffaele and Amanda’s possible innocence but not Mignini!

To repeat the questions which were directed to Antony and are to be honest fairly straight forward:

1:

2:

Please point out where questions 1 or 2 where addressed?

I didn't answer them because they are not worthy of an answer. It seems with you, reality is only reality if it is endorsed by some official body - so Amanda and Raffaele actually committed the murder because the trial court returned a guilty verdict; but the appeal court has the power to alter the fabric of space-time such that if they verdict is overturned, then the reality of the events of November 1 will be replaced by a different reality.

Similarly, the actions of the investigators, even those available to us on YouTube, didn't happen as long as they haven't been subject to police disciplinary procedures.

There is very little point in discussing with you. Those of us prepared to make independent judgements have even less confidence in police disciplinary procedures than we have in the courts. As halides1, I have not heard that there has been any disciplinary procedure, nor have I any expectation that there will be one - the ludicrous medals awarded to the investigating team will probably be quietly forgotten at the end of all this.

All of that doesn't change the facts of what happened one iota.

 

[RoseMontague]

As for discussing the "actual evidence", we can't do that, as 90% of it is not pubicly available.

If evidence was important from the standpoint of guilt, Massei would have brought it up in his Motivation report.

If evidence was important from the standpoint of innocence, one or both of the appeals would have brought this up in the appeal documents.

If evidence was important either way one of the many bloggers or reporters covering the trial would have brought it up in one of their articles or posts.

I only see this argument coming from those that believe in guilt. I think the reason it is brought up is simply because they can't find good reasons for guilt in the evidence that is publicly available. So there must be some super secret evidence that for some reason neither the court or the lawyers or prosecutors want to talk about. It is simply wishful thinking and the argument is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and represents an attempt to justify an unjust decision by the court.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Halides1

Katody Matrass did everything but answer what were simple questions, as I am sure you realise.

Couldson, I think you're wrong and I after all addressed your simple questions.

I wrote that Amanda reported the police misconduct the day after it happened. It is on record. She repeated that in court - probably against the advice of her lawyers. Do you think it is OK that there was no investigation of that?

I also wrote that no cop had been in any way disciplined for incompetence or misconduct. I can't see how that is not an answer to your simple question? Maybe my English is not clear enough, if it is the reason, don't hesitate to point it out - I'll try to improve.

 

[Katody Matrass]

For me it is not about how “I feel” but really are these events unusual is there any evidence of deliberate wrong doing; has there ever been the perfect murder investigation, do the police make mistakes? If anyone has been disciplined I would simply ask for independent evidence, if this was not forthcoming I tend to conclude it is an assertion.

It is good that you acknowledge police did things wrong. I think it casts shadow on the investigation and the case, regardless if it was deliberate or caused by incompetence or confirmation bias.
In my opinion there was not a conscious effort to frame the defendants. That doesn't mean that some of the tampering with and falsifying the evidence wasn't deliberate. If the cops believed they had the right guys yet decided to cut some corners in the investigation is it still framing?

That was the case of the sweatshirt, that police reported was missing - presumably disposed because it was bloody. So it was a crucial element - if found it would be most damning piece of evidence. Yet it was filmed lying in full view in Amanda's room. It's hard to believe the investigators didn't notice it during multiple searches or when reviewing the tapes. It's most probable that someone noticed it at some moment and since it was obvious there was no blood on it they just kept quiet about it. Evidence against Amanda was desperately needed in the pre-trial and the sweatshirt was important part of it.

There's also the interesting problem of Rinaldi falsely ascribing one Guede's shoeprint to Raffaele and another to Amanda - was it deliberate or just an extreme case of confirmation bias - would any kind of misconduct investigation reveal it? Does it change the fact that false evidence tainted the case? You're aware that Rinaldi's expertise played important role in first instance ruling. Doesn't it make you uncomfortable?

There's the famous clip when cops from Scientifica wrap a mop in paper found in the broom closet (yet th mop head still sticks out) and than bring it into the bloody murder room - all of it without changing their shoe covers. Then there's the bra-clasp - strangely passed to and fro, dropped, picked up - all of it with dirty gloves. Can we say for sure those were attempts of falsifying evidence? Of course not. Can we exclude it? Hmm... The piece that finally became evidence is now destroyed and can't be independently tested.

