Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

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

Was that what he was asked to do? Was he forced to concede that there was no prosecution case? If he's got enough stuff to talk about that he doesn't have to concede that he doesn't have a case, why can't he maintain the status quo? It's not as if any failings there may have been in his responses have had an impact on the world is it? How many people who aren't in any case obsessed with the case are aware of anything more than the most highly edited snippets, representative or otherwise? How will an interview like this persuade him to abandon the status quo?

 

[tsig]

I'm not asking you to accept my conclusion, in fact if you did that you'd just be swapping one person telling you want to believe for another. I want you to think about what you believe and why you believe it, then read up on the evidence and learn it for yourself. If you don't understand something go and look it up in a book or a journal or even in the internet if you can find a reliable site. Learn and come to a conclusion based on your own learning. Don't accept what LondonJohn says, or Bruce Fisher, or Alt-F4, or those that write at PMF or TJMK or any of the other places. Look at them sure, note their questions sure, but then go and find out the answers yourself and see who is telling the truth and who isn't.

At that point you can start thinking for yourself and determine how the evidence stands up, whether it really meets the standard of proving the Prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Only when you have done that should you really make up your mind. Then if you still think AK and RS are guilty, at least you'll have the evidence to back up your statement.

At the moment I am still looking through the evidence. I'd love someone that knows the guilt side better to help with that, but no one is volunteering on that one, and the fact that I can't pin down a timeline of the murder that makes sense based on the prosecution's claims is extremely troubling to me, hence why I still side with innocent. If these things get resolved for me to the point where I have no more reasonable doubts, I'll happily go with guilty.

Which are just someone else's opinion on the case. When are you going to stop accepting other people's opinions?


Obviously you do because you are resistant to doing it.

First you demand s/he study and read books then you chastise her/him for it.

 

[shuttlt]

You're right that the prospects are not very encouraging. As a fact we must mostly count on Hellmann's principles and honesty.

I'm sure we can both agree to hope that Hellmann is principled and honest.

And there's the perspective of another appeal and then european courts.

If indeed the status quo thing is what is happening then the european courts would seem like a hopeful angle.

It's not like new pieces of evidence for guilt will emerge,

One never quite knows what Rudy will say if he does take the stand.

and carving away even small bits will force the court to write a motivation report even more absurd then the first one.

Clearly in the absence of any other strategy, carving away is all you can do. Again though, the pro-innocent crowd seemed to me to view the motivations report as a laughable nonsense. Has that had any impact on the world? Not enough people can be bothered to read it for it to matter.

Will Hellmann risk it? All of this under public scrutiny and interest of media that are more critical this time.

I imagine in Italy they can't be short of people prepared to get Mignini or Massei for their own political advantage. In my limited experience, it is quite an exciting country in that way.

 

[Justinian2]

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.

It's very hard to come up with an alibi. Amanda and Raffaele both had great alibis. Amanda's alibi was Raffaele. Raffaele's alibi was Amanda.

Or, by using the fallacious logic so typical of the un-bright, since Raffaele was with Amanda they were both guilty.

By using more fallacious logic so typical of the un-bright, since Amanda was said to have met Guede, Amanda was guilty.

 

[lane99]

...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...

I'll suggest you're missing a distinction which is quite important to have kept in mind. Which is that between direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

If Curatolo is the only (or considered to be the strongest) DIRECT evidence in the prosection's case, then bringing it into question significantly changes the equation.

For example, since there are reasonable alternative explanations for it, the boyfriend's dna supposedly being on the bra clasp does not necessarily put him at the crime scene AT THE TIME of the murder. Anymore than it puts the other persons' dna that was found on the clasp at the crime scene at the time of the murder.

FWIW.

Meanwhile, when you say "mixed blood", I wonder what you are referring to? I'd heard that mentioned before, but thought it has been established that this was a trumped up exaggeration.

