Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

A couple of posts at gritsforbreakfast.blogspot emphasize the need to preserve DNA evidence properly. The latest person to be exonerated was found not guilty on the basis of retesting DNA evidence that was at least 27 years old. Allowing a major piece of evidence (the bra clasp) to rust and rot is either fecklessness or worse.

This is the basis of another false and misleading refrain from many of the pro-guilt commentators. They try to equate the inexplicable 47-day delay in retrieving the bra clasp (and other key items) from the dirty and contaminated floor of the cottage with DNA on items that are tested after decades in storage. The difference, of course, is that the latter items were almost certainly collected and bagged in a timely and correct manner. Once they are properly bagged in a sterile environment, they can be stored for an almost unlimited period of time before being retested, and the results of any retest can be relied upon.

In contrast, many of the key evidence items in the Kercher case were either incorrectly collected, incorrectly stored, left in a contaminated (and clearly heavily disturbed) environment for some six weeks, or a combination of some or all of the above. Any one of the above mistakes will reduce the reliability of subsequent DNA testing; for those items where most or all of these mistakes were made, the reliability is likely reduced far below that required for any sort of proof.

And yes, the sheer fact that the police forensics "experts" (presumably from the "gold standard" lab of Stefanoni) stored the bra clasp in an unsuitable container that was airtight and watertight (and which therefore made the clasp rust and rot) can only be explained by one of two reasons: sheer negligence and incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence. Needless to say, neither of these alternatives reflects particularly well on the police...

 

[bri1]

Having read the several rather frantic but unimpressive 'rebuttals' to my original post; my primary reply is a respectful request to just re-read (slowly) the simple easy to follow parameters I painstakingly laid out as a parameter to my statement.

This, since to the letter, nearly every rebuttal remarkably but expectedly fulfilled my expectations and deliberately directly violated one or more (some 'rebuttals violated *all*) of the simple easy to follow parameters I painstakingly laid out.

Possibly the only replies that were exceptions to the above violations, are in themselves the best argument that my original statement was correct.

The exception (and usual, expected echo from loyal disciple) to which I direct the remainder of this reply:





Notwithstanding the usual self anointed supernatural powers implied to be posessed so as to be able to discern, declare and debate "what another person *meant* to say; this is in itself a prima facie perfect persuasion that what the person *did* say was incorrect...and viola...that indeed was simply my totally correctly stated point.

In closing, the statement is irrefutable....one or more people *did* call Amanda Knox a pathological liar. (and some of course called her much worse)

Live with it.

OK so, (and I might never get the opportunity to say this again) but I agree with Pilot! Insofaras he is correct that one or more people did call Amanda Knox a pathological liar.

However Mary H's original post stating that she hadn't heard of one single person calling Amanda a pathological liar was in response to your comment "she has been called by many who came in contact with her before during and after her unanimous conviction, as a being a classic pathological liar."

It's true that many people called Amanda a liar "before, during and after" the verdict of the first court. But considering who did call her that, these facts have no bearing (or should have no bearing) on whether we think she is guilty or innocent. They are uninteresting facts because they have no probative value until backed up by evidence. (Live with that! The original confusion probably arose because posters assumed that you were trying to make a RELEVANT point.)

However it is NOT true that anyone called Amanda a liar before her arrest. Or that anyone who came into contact with Amanda before the murder said she was a liar.

The police calling Amanda a liar is not proof that Amanda is a liar, especially when you consider most of the 'lies' Amanda told (according to the police) later turned out to be truths, and when you consider that if they didn’t call her a liar they’d be admitting wrong-doing (with the statements regarding the interrogation).

Patrick’s lawyer, and some random person (?) blogging about Patrick (and again, after she was arrested and charged), calling Amanda a liar isn’t evidence that Amanda is a liar. It’s due to (in both cases) an ignorant non-understanding of the relevant psychological facts (about false confession syndrome), and (in the former case) having an axe to grind.

The police / prosecution were supposed to prove that Amanda was a liar, so they can’t use as evidence their own statements that she was a liar! It’s the evidentiary equivalent of ‘begging the question’! If they could document the ‘lies’ then that documentation would count as evidence, but they couldn’t and haven’t. Similarly, when we are trying to judge whether Amanda is innocent or guilty, we can’t just take the police / prosecutions word for it that she’s a liar.

If anything the fact that the police were happy to make prejudicial remarks about Amanda in public before her conviction is evidence of their own ‘bad character’ and less likely to believe them!