What I personally think happened is they just consciously or subconsciously became less scrupulous -
they were sure they knew who did it.
guys that "did it" where in jail.
being more strict with the standards can only reduce the chance of acquiring very needed "evidence" in those circumstances.

They finally got what they needed, but I'm sure they're aware of the low quality of that evidence.

What's your opinion, CoulsdonUK, deliberate or incompetence, bias and tunnel vision?

 

[Katody Matrass]

For me it is not about how “I feel” but really are these events unusual is there any evidence of deliberate wrong doing; has there ever been the perfect murder investigation, do the police make mistakes

I've seen the argument before - sloppy police work is sufficient, because the defendants are usually guilty.

In case of Guede police mistakes were irrelevant, because there was a smoking gun evidence - fingerprints in blood.

Unfortunately in case of innocents targeted - like Amanda and Raffaele - it means heap of evidence without a single credible piece, some of it already proven to be false, some still under scrutiny, and a heap of falsehoods pushed in place of evidence - like the time of arrival, sweatshirt, shoeprints and so on.

When there's not even single piece that can convict what begins to matter a lot is the big picture and surrounding circumstances. That's why we cannot handwave away all the false evidence pushed by cops, all their blunders, lies and incompetence. The fact that we already have another proven perpetrator who is enough to fill the picture painted by the traces matters a lot, too.

 

[Kaosium]

It might be more satisfying to the defense lawyers to beat Mignini in court than in the public eye. Also, they need to keep working (possibly with him, depending on how things turn out); they know how to maintain their relationships in the legal community.

Charges can still be brought against Frank Sfarzo. Also, the case against the West Seattle Herald might not have been a bluff, it might have been impossible to pursue due to the laws in the United States.

Charges have been filed on Frank, he's apparently accused of assaulting the five 'heroes' of November 6th who knocked on his door. All five of them--brave boy! I wonder if he brutally beat their boots with his face or something, maybe he bled too profusely on them or something.

Hi Mary! I missed you, I'd wondered recently where you'd been!

 

[Antony]

I pop in here from time to time, but see nothing new presented by the usual bunch of Knox supporters. I am somewhat aggrieved by the hostile reception afforded to those who have an opposing and more convincing view of the case. I sometimes feel that there is a "bully-boy" tactic being employed. Whatever. You may wonder why I am posting here, but I owe neither you halides or any of the others an explanation. As for Fuji setting back the pro-guilt position. I think not. I think that you all could learn something fro the likes of Fuji, Coulsdon, Pilot and the others. If nothing else then how to conduct yourselves civilly on an internet forum.

I thank you, and good night!

There seems to be a pattern among pro-guilt posters here (such as Solange and now colonelhall), of arriving with their unsupported assertions, facing robust challenges against their beliefs, failing to respond to the challenges, then retiring in a huff complaining of "rudeness" or other accusations against the other posters here.

All of this is coupled with praise for unspecified contributions from other pro-guilt posters, regardless of the real merits of the arguments presented here.

 

[pilot padron]

There seems to be a pattern among pro-guilt posters here (such as Solange and now colonelhall), of arriving with their unsupported assertions, facing robust challenges against their beliefs, failing to respond to the challenges, then retiring in a huff complaining of "rudeness" or other accusations against the other posters here.

All of this is coupled with praise for unspecified contributions from other pro-guilt posters, regardless of the real merits of the arguments presented here.

Forgive me if your 'argument' about pro guilt patterns makes absolutely no sense whatever.

Surely, since you make such unequivocal dogmatic assertions you are aware of course of what restrictions are place on one's ability to "respond" and to voluntarily "retire in a huff" when one is banned.

FYI, Solange305 was banned on 13dec2010

Now please run that absurd assertion by me again about him/her...
"failing to respond and retiring in a huff complaining of rudeness"

 

[Chris C]

Forgive me if your 'argument' about pro guilt patterns makes absolutely no sense whatever.

Surely, since you make such unequivocal dogmatic assertions you are aware of course of what restrictions are place on one's ability to "respond" and to voluntarily "retire in a huff" when one is banned.

FYI, Solange305 was banned on 13dec2010

Now please run that absurd assertion by me again about him/her...
"failing to respond and retiring in a huff complaining of rudeness"

How do you know Solange305 was banned on 13dec2010? Did i miss the memo? Also did the person you are criticizing use the word, "voluntarily"?