 

[Katody Matrass]

One never quite knows what Rudy will say if he does take the stand.

I'd love to see him taking stand. Whether he'll repeat the "date" story or produce something else, he will have to answer some tough questions. I think the likely outcome would be casting even more doubt on some of the prosecution's evidence.

Clearly in the absence of any other strategy, carving away is all you can do. Again though, the pro-innocent crowd seemed to me to view the motivations report as a laughable nonsense. Has that had any impact on the world? Not enough people can be bothered to read it for it to matter.

The higher courts will have to read and address it.

I imagine in Italy they can't be short of people prepared to get Mignini or Massei for their own political advantage. In my limited experience, it is quite an exciting country in that way.

That's a good point. The statistics of overturned verdicts can be encouraging, too. And interestingly the current prosecutor is amazingly low profile, leaving all the spotlight to Mignini and Maresca.

 

[shuttlt]

It's very hard to come up with an alibi. Amanda's alibi was Raffaele. Raffaele's alibi was Amanda.

Or, by using the fallacious logic so typical of the un-bright, since Raffaele was with Amanda they were both guilty.

It's not hard to come up with an alibi. It's just that they don't have one. The only time their alibi, such as it isn't, would matter is if you were able to convince a court that one of them was present during the murder/somewhere else. At that point the other one is immediately in trouble/has an alibi.

 

[shuttlt]

I'll suggest you're missing a distinction which is quite important to have kept in mind. Which is that between direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

If Curatolo is the only (or considered to be the strongest) DIRECT evidence in the prosection's case, then bringing it into question significantly changes the equation.

The distinction between direct an indirect evidence doesn't bother me terribly. One can believe or disbelieve the witness, one can believe or disbelieve the DNA.

For example, since there are reasonable alternative explanations for it, the boyfriend's dna supposedly being on the bra clasp does not necessarily put him at the crime scene AT THE TIME of the murder. Anymore than it puts the other persons' dna that was found on the clasp at the crime scene at the time of the murder.

There are alternatives to Curatolo's claims as well whether or not his evidence is direct. He could be wrong, confused, lying....

Meanwhile, when you say "mixed blood", I wonder what you are referring to? I'd heard that mentioned before, but thought it has been established that this was a trumped up exaggeration.

I make no claims. Mixed blood gets mentioned every once in a while. I think there was a recent PMF post that mentioned those words. A thousand years ago there was a lot of talk about how Amanda's ear piercing was dripping blood all over. Then there was talk about Amanda's DNA just being surface dust/contamination on top of the blood. Like I say, I make no claims about it, it was one inconsequential item in a list.

 

[Dan O.]

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


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.

The statement of facts presented in the appeal are undoubtably true. There is no benefit to making such claims in official documents to the court that can be easily proven false. The interpretation of these facts might be disputed and that is why the defense would ask for an independent expert to analyze the data instead of just presenting their claim in court, having the prosecution present an opposite claim and letting the judge choose who to believe.

 

[shuttlt]

I'd love to see him taking stand. Whether he'll repeat the "date" story or produce something else, he will have to answer some tough questions. I think the likely outcome would be casting even more doubt on some of the prosecution's evidence.

So far as I can see, it depends what the truth is that Rudy is concealing. If it's that he is the lone killer, or was there with someone else... I would have thought he will come across very badly and it will look good for Amanda and Raffaele. If he has been holding off on dropping them in it and that is indeed what happened, then it probably won't be so good for them.

The higher courts will have to read and address it.

For sure. If there is insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict and the higher courts perceive this then they will certainly reject the judgements of the lower courts.

That's a good point. The statistics of overturned verdicts can be encouraging, too. And interestingly the current prosecutor is amazingly low profile, leaving all the spotlight to Mignini and Maresca.

I would keep a low profile too, regardless of whether I thought the case was winnable. Who wants the kind of attention he'd get if he stuck his head above the parapet. All of a sudden the Internet would be awash with all kind of unpleasant things about him. Considerably less so while the comments section of PerugiaShock is closed down of course.