BTW, the Daily Mail themselves call Amanda a liar (not quoting anyone) and I hope when she is acquitted she sues them. Hard.

 

[Rhea]

Having read the several rather frantic but unimpressive 'rebuttals' to my original post; my primary reply is a respectful request to just re-read (slowly) the simple easy to follow parameters I painstakingly laid out as a parameter to my statement.

This, since to the letter, nearly every rebuttal remarkably but expectedly fulfilled my expectations and deliberately directly violated one or more (some 'rebuttals violated *all*) of the simple easy to follow parameters I painstakingly laid out.

Possibly the only replies that were exceptions to the above violations, are in themselves the best argument that my original statement was correct.

The exception (and usual, expected echo from loyal disciple) to which I direct the remainder of this reply:

First I want to point out "pilot padron" that I was capable of attacking the argument not the person, whilst you went right into character assassination mode. I'm not a loyal disciple of LondonJohn nor anyone elses. Concerning this case I have disagreed with people from the innocent side on several occasions and was never afraid to say so, I happened to agree in this case, which as you can imagine simply tends to happen if you are debating on the same side.

Notwithstanding the usual self anointed supernatural powers implied to be posessed so as to be able to discern, declare and debate "what another person *meant* to say; this is in itself a prima facie perfect persuasion that what the person *did* say was incorrect...and viola...that indeed was simply my totally correctly stated point.

In closing, the statement is irrefutable....one or more people *did* call Amanda Knox a pathological liar. (and some of course called her much worse)

Live with it.

Note again the dismissive tone in your post.

Yes, you are right, the statement that Mary H. made was factually wrong, people did call Amanda a pathological liar, but I thought it was just so painfully obvious that she didn't mean the people who only knew Amanda after she was accused of murder, since it certainly didn't come as a surprise for Mary that people like Mignini would and did call her that (that's what their case consists of mostly; "Amanda is a liar" a "manipulator" we all know that).

Well, Mary H. can correct me if I'm wrong in that assessment … What I think is, if it is so obvious what somebody meant, it can be pure sophistry to react purely technical; somebody did call her a liar, fully aware that this is not what she meant …

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic bias

This is the basis of another false and misleading refrain from many of the pro-guilt commentators. They try to equate the inexplicable 47-day delay in retrieving the bra clasp (and other key items) from the dirty and contaminated floor of the cottage with DNA on items that are tested after decades in storage. The difference, of course, is that the latter items were almost certainly collected and bagged in a timely and correct manner. Once they are properly bagged in a sterile environment, they can be stored for an almost unlimited period of time before being retested, and the results of any retest can be relied upon.

LondonJohn,

The fact that the clasp had been moved and was dirtier was bad enough. However, a more insidious problem is that when one collects items of evidence after the suspects have been arrested, one opens up the possibility of unconscious investigator bias affecting the results. As I have discussed before, the wrong way to analyze an electropherogram is with the suspect's reference profile in hand. Investigator bias also applies to other types of evidence. Roger Koppl gave a good example in his article "CSI for real."

 

[babycondor]

First I want to point out "pilot padron" that I was capable of attacking the argument not the person, whilst you went right into character assassination mode. ...

Note again the dismissive tone in your post.

...if it is so obvious what somebody meant, it can be pure sophistry to react purely technical...

Excellent points. Relying on such weak techniques (attacking the person, being dismissive, nit-picking sophistry) then gloating about his/her superiority is pitiful, but I guess it's a life for some.

Yes PP you were technically correct. Here's a medal for you.

​

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on grooming and fashion

Exactly. Both Amanda and Raffaele have looked pretty sharp so far. I am a little bit more on the fence for Raffaele, however. His last haircut was a mistake, in my opinion. The big question is if he has since decided to let his hair grow back out. We will have to wait for the next hearing to find out.

RoseMontague,
Anonymous commenter Zorba wrote, “Yes and you mention narcissism again Stint, look at Sollecito, what does he do after months and months of prison life? He walks into court as though he thinks he is on a Milanese catwalk showing off his awful new haircut, the other times he was always definitely enjoying having one of his own shirts on, with the little crocodiles, showing, in his mind, I have money, I am well off, I am worthy, I am valuable, I am not this, I am not the pauper, I have power.” So it looks as if we have some agreement about the haircut.

