Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

It's a pity that nothing has come to light that, in and of itself, is incompatible with guilt. A lot of miscarriages of justice that come to light seem to turn on the discovery of an alibi, or the identification of the real killer (perhaps those are just the ones that get turned into TV movies). I take it the reanalysis of the hard disk/screensaver logs didn't live up to the hype?

I would say that the time of death based on autopsy results is such a thing. In conjunction with the known computer activity data (even so incomplete as it was left after most of that info were destroyed by the cops) and other evidence placing the two at Sollecito's flat around 21:00 - 21:30 it leaves very narrow time window for any sensible murder scenario.

 

[Chris C]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about conspiracy theory. I know most people think this has a lot to do with incompetence more than a conspiracy.

Thats the problem, people mistake conspiracy theory with conspiracy.
Heres the general accepted version of what a conspiracy theory is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Conspiracy is slightly different. Here is a general definition provided by wiki users.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

Conspiracy theories are usually theories that have little evidence to support it and are viewed with skeptism.

Where as there is actual evidence that the prosecutors/police committed conspiracy in this case. Whether its enough to bring them criminal charges or instead let the locals just give them medals and claim the mistakes where accidents are a different story all together.

 

[shuttlt]

Exactly!

More than that we can be pretty sure that none of the important elements of evidence are hidden from the public.
Recently the prosecutor Mignini himself had the opportunity to defend his case in an interview with CNN. In the unabridged version then is available he gave a fairly good compilation of the body of evidence for guilt. Interestingly I found that I'm familiar with basically every piece of that, to the extent that I can arrive at a rational opinion.

Fair enough. It's not that, when left at the mercy of my own powers of analysis, I am completely in disagreement with you. I'm certainly no match for Halides on the DNA and his arguments there are often compelling. It's more that I won't be comfortable with them until they are argued out in court and the prosecution has a chance to give an extended rebuttal. Hopefully that will happen. Probably though we will still be left with the recollections of journalists as to what was said and how convincing it was.

Presumably if the majority view here of the current state of the evidence, that it is damning to the police and absolutely in favor of a not guilty verdict, they will be released and none of this matters.

 

[Dan O.]

Didn't Dan O. have a copy of the screensaver logs? I remember seeing them posted, but haven't been able to relocate them.

All that's been released so far is the statement in Raffaele's appeal that gives a sampling of a few of the event times. I reposted that sample and I believe I also posted an excerpt from my own WindowServer.log file to show the format of those records with timestamps. These posts should be easy enough to find in the thread.

The sample that the defense released on its own does not prove their conclusion. But it is sufficiently detailed that anyone with access to the image of Raffaele's hard drive (of which the prosecution produced multiple copies would have little difficulty verifying the necessary facts. Since these claims are easily falsifiable, yet no refutation has been made, I'll go with their validity.

 

[shuttlt]

I would say that the time of death based on autopsy results is such a thing. In conjunction with the known computer activity data (even so incomplete as it was left after most of that info were destroyed by the cops) and other evidence placing the two at Sollecito's flat around 21:00 - 21:30 it leaves very narrow time window for any sensible murder scenario.

In which case the defence will argue this and in all likelihood they will be released relatively soon.

 

[Chris C]

Wow, this is getting surreal. Accept as in "yes the court reviewed the evidence and found them guilty (or otherwise), fair enough". What did you think I meant?

If we accepted the courts decision we wouldn't be posting here now believing they are innocent. Since nearly all the pro innocence people believe the first court got it wrong, why would they acknowledge the courts got it right. There has been no new evidence produce by the prosecution, just more charges of slander. Where as the prosecutions evidence pile seems to be getting smaller and smaller.(and it was already very tiny to begin with)

 

[shuttlt]

All that's been released so far is the statement in Raffaele's appeal that gives a sampling of a few of the event times. I reposted that sample and I believe I also posted an excerpt from my own WindowServer.log file to show the format of those records with timestamps. These posts should be easy enough to find in the thread.

Thankyou Dan O. That must be what I was remembering.

The sample that the defense released on its own does not prove their conclusion. But it is sufficiently detailed that anyone with access to the image of Raffaele's hard drive (of which the prosecution produced multiple copies would have little difficulty verifying the necessary facts. Since these claims are easily falsifiable, yet no refutation has been made, I'll go with their validity.

Do you mean that the moment for refuting this in the trial has come and gone without the prosecution doing so? My money is still on it being open to more interpretations that the defence suggest. I would gratefully welcome being proved wrong.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's not as if Curatolo was the only thing the prosecution claimed put them near the crime scene. The knife, the bra clasp, the footprints, the mixed blood... I know that many people feel that these have been discredited and I have no intention of defending them, but it's not as if the prosecution actually need somebody to have seen them outside the appartment when they say they were inside. If they can't prove they were inside, and one takes the position that the forensics show that they were there during the murder, then they clearly left the appartment.

The problem is that none of those elements are conclusive, they work only en masse and when you don't inspect them too closely. It's a problem of quantity vs quality and the quality does not look good. Throw out Curatolo and the knife, throw in a few inmates that all will testify Guede told them AK and RS are innocent and it tips the scales even when we look at quantity only.

 

[Kaosium]

Because for AK and RS to be framed, which is what you guys are effectively claiming, would require a conspiracy of widespread proportions. It must just be me, but I find CTs hard to accept.

That's because you don't appear to understand what a conspiracy theory actually is.

Let me put it this way: would it surprise you to find out politicians had made a mistake and then decided to cover it up? Or a corporation really needed to hide something that could prove embarrassing? Or that a military disaster had occurred and they'd decided they didn't want anyone to know? That would be a 'widespread conspiracy' in the strictest sense, but it would hardly require a conspiracy theory.