So would you like to discuss the case? In the last 10 or so posts you have stated the following.
1. Pointed out that Solange305 didn't "voluntarily" retire.
2. Blasted someone for providing the answer you asked for.
3. Accused Foaker's of not being able to comprehend the simpliest of things.
4. Stated you believe Mignini was wrongly accused and convicted.(apparently he only accidentily committed the crimes)
5. Flowerly and longwindedly dismissed someones opinion on a matter without giving a reason why.
6. Talked about a book.
7. Insulted people you consider "FOAKer Groupie"
8. A post describing how you already told your opinion in previous posts and no longer wish to discuss it.

Now we all stray off topic or get sidetracked in discussions, including myself. So is there something you would like to discuss thats on topic?
1. Perhaps you could tell me what the time stamp on the video of Meredith supposedly returning home was? I have been looking for that one for awhile.
2. Perhaps you could tell me if there was a light bright enough for Curatolo to read the newspaper while he was watching Knox/Sollecito from his bench?
3. Do you have an opinion on comparing the difficulty of climbing up on the balcony to climbing in through Filomena's window?]
4. If you believe Knox is guilty, then how about an opinion on why you think Knox would say she found the front door open and still believe they would stage a break in by throwing a rock through the window.
5. Do you think the Knife is the murder weapon and how will your opinion on the knife be if the independent review tells the judge the knife wasn't cleaned and no blood was found on it?

There are other things we can discuss if you like.

 

[Danceme]

Alt+F4 and Kestrel,

In addition to Oggi, Ms. Dempsey also cited Paul Ciolino with respect to Nara.

halides1, what Paul Ciolino says about Nara is in direct contradiction to what Frank says in his blog comments, in which he vigorously defends Nara numerous times;

"What? Nara half-deaf and interred (!) in a mental facility? What is this, the supporters' best dream? Absolutely not true."

and,

"When did Oggi publish that, on April 1st?...
Maybe they made a joke to people.
Or someone made a joke to them.

Or it's just the usual wishful thinking...

She's a hear witness and now it comes out that she's almost deaf...
If she was an eyewitness she would have turned almost blind...
If her story implied a walk she would have turned almost paralytic...

Think about that..."

and,

"I saw Nara many times in the last 3 years, last time a couple of days ago.
And she can hear perfectly.
About mental problems, it seems to me that she doesn't have any."

and,

"I've spoken to her last week. As usual we talked again about that night and about the trial.
About that night she told me exactly the same 2 things she always said, she never changed of a comma."

Paul lied and Oggi lied. There's nothing wrong with Nara's hearing. I'm sure you and many others saw her on the show 48 Hours (I think) put together early on.

 

[PhantomWolf]

To repeat the questions which were directed to Antony and are to be honest fairly straight forward:

1: Quote:

Has police misconduct and or misdeeds been raised in either defence submissions or are you expressing an opinion?

2: Quote:

Has any police officer or forensic officer been disciplined in connection to (with) the investigation or trial?

Please point out where questions 1 or 2 where addressed?

Out of curiosity, did you read the information I presented about the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland, Australia?

Previous to that inquiry, there had been numerous allegations of police corruption, and those making the allegations had been sued for slander and had lost everytime. No police officers had been disciplined because of any of the allegations. Does that mean that prior to the Fitzgerald Inquiry, none of the police had been doing anything wrong?

 

[PhantomWolf]

colonelhall,

There is nothing hostile or bullying about anyone's asking you or Fuji to support your views with evidence and/or logical argumentation. Your use of the phrase "more convincing view" above is hardly a model of how to exchange ideas in a civil and cordial manner. The reason I said that you and Fuji have set back the pro-guilt position is that you are not engaging our arguments. Instead you are handwaving them away. Would a previously impartial observer find such arguments convicing? I strongly doubt it. However, should you change your mind and decide to engage your opposition in a dialog in which all views are examined and all commenters are treated with respect, I would welcome your participation.

I can concur with this as that's exactly where I am. I'm still on the fence about if AK and RS are guilty, though I am leaning towards innocent, mostly because I can't get a straight answer from those that support the guilty side. I keep getting fobbed off to go and read the 45k of posts in these threads, or just ignored. I see other questions I'd really like answers to being asked, and again the answers are never given, or statements are made and never backed up with evidence when challenged. One of the few things I have had answered that I asked of those pushing for guilt, was answered with evidence by an innocent supporter. So yes, the way that posters like Pilot, Fuji, and Alt-F4 have been behaving in this thread (and others in the one in the CT Forum) has started to move me towards innocence almost entirely based on the fact that those pushing for innocence can actually produce a plausable and consistant narritive of what likely happened and I have yet to see the same from those pushing guilt.