MaryH,
Apparently it is not just the colors but also the little crocodiles that can send a message. In this context I recall that one of the three indicted Duke lacrosse players, David Evans, spent some time with his father choosing the right shirt on the day that he gave a statement to the press (which was also the day of his arrest). He did not want to look too preppy. Is there a study showing whether or not a color or style of shirt or dress that influence the jury in a subliminal way?

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

The fact that the clasp had been moved and was dirtier was bad enough. However, a more insidious problem is that when one collects items of evidence after the suspects have been arrested, one opens up the possibility of unconscious investigator bias affecting the results. As I have discussed before, the wrong way to analyze an electropherogram is with the suspect's reference profile in hand. Investigator bias also applies to other types of evidence. Roger Koppl gave a good example in his article "CSI for real."

I absolutely concur. The award-nominated New Scientist article that I linked to some months ago made the very same point; it also goes further to argue that having crime scene DNA analysed by labs affiliated to police forces introduces its own form of institutionalised bias, and as a result it suggests that independent labs should be far more widely used:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...nce-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html?full=true

Of course, one could argue that when police/prosecutors analyse DNA many years (sometimes decades) after the crime in a "cold case" review, they are often looking for evidence of specific suspects who might have been under suspicion at the time of the crime but who escaped prosecution due to lack of evidence. In such instances, the bias you've alluded to might apply, but it's by definition somewhat unavoidable in such situations. In the Kercher case, it was most definitely avoidable.

 

[LondonJohn]

RoseMontague,
Anonymous commenter Zorba wrote, “Yes and you mention narcissism again Stint, look at Sollecito, what does he do after months and months of prison life? He walks into court as though he thinks he is on a Milanese catwalk showing off his awful new haircut, the other times he was always definitely enjoying having one of his own shirts on, with the little crocodiles, showing, in his mind, I have money, I am well off, I am worthy, I am valuable, I am not this, I am not the pauper, I have power.” So it looks as if we have some agreement about the haircut.

MaryH,
Apparently it is not just the colors but also the little crocodiles that can send a message. In this context I recall that one of the three indicted Duke lacrosse players, David Evans, spent some time choosing the right shirt on the day that he gave a statement to the press (which was the day of his arrest). He did not want to look too preppy. Is there a study showing whether or not a color or style of shirt or dress that influence the jury in a subliminal way?

Is he referring to the Lacoste logo? Regardless, I would argue that the inane - and often utterly bizarre - ramblings of Zorba are not even worth discussing. In my view (s)he has issues that preclude him/her from being a worthwhile participant in this debate.

I haven't ever come across any kind of study (whether well-conducted or purely anecdotal) which has examined the effect of clothing worn by a defendant on the probability of being found guilty or not guilty. And I suspect that the reason for this is that it is virtually impossible to qualify, far less quantify, this phenomenon. After all, each trial is different, with different evidence and circumstances and different judges/juries, so making comparisons or finding control elements would be near-impossible.

However, it would seem logical to a reasonable person that a defendant's dress can have a material effect on a jury's opinion of him/her. But whether it can subliminally persuade any jury members to switch from an opinion of non-guilt to guilt (or vice versa) is the moot point. Of course, most judicial systems allow for defendants to wear whatever clothing they want when they stand trial - even if they are prisoners at the time of the trial. We are all familiar of TV footage of people in smart suits during a murder trial (when they would likely have been remanded in custody before and during the trial), then when they return for sentencing, they are outfitted in prison uniforms. This, in a way, is tacit acknowledgement that juries are likely to be subliminally less well-disposed to a defendant if they see him/her in front of them in prison garb.

 

[Kaosium]

Notwithstanding the usual self anointed supernatural powers implied to be posessed so as to be able to discern, declare and debate "what another person *meant* to say; this is in itself a prima facie perfect persuasion that what the person *did* say was incorrect...and viola...that indeed was simply my totally correctly stated point.

In closing, the statement is irrefutable....one or more people *did* call Amanda Knox a pathological liar. (and some of course called her much worse)

Live with it.

Indeed they did, and I'm not going to play semantic games, that's no fun, and your underlying point would still stand: a number of people did say that Amanda Knox was not entirely truthful and suggested it was a facet of her personality. However, in my world, that doesn't make it true and if not reflects on the people that said it. That's why I think the most interesting exercise here is determining where the police were simply...mistaken, and where they might have been going beyond the bounds of propriety in order to achieve some 'greater good.'

