Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

Joe - put it down. It (that report readin') aint for you.

0%? No chance whatsoever? What makes you come to that conclusion?



Of course I will, after all it's your opinion!



I'm certain he can, however that doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it as well...

See above

 

[Kaosium]

See above

Oh, I know what it says there too...

That's not what I'm getting at. You're aware that not everything said at trial got mentioned in the report, right?

Considering there's this report and others that indicate that Stefanoni did say that, or that the prosecution was going to argue it, what makes you think it impossible that Stefanoni said that and Massei instead 'accepted' the defense consultant's views?

 

[platonov]

Hey Stef - where you goin' with that rock in your hand.

Oh, I know what it says there too...
That's not what I'm getting at. You're aware that not everything said at trial got mentioned in the report, right?

Considering there's this report and others that indicate that Stefanoni did say that, or that the prosecution was going to argue it, what makes you think that it impossible that Stefanoni said that and Massei instead 'accepted' the defense consultant's views?

Really ?
Really !

ps As a foreigner - How does one ? in written english (with no recourse to tone) differentiate between really as is 'no way' and really as in 'obviously'.

 

[Kaosium]

'he hath loosed the fateful lightning...'

Really ?

Indeed, Massei says in there twice that you cannot tell that, one other passage is ambiguous, which in a tangential way is why we're chatting about this now...

So, what do you think the odds are now that Stefanoni said their blood mixed in court and Massei didn't put that in his report, but chose another tack?

ETA: I'd put an exclamation point behind the one you intended as 'obviously.'

 

[platonov]

'Long live the indissoluble union of the working class...'

Indeed, Massei says in there twice that you cannot tell that, one other passage is ambiguous, which in a tangential way is why we're chatting about this now...

So, what do you think the odds are now that Stefanoni said their blood mixed in court and Massei didn't put that in his report, but chose another tack?

I 'really' dont know

ETA : очевидно

 

[Kaosium]

'La raison tonne en son cratère'

I 'really' dont know

ETA : очевидно

Really?!

You were so sure just a little while ago, what happened?

 

[LondonJohn]

What people are referring to here as the hilt is actually the guard. As I understand it, it is difficult, when stabbing a person or animal, to prevent the hand from sliding onto the blade if there is no guard, regardless of experience.

Well, there's a blurred area between the definition of "hilt" and "guard". A guard is more akin to the sort of hemispherical protector that separates a fencing foil's blade from its handle. But I take your point. And I also agree that unless there is a very pronounced hilt, or a guard, the hand is liable to slide onto the blade when the blade encounters resistance - especially if the handle has been lubricated by blood.

PS: Note to SB (I know that for some ridiculous haughty reason she pretends that she doesn't read here, but of course that's nonsense), the etymology of the word "misogyny" is from the Greek roots "gyne" (woman) and....... "misos" (hatred). Not "miso" (half). D'oh! (oh, I see she's already been corrected elsewhere...)

 

[LondonJohn]

I've heard of knives penetrating the thickest part of the skull with a savage blow. That Meredith's little neck could have offered any resistance at all to a knife like that is more the question.

You're correct in your argument that a heavy well-made blade can indeed penetrate thick bone if used with enough force. But that's not the issue here - the issue is one of the deceleration of the blade when it encounters significant resistance. It's the deceleration that would cause the hand to move towards the blade. Nobody's suggested that the knife wouldn't continue its forward motion into the denser material - only that it would do so at a slower velocity.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Good to see Frank is back.

So the heroes of November 6 got themselves another round of medals. Just as their precious case is visibly coming apart. Looks desperate to me. And quite disgusting TBH.

 

[yeti101]

yeti101,
What Lumumba said and/or did is not part of the written record, unfortunately, so we can't speculate. Keep in mind, though, he had at least fifteen years on both Amanda and Raffaele, and was a well known resident of the town in which he was arrested. His wife/friends/attorney/colleagues were working on getting his alibi validated before Amanda and Raffaele had even met their lawyers.

i was 2 years younger than knox when the police did the same to me. Maybe i have superhuman powers of recollection or interrogation resistance? It's possible my own experience makes me biased against AK & RS.