 

[Justinian2]

It's not hard to come up with an alibi. It's just that they don't have one. The only time their alibi, such as it isn't, would matter is if you were able to convince a court that one of them was present during the murder/somewhere else. At that point the other one is immediately in trouble/has an alibi.

It is hard to come up with an alibi any better than the one Raffaele and Amanda had. Can you find an alibi to explain your where abouts yesterday? I was with my woman. That's as good as it gets on weekends around home.

If Amanda were in Seattle, that would have been a perfect alibi.

Anybody can be found to be guilty, the innocent just take a little longer.

 

[tsig]

What part do supporters of Knox/Sollecito claim is a conspiracy? When you answer that question ask yourself is their evidence that the particular event/events happened.

For Example:

Did the Prosecutor use the media to bash Knox/Sollecito image? This is something that wasn't done on accident. This did happen and the prosecutor and his office actively used the media to help produce a favorable result in court. You can and deny this particular thing happened, but deep down you know it did happen. Since your defense against the argument that a conspiracy of widespread proportions didn't happen because you find it hard to believe doesn't really cut it. Maybe you could explain why it doesn't cut it.

So you're saying that a conspiracy of widespread proportions did happen?

 

[Magister]

G8 Genoa police trials

Probably nothing. Did you see the link I posted earlier?

Absolutely horrific.
Surprised no-one here has commented on this.
Here is a report of the appeal court trial verdict:
A high level cover up;
25 of the 27 policemen were convicted but no prison sentences were served as legal time constraints had expired.
Note that they had all been acquitted at the first trial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/19/g8-italian-police-sentenced

 

[shuttlt]

The statement of facts presented in the appeal are undoubtably true. There is no benefit to making such claims in official documents to the court that can be easily proven false. The interpretation of these facts might be disputed and that is why the defense would ask for an independent expert to analyze the data instead of just presenting their claim in court, having the prosecution present an opposite claim and letting the judge choose who to believe.

To rephrase, I assume their concrete claims accurately represent what they believe they have. It is the interpretation that I assume will turn out to be less certain. As for the prosecution, I assume they will say something in response.

 

[shuttlt]

It is hard to come up with an alibi any better than the one Raffaele and Amanda had. Can you find an alibi to explain your where abouts yesterday? I was with my woman. That's as good as it gets on weekends around home.

Everyone else managed it. As you say though, it is by no means indicative of anything that they aren't able to do so. Innocent people I am sure very frequently have weak alibi's or none at all. Is anybody claiming that them not having a good alibi shows that they're guilty? Its just that it's no help in showing that they aren't guilty, or undermining the claims that they are.

If Amanda were in Seattle, that would have been a perfect alibi.

If Amanda were in Seattle and the police thought she and her boyfriend were involved in a murder, they would take her and her boyfriends word for it as to their location during the crime? It would be a rubbish alibi in Seattle just as it's a rubbish alibi in Perugia. Again, not Amanda and Raffaele's fault, but it's still a rubbish alibi.

Anybody can be found to be guilty, the innocent just take a little longer.

Some innocent people have good alibis. I imagine they take much longer to find guilty than innocent people with rubbish alibis.

 

[Katody Matrass]

So far as I can see, it depends what the truth is that Rudy is concealing. If it's that he is the lone killer, or was there with someone else... I would have thought he will come across very badly and it will look good for Amanda and Raffaele. If he has been holding off on dropping them in it and that is indeed what happened, then it probably won't be so good for them.

So far he dropped them in anyway and the defence had no chance to confront him about it. There is the big problem of the evidence in the murder room which points solely to Guede as perpetrator. He'll need a hell of a story to explain it away and put AK and RS in the picture somehow. It's hard to come out with such without contradicting some of the prosecution's findings.