I posted, with evidence, a number of the things that the police produced that supposedly were 'evidence' of Amanda Knox being a congenital liar. That turned out not to be the case, thus don't you suppose it important to examine how those errors in judgment were made?

 

[Draca]

I use to hear that Amanda said '**** Happens' to one of Meredith's English friends. I remember reading a comment on an article from someone who was supposedly the girls father about this.

Does anyone know the origins of this story? Which English friend is it said to have been and when did it happen?

I've never seen that comment confirmed or dismissed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Daily Fail

The fact that they would stoop to entering a Daily Mail article into the official record as well as call witnesses regarding her underwear purchases suggests if they could find anyone who would say Amanda was a liar they'd have definitely put them on the stand. They couldn't.

Another excellent comment. The Daily Mail wrote:
Quote
"It was, according to one party guest, "bedlam, with drink, drugs and bodies everywhere.
"Some people were naked inside the bedrooms.
"There were people draped over each other.
"I've been to a lot of student parties in my time, but I've never been to a party like that.
"Everyone just wanted to get drunk, get high and get laid. There was also a lot of violence because everyone was so pumped up."
Endquote
I then checked out the photograph of the party that accompanied the text, and I was shocked and disappointed that it looked like a tame-to-moderate undergraduate party. Where was all of that promised debauchery?

 

[Fine]

I kinda doubt this for the following reasons:

1. Why did it then take three hours to get their first breakthrough? If Amanda came into the 'interview' prepossessed with notions of Patrick's guilt, it shouldn't have taken that long to get her to crack.

_______________

Kaosium,

Good point. Even better if true. I can't tell from Amanda's testimony just when she "cracked" and started singin' like a bird. It was about three hours into her interrogation that she signed her first DECLARATION, 1:45am. For all I know, at that time, she'd been singin' her new tune for a couple hours. Did Amanda, Napoleoni, Mignini, or any others present, ever say just when Amanda cracked?

///

 

[katy_did]

_______________

Kaosium,

Good point. Even better if true. I can't tell from Amanda's testimony just when she "cracked" and started singin' like a bird. It was about three hours into her interrogation that she signed her first DECLARATION, 1:45am. For all I know, at that time, she'd been singin' her new tune for a couple hours. Did Amanda, Napoleoni, Mignini, or any others present, ever say just when Amanda cracked?

///

I'm not sure what the police said about it, but legally they should have halted the interrogation as soon as Amanda "cracked" and admitted to being present, since from that point she was a suspect but didn't have a lawyer. So either she had been interrogated for three hours before the police got their 'break-through', or they continued to interrogate her illegally after she became a suspect. Take your pick.

 

[Dan O.]

Fine, are you suggesting that there could have been even more police mis-conduct that night? Under Itialan law, when a witness makes aa statement indicating their guilt, the interview is to be immediately stopped and the witness informed of their new status as a suspect. How long do you suppose the police continued to question her after they knew that her status had officially changed?


ETA: I would think that even having Amanda sign the statement after becoming a suspect would constitute illegal interrogation without the presence of a lawyer but this appears to be business as usuall for the Italian authorities.

 

[Fuji]

The ground under the window was never carefully investigated and or documented .

On what basis do you assert this claim?

 

[Diastole]

I use to hear that Amanda said '**** Happens' to one of Meredith's English friends. I remember reading a comment on an article from someone who was supposedly the girls father about this.

Does anyone know the origins of this story? Which English friend is it said to have been and when did it happen?

I've never seen that comment confirmed or dismissed.

The comment surfaced in a Dec. 13, 2009 letter, written in response to an article by Barbara Ellen in the Observer titled " The Persecution of Amanda Knox Goes On". The letter writer identifies himself. His name is does not immediately associate him to any of Kercher's friends who testified. I am unaware if his comments have been confirmed.

 

[spartacus]

This just in.

 

[lionking]

Hi stipilot!

Are you accusing pilot of being sock puppet?

 

[RWVBWL]

Hello everyone,
Does anyone know if Frank Sfarzo will still continue writing and reporting on his old blog, Perugia Shock?

It has been resurrected here:
http://perugiashock.com/

 

[LondonJohn]

Are you accusing pilot of being sock puppet?

Just a slip of the keyboard

I am certain that pilot does not post on other forums under a different user name, far less use those forums to attack JREF posters by name. I'm absolutely 100% certain of that....