They may be innocent but in my view they're partly responsible for the situation they're in so I don't have much sympathy.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Catching up

I think that's unlikely, but not improbable.

I base my conclusion that it's most likely on the facts I listed. What makes you think that's unlikely?

I see no evidence that Guede broke in, nor do I discern any through inference from reported court findings.

Here I can help, I think. Let's see, clues that Guede broke in.. hmmm.
A second story window broken from the outside with a rock, access by climbing on some sort of grating - just like in the lawyers office break-in, that Guede is somewhat connected with.
The rock that landed just like in the reconstruction, leaving traces that are not faked - the teared and toppled paper bag, chipped pieces of rock where it landed. The glass scattered in a way that contradicts the "from the inside" conjecture.
Traces of someone stepping in through the window: light dust on clothes, that look stepepd upon, TV cable that looks like someone tripped on it.
Guede's interesting history - the office, the nursery, that guy's house where he got in through the window.
Guede's feces in the toilet - Criminology 101, as hopefully you realize now
His traces in Meredith's room (multitude of footprints, handprint, multiple DNA traces on belongings, clothing and body of the victim. His shoeprints along the corridor and in the kitchen.
Missing items from the purse he touched.
A dead body of a girl.

I'd say all of it gives rather clear cut image of what happened.

He didn't break in alone. That has already been established.

I wrote The traces in Meredith's room show that Guede raped and killed her alone in a swift attack. In my opinion those traces along with traces on the body are explained sufficiently and completely fit that scenario. What are the traces of his accomplices and what were their roles, how do they fit into the dynamics of events in the room? Ahh, I see:

Sure it can. The two obvious objections are: 1) it wasn't left behind, and 2) even if it was left behind, it wasn't detected.

Maybe you can hypothesize a scenario including more people that leave no traces or no detectable traces (I honestly can't. If you can, please do it'd be enlightening to me). The real problem is that the traces present are sufficiently and comprehensively explained by Guede's presence alone. Hypothesizing a more complex and more implausible (let's be honest) scenario doesn't seem intellectually sound. Then there's still a leap of faith to make from some untraceable accomplices to AK and RS, of course.

I will concede that it would have been optimal if the clasp had been collected earlier, and if it were better preserved. No argument here.

That said, I am not someone who draws a lot of significance from the genetic results, as a general manner of speaking.

Possible in either case. Curatolo is of no import to me.

Again, don't care. (Not to be taken as an implication that those who find the testimonies of Qunitavalle & Curatolo to be significant are necessarily mistaken.)

Interestingly you dismissed much of the evidence prosecution held as most important. The knife, the clasp, the credibilissimo Toto, the DNA.

There's another sub-claim of the "Knox and Sollecito are innocent" kind that I like a lot and it goes like this:
It is easy to reconstruct from the existing evidence what really happened in the cottage that night. Easy, unless you wan't to introduce AK and RS in the picture - then it becomes impossible. More then that - even making a conjecture that would not contradict some of the facts is very hard. And if you make one it will be bizarre, extraordinary and quite hard to believe.

Paradoxically it becomes easier the more of the evidence you dismiss from the start -just look what troubles did Curatolo gave to Massei and Mignini or how the heroes with their kitchen knife that they picked "by intuition" forced Massei to make up foolish explanations. But as you throw out "evidence" you pay price of filling up the holes with even more conjecture. You can make a case on it, but you dump rationality and justice on the way.

 

[pilot padron]

Platonov,

If I had a nickel for every time I have heard that Dr. Hampikian had no standing in this case, I would be richer than I am now. That statement about Dr. Hampikian is false, BTW...........

Just an opinion, humbly proffered.