I would keep a low profile too, regardless of whether I thought the case was winnable. Who wants the kind of attention he'd get if he stuck his head above the parapet. All of a sudden the Internet would be awash with all kind of unpleasant things about him. Considerably less so while the comments section of PerugiaShock is closed down of course.

Fair point, but wouldn't he mind taking some credit if the case is a clear cut win? It's possible the attention of bloggers is not of such concern as the stink that surrounds the case and seems to come out of the local questura.

 

[RoseMontague]

To rephrase, I assume their concrete claims accurately represent what they believe they have. It is the interpretation that I assume will turn out to be less certain. As for the prosecution, I assume they will say something in response.

Sometimes it is really hard to determine the truth of these things. For example are the experts "calling for maximum collaboration", as Vogt and Nadeau report or are they saying they "received maximum cooperation" as TGcom reports? To me the first makes more sense than the second because we know the judge had to fire off a fax to Stefanoni to get the first things they asked for and now that they want more it would seem natural for them to say can we get this promptly this time?

I noticed you mentioned the mixed blood. It seems to be a favorite phrase of the Machine's despite it not being adopted in the courts ruling but is mentioned in Darkness Descending. Mignini also calls it mixed blood in 3 different interviews now. There is an interesting comment on this from a DNA consultant's blog:

If a stain that is identified to contain human blood contains a mixture of DNA from multiple individuals, there is no way to positively determine if in fact there were multiple bleeders. A DNA result looks the same for any type of cellular material. A principle that can be used to frame possible interpretations is that we know that blood has a high level of DNA in it. So, if there is an apparent mixture of two individuals, and one of the individuals is present at a very high level while the other one is minute, there are at least two possible explanations (neither of which are necessarily more likely). 1: There is a lot of blood from one person mixed with a small amount of blood from a second person or 2: The major DNA donor was bleeding and the blood was deposited on an area that contained a trace DNA component from a second individual (e.g. saliva, perspiration, touch DNA). Another issue is that there is no way to determine if both sources of DNA were deposited in/on the stain at the same time.

http://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpr...-surrounding-the-amanda-knox-case/#comment-12

 

[Dan O.]

It's not hard to come up with an alibi. It's just that they don't have one. The only time their alibi, such as it isn't, would matter is if you were able to convince a court that one of them was present during the murder/somewhere else. At that point the other one is immediately in trouble/has an alibi.

What kind of alibi can someone that stayed home all night easily come up with? It would be easy if you know in advance that you are going to need one to arrange some circumstance to show you were in a location incompatible with being at the crime scene. Even after the fact, one could for instance go out dancing so as to be seen in public and lend credence to the idea that they were dancing all night. But if you are just at home and no visitors happen to stop by, too bad.

 

[lane99]

The distinction between direct an indirect evidence doesn't bother me terribly...

If you understood the difference, and the significance of the difference, you would bother with it. Assuming you have an interest in the underlying truth behind any criminal charge, that is.

...One can believe or disbelieve the witness, one can believe or disbelieve the DNA...

This sentence suggests you don't understand the difference, and, more crucially, the significance of it.

 

[quadraginta]

I'll suggest you're missing a distinction which is quite important to have kept in mind. Which is that between direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence. If Curatolo is the only (or considered to be the strongest) DIRECT evidence in the prosection's case, then bringing it into question significantly changes the equation.
For example, since there are reasonable alternative explanations for it, the boyfriend's dna supposedly being on the bra clasp does not necessarily put him at the crime scene AT THE TIME of the murder. Anymore than it puts the other persons' dna that was found on the clasp at the crime scene at the time of the murder.

FWIW.

Meanwhile, when you say "mixed blood", I wonder what you are referring to? I'd heard that mentioned before, but thought it has been established that this was a trumped up exaggeration.

Are you suggesting that direct evidence is fundamentally more significant than circumstantial evidence, or merely that it is in this particular instance?

Either would be mistaken, but it isn't clear what your meaning is.