 

[Mary_H]

If the cops believed they had the right guys yet decided to cut some corners in the investigation is it still framing?

I was wondering the same thing, Katody.

 

[Mary_H]

Charges have been filed on Frank, he's apparently accused of assaulting the five 'heroes' of November 6th who knocked on his door. All five of them--brave boy! I wonder if he brutally beat their boots with his face or something, maybe he bled too profusely on them or something.

Hi Mary! I missed you, I'd wondered recently where you'd been!

Thank you, Kaosium, and Rose and capealadin and others who have PM'd me! What a nice community you all make up here on JREF.

This made me laugh: "I wonder if he brutally beat their boots with his face..."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nara

halides1, what Paul Ciolino says about Nara is in direct contradiction to what Frank says in his blog comments, in which he vigorously defends Nara numerous times;
SNIP
Paul lied and Oggi lied. There's nothing wrong with Nara's hearing. I'm sure you and many others saw her on the show 48 Hours (I think) put together early on.

Danceme,

I am on the fence with respect to Nara because I respect Frank's reporting. However, the discussion about Nara evolved into criticism of Candace Dempsey for supposedly making claims about Nara that were not sourced. Ms. Dempsey made it clear that she had used the Oggi article and Paul Ciolino. The question of sourcing (brought up by Alt+F4, IIRC) was my initial interest. However, even if Nara seems mentally fine to Frank, it is possible that she has become reclusive, as Mr. Ciolino relayed. In other words, I don't think it follows that Oggi and Paul lied about that. Also, Nara could be mentally healthy and of good hearing and her testimony would still be open to question.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Charges have been filed on Frank, he's apparently accused of assaulting the five 'heroes' of November 6th who knocked on his door. All five of them--brave boy! I wonder if he brutally beat their boots with his face or something, maybe he bled too profusely on them or something. <snip>

Kaosium,

They're actually trying to connect him to the cottage break-in. They just never stop inventing scenarios.

 

[Mary_H]

Forgive me if your 'argument' about pro guilt patterns makes absolutely no sense whatever.

Surely, since you make such unequivocal dogmatic assertions you are aware of course of what restrictions are place on one's ability to "respond" and to voluntarily "retire in a huff" when one is banned.

FYI, Solange305 was banned on 13dec2010

Now please run that absurd assertion by me again about him/her...
"failing to respond and retiring in a huff complaining of rudeness"

I have "known" colonelhall for about two years, I think. He and I used to spend a lot of time on The Examiner responding to Spokane lawyer Bill Edelblute's reports. While I enjoy colonelhall's company, I now accept the fact that he is not coming at this discussion from the same direction most of the rest of us are. He seems to think it is about stating one's opinion and leaving it at that. He will never document anything.

Solange started out pretty hostile, but she was in the process of learning how to debate effectively when she was unjustly banned from JREF. She had come from the speech analysis guy's website, following her anger at Chris Halkides and me, which she quickly tempered as she learned more facts about the case. I can't remember now whether she landed first at JREF or PMF, but she was on both for awhile. I was relieved to see that she came to her senses about PMF a couple of months ago.

(I shouldn't say for sure her banning from JREF was unjustified -- who knows, maybe she sent a bad PM to someone like Alt+4.)

 

[Justinian2]

Nobody is stupid enough to totally destroy the contents of three disk drives. Even if you accidentally format the drives, the data can be recovered. If you deliberately remove the partitioning, the data can be recovered. If the disk drive is physically destroyed, the data can be recovered. About the only way to ruin the drives is to run a specialized program or use a magnet. Those drives had to be deliberately destroyed.

If the drives were destroyed, what was the reason? Were Amanda and Raffaele deliberately framed because Mignini or the Vatican had encouraged Guede to be an informer/spy that was to investigate anything Satanic? Certainly if he murdered someone, the Vatican or Mignini would have tried to cover up the situation if they were associated with Guede.
Nobody could be stupid enough to accidentally destroy three hard drives; it takes a deliberate, intelligent effort.

Amanda and Raffaele were deliberately framed and Guede was given favors. Sounds like a cover-up of the Watergate variety. Waterbury’s Watergate this is. All we need now is a deep throat.