However, as I read these direct quotes about Dr Hampikian and IIP..... http://news.boisestate.edu/update/2...ence-project-at-center-of-amanda-knox-appeal/

1)" Knox, the American student tried and convicted of killing her roommate while studying abroad in Perugia, Italy, in 2007 currently is appealing her conviction with assistance from Hampikian and the IIP. Hampikian, a forensic DNA expert and professor of biology and criminal justice, played a key role in the analysis of DNA that is at the center of the appeal."

2)"A high-profile international murder case is getting a second look by authorities in Italy after a team of experts, including Boise State’s Greg Hampikian (left) and the Idaho Innocence Project (IIP), disputed the DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and her codefendant Raffaele Sollecito"

1) I personally feel that his *key* role may have been better described as one of many keys, and possibly one that would be probably unnoticed by many if not part of the small fawning Boise academic cocoon or a fellow academic who closely follows the case.

2) Secondly, I personally strongly feel that Dr Hampikian has allowed either his associations with Mellas or other considerations to distort his value judgements.
As Director, he has taken the Idaho Innocence Project (IIP)* veering into the Knox/Sollecito conviction.
This is an area the IIP was specifically never intended to go, and which its contributors, both voluntary and taxpayer and its volunteers apparently had little if any published consent.

This because Amanda Knox's/Raffaele Sollecito's conviction was about 5,000 miles from Idaho.
And even a PhD would have problems parsing that as being 'near' Idaho

From IIP website Idaho Innocence Project

Idaho Innocence Project
Submitting a Case
Our Criteria
Your conviction occurred in or near Idaho.
http://innocenceproject.boisestate.edu/instructions/

Finally, I acknowledge that overstating one's 'standing' in the case is not specific to Dr Hampikian, nor even to one side of the argument.

I also personally admire him, and any group of Volunteers who help others less fortunate

However, Dr Hampikian's apparently allowing little other than personal friendship to directly contradict the clearly stated criteria of a charitably and taxpayer supported organization is indeed unique.
Furthermore, this misapplication in my opinion is personally distasteful and certainly not worthy of praise about his 'standing'.

This questionably motivated and obviously less than admirable decision by Dr Hampikian may also justifiably affect how history views Dr Hampikian's 'standing in the case'.
It certainly unfavorably affected mine.

halidea1, please do add the above to your collection of nickels scoring those who are less enamoured with Dr Hampikian's endeavors and 'standing' in this regard than you and his Boise students apparently are.

I just personally feel his 'standing' is not as significant as you allude, and his decision to take the IIP here was flawed and in fact lowers his standing.

Finally, my above personal opinion about Dr Hampikian's 'standing in this case' is in absolutely no way intended to be an attack on him as a person.
To the contrary, I very sincerely admire his very well earned academic achievements, as well as his obvious concern for his fellow man which leads him to volunteer these skills to help others.

*Idaho Innocence Project is often abbreviated IIP but not to be confused with other much less honorable endeavors using same initials)

 

[Katody Matrass]

(...)

pilots, that's just outrageous! You mustn't let that finding go unnoticed. I think it's your duty as citizens, human beings and taxpayers to react swiftly and with full force. It's time for another open letter!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

From Boulder to Birmingham

pilot padron,

I only have time for a short and speculative answer for right now, but it seems possible, indeed probable, that you have fallen afoul of an argument based upon retrocausality. I am unaware of any association between Mr. Mellas and Dr. Hampikian prior to this case. Therefore, it is unlikely that their association is the reason for his involvement.

I have only looked at a few websites of innocence projects, but none of them discuss the possibility of an American citizen's being charged in a foreign country. Moreover, as of 2007 at least not every nation even had an innocence project. My working hypothesis is that Ms. Knox's case would have fallen through the cracks had not Dr. Hampikian stepped in. If one is from the western states, the distance between Boise and Seattle (505 miles) is akin to the distance between Boston, MA and Springfield, MA if one is from the northeastern states (having lived in both parts of the country, I feel entitled to offer such a judgment). It is not as far as it is from Boulder to Birmingham. Finally, Dr. Hampikian's contributions to our understanding of the case have been so valuable that any good student of the case would be happy to have them, under any circumstances. MOO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

misunderstood

platonov,

I suspect that you have misunderstood my position.