 

[shuttlt]

The problem is that none of those elements are conclusive, they work only en masse and when you don't inspect them too closely. It's a problem of quantity vs quality and the quality does not look good. Throw out Curatolo and the knife, throw in a few inmates that all will testify Guede told them AK and RS are innocent and it tips the scales even when we look at quantity only.

But it's not meaningful to look at quantity only. Anyway, surely we aren't talking about tipping any scales here? The argument is that they have been obviously innocent for a very long time. I don't see how that view is compatible with saying that the loss of one bit of evidence from the prosecutions case might tip the scales. The question is surely why, given that they have been obviously innocent for so long, they were convicted and whether that state of affairs has changed?

 

[Katody Matrass]

In which case the defence will argue this and in all likelihood they will be released relatively soon.

AFAIK it's one of the highlights of their appeal documents.

 

[shuttlt]

AFAIK it's one of the highlights of their appeal documents.

Glad to hear it.

 

[Chris C]

Until the report is presented in court it's speculation that has been reported as probable. When it is, I'm sure they will explain why they believe it was human activity. It is possible it could be scripted but I suspect that would be detectable. I'm not sure what other ways would deactivate a screen saver shortly after it came on then without leaving an obvious pattern.

Yeah but scripting a computer to give you an alibi is premeditation, and this murder is obviously not premeditated. Even the court accepts that.

 

[Katody Matrass]

But it's not meaningful to look at quantity only. Anyway, surely we aren't talking about tipping any scales here? The argument is that they have been obviously innocent for a very long time. I don't see how that view is compatible with saying that the loss of one bit of evidence from the prosecutions case might tip the scales. The question is surely why, given that they have been obviously innocent for so long, they were convicted and whether that state of affairs has changed?

That's a question of systemic problems in Perugian (or Italian?) judiciary and establishment. If we assume that this time the court will look rationally into the evidence then it's only a matter of time. But we can't be sure of that. If the court will act towards preserving the status quo, then I think the tipping scales effect could be important. Having less and less elements (even dubious ones) to build their case on would pose a problem for them.

 

[shuttlt]

Yeah but scripting a computer to give you an alibi is premeditation, and this murder is obviously not premeditated. Even the court accepts that.

I wouldn't necessarily put any plot twist past this case. It's not as if the pro-innocence folks believe the prosecutions claims about the crime, or indeed those in the motivations report are in any way plausible.

 

[Chris C]

It really does all depend on whether Alessi’s testimony is credible and what the others testify to, also let’s not forget the prosecutions questioning of the witnesses. In addition, whether Aviello testimony complements or contradicts Alessi and others, for varying reasons Guede, Alessi and Aviello all in my opinion have credibility issues.

I totally agree. I think this is more of a ploy to get Guede on the witness stand.

 

[shuttlt]

That's a question of systemic problems in Perugian (or Italian?) judiciary and establishment. If we assume that this time the court will look rationally into the evidence then it's only a matter of time. But we can't be sure of that. If the court will act towards preserving the status quo, then I think the tipping scales effect could be important. Having less and less elements (even dubious ones) to build their case on would pose a problem for them.

I disagree. There is so much material out there that, unless something huge comes up, it will always be possible to construct a half way plausible sounding case in favor of guilt that will not be rebuttable within the space of a newspaper column, or a TV news segment. Look at PMF, it's not as if the folks there (myself excluded of course) would accept that there wasn't a defencible prosecution case. If you stuck skeptical bystander in front of a camera I'm sure she'd be able to talk at length about why Amanda is clearly guilty. Mignini can continue to do the same. You won't be convinced, but that's not the point. If it's about preserving the status quo, what's to stop them?

 

[Chris C]

I disagree. There is so much material out there that, unless something huge comes up, it will always be possible to construct a half way plausible sounding case in favor of guilt that will not be rebuttable within the space of a newspaper column, or a TV news segment. Look at PMF, it's not as if the folks there (myself excluded of course) would accept that there wasn't a defencible prosecution case. If you stuck skeptical bystander in front of a camera I'm sure she'd be able to talk at length about why Amanda is clearly guilty. Mignini can continue to do the same. You won't be convinced, but that's not the point. If it's about preserving the status quo, what's to stop them?

Mignini was put before a camera and failed to talk at length about why Knox/Sollecito are clearly guilty.

 

[lane99]

You're welcome. CTs are not my thing. Sorry.

Unless, apparently, it's a conspiracy concocted by three people who didn't really know each other, to rape and murder the friend of one of the conspirators. All to allow the most complete outsider amongst the three to get his rocks off. Then you're all-in.

Yea, right.

Ah, the lionking franchise wants their name back. Since they like to be known as King of the Jungle, not King of the Bungle.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I disagree. There is so much material out there that, unless something huge comes up, it will always be possible to construct a half way plausible sounding case in favor of guilt that will not be rebuttable within the space of a newspaper column, or a TV news segment. Look at PMF, it's not as if the folks there (myself excluded of course) would accept that there wasn't a defencible prosecution case. If you stuck skeptical bystander in front of a camera I'm sure she'd be able to talk at length about why Amanda is clearly guilty. Mignini can continue to do the same. You won't be convinced, but that's not the point. If it's about preserving the status quo, what's to stop them?

You're right that the prospects are not very encouraging. As a fact we must mostly count on Hellmann's principles and honesty. And there's the perspective of another appeal and then european courts. It's not like new pieces of evidence for guilt will emerge, and carving away even small bits will force the court to write a motivation report even more absurd then the first one. Will Hellmann risk it? All of this under public scrutiny and interest of media that are more critical this time.