 

[Chris C]

I've noticed alot of articles keep saying the appeal will last into the fall. However, from the length of time it has been taking the independant scientists to go over the bra clasp and knife this case is going to stretch into next year. Unless the case gets tossed in July, Hellman will most likely order other tests (the mat and possibly sound test). Which will then take forever to do the way stefanoni seems to drag her feet when things dealing with this case are requested. I mean lets face it, its gonna take near 8 months just to do the bra clasp and knife. If more tests are ordered, that would push the appeal into next year.

 

[pilot padron]

pilot padron,

I only have time for a short and speculative answer for right now, but it seems possible, indeed probable, that you have fallen afoul of an argument based upon retrocausality. I am unaware of any association between Mr. Mellas and Dr. Hampikian prior to this case. Therefore, it is unlikely that their association is the reason for his involvement.

I have only looked at a few websites of innocence projects, but none of them discuss the possibility of an American citizen's being charged in a foreign country. Moreover, as of 2007 at least not every nation even had an innocence project. My working hypothesis is that Ms. Knox's case would have fallen through the cracks had not Dr. Hampikian stepped in. If one is from the western states, the distance between Boise and Seattle (505 miles) is akin to the distance between Boston, MA and Springfield, MA if one is from the northeastern states (having lived in both parts of the country, I feel entitled to offer such a judgment). It is not as far as it is from Boulder to Birmingham. Finally, Dr. Hampikian's contributions to our understanding of the case have been so valuable that any good student of the case would be happy to have them, under any circumstances. MOO.

1) Surely your knowledge of the case precludes you insinuating some significance in this argument to Knox's residence of record

2) Surely your research abilities documented by post graduate degrees would preclude you from not noticing *in the text and URL* that the criteria for IIP is where the *conviction* took place.
There is indeed no mention of residence in the clearly stated here (twice) IIP criteria.

3) Therefore the catchy title and implied significance of the distance from Birmingham or Boise to Seattle leaves me underwhelmed, unimpressed, and in fact somewhat lowers my esteem for the research/reading skills of the person who proffered it.

4) I am equally skeptical that as closely as you follow this case you imply you have not seen widely circulated pictures of a clowning Mellas enjoying what looks like lunch with a smiling Dr Hampikian in what has been stated to be Perugia.
Therefore, your denial of 'association' (without parsing please) is also incorrect and enforces my above lowered esteem

 

[pilot padron]

pilots, that's just outrageous! You mustn't let that finding go unnoticed. I think it's your duty as citizens, human beings and taxpayers to react swiftly and with full force. It's time for another open letter!

To preclude repetitions of the erroneous 'swift retreat' charge , while continuing to respect the Membership Agreement, please take note that a polite PM was sent in reply to the above... 'argument'.

 

[Dan O.]

He didn't break in alone. That has already been established.

This meme keeps being repeated. Do all of the "Guilt Believers" really believe that Italian justice is so perverted that it would allow facts to be established against a defendant in a trial where that defendant cannot present a defense?

 

[Alt+F4]

Maybe you can hypothesize a scenario including more people that leave no traces or no detectable traces (I honestly can't. If you can, please do it'd be enlightening to me)

Neither can I but do you know who can? The defense. Their super witnesses, the five inmates, are going to swear that all sorts of criminals committed the murder. These must be magical drug dealers and mafiosos types because the managed to commit the murder and leave no detectable traces of themselves.
I wonder why the defense didn’t get Nara Capazelli as one of their summer witnesses? According to Candace Dempsey she’s deaf, crazy and hasn’t left her house in a decade. Shut-ins generally don’t have scheduling conflicts. Five minutes on the stand and the ear witness would be discredited. Just ask her about her hearing and mental health history. Hmmm, makes me think the spin we’ve heard that has been trying to discredit the prosecution witnesses might not be true.