Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Poppy1016]

Thank you Halides1, I learn something new every day

 

[LondonJohn]

So now we've gone from cuffed, to a possbile concussion to "recognition that she had a concussion". Amazing...it's this type of spin that makes me sure that in August, September, October or maybe in early 2012 AK and RS will have their convictions upheld. There is no way to see so many lies tossed about if folks really believed they were innocent and there was no evidence against them at all, as I'm constantly being told.

I'll be back to this thread when the convictions are upheld, not to gloat but to see if most of these same posters will continue their vain effort to follow AK and RS through their (at least) 18 month journey through the Italian Supreme Court, in which they will also lose.

I very much look forward to swapping notes with you in around October/November of this year*. But not for the same reasons you think you're going to want to be popping back here at that time...

* And yes, I do know more about the timings of the appeal than Knox's family.

 

[LondonJohn]

General PS: When I read people making bold declarative statements such as "Knox and Sollecito will be found guilty in the appeal" or "They are killers and they will be spending the next 20 years behind bars"*, I immediately strongly suspect wishful thinking on behalf of the author. I also suspect a lack of critical reasoning and evaluation skills, and I further suspect that the people making such statements are trying a bit too hard to convince themselves as well as others.

* This also applies to people saying "They are definitely innocent" or "They will definitely be free by the end of the year" - although if such statements are coming from close family or friends of Knox or Sollecito I can understand such definitive levels of support. But I can't understand it from anyone who's no more than a peripheral commentator on the case - to me, the most anyone can say is that there's a good probability that they will be acquitted.

 

[Rolfe]

I very much agree with that post, LJ. It's a common rhetorical ploy. I see it in politics all the time. People post that something will happen, not because there is any certainty at all, but because they desperately hope that's what will happen, and they often believe (in politics) that if they say it often enough people will believe it and it will become self-fulfilling. Right now we're getting a bunch of unionists who were declaring that of course Labour were going to win last month's election (it was an unprecedented landslide for the SNP) declaring firmly that nobody wants independence and there is no chance of a yes vote in a referendum. Then a couple of days ago there was an opinion poll giving the yes vote 45%....

I sort of know why people do it in politics, because it's human nature to support the side you want to win in that way. I don't know why people who are complete strangers to Amanda Knox and Raffaelo Sollecito so desperately want them to be guilty of murder though.

Posters on this thread have persuaded me to the view that they didn't have anything to do with it, but I think it would be folly to try to predict the outcome of a court case in any way. There have been far far too many obvious miscarriages of justice for anyone to believe that actual innocence is any guarantee of a not guilty verdict.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

So now we've gone from cuffed, to a possbile concussion to "recognition that she had a concussion". Amazing...it's this type of spin that makes me sure that in August, September, October or maybe in early 2012 AK and RS will have their convictions upheld. There is no way to see so many lies tossed about if folks really believed they were innocent and there was no evidence against them at all, as I'm constantly being told.

I'll be back to this thread when the convictions are upheld, not to gloat but to see if most of these same posters will continue their vain effort to follow AK and RS through their (at least) 18 month journey through the Italian Supreme Court, in which they will also lose.

I hope you return regardless of the decision in the appeal. My bet is there will be a lot of interesting things to discuss before the decision, so I hope you change your mind.

 

[LondonJohn]

A propos the "evidence" placed before the courts which ruled on Knox's and Sollecito's continued custody and whether they had a case to answer, here's what Matteini's report had to say on 8th November 2007, based on what she was told by Mignini in his "theory" of the murder:

"As far as the juridical aspect of the case, there are no doubts at this moment in presuming this to be correct: that there was an initial wish of the three youths to try a new sensation, above all for the boyfriend and girlfriend, while for Diya the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him.

They succeeded in having some approaches but given the reaction of Meredith they were very hurried and not completed and to this violence it is possible to add homicide since the knife, having wounded the victim's neck on two occasions, penetrated it deeply the third time, leaving the fatal wound".

And:

Sollecito Raffaele, bored of the same old evening and wanting to try "extreme experiences" as can be found on his blog with the date 13 October 2007 and as he confirmed in the audience chamber (experiences that can include also an intense sexual relation which breaks up the monotony of everyday life) went out with Amanda.

The two met Diya Lumumba in piazza Grimana around 9pm and went together to the apartment on via della Pergola 7, of which only Amanda had the key.

It was more or less at this time that either Sollecito or Knox turned off their mobile phones, which became active again the following morning.

A little after, Meredith returned or she might have been already there. She went into her room with Patrick, after which something went badly, in the sense that in all probability Sollecito came in and the two started to try a swap, to which the girl refused.

She was then menaced with a knife, a knife which Sollecito usually had with him, and with which Meredith was struck in the throat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1568861/How-the-sex-game-went-wrong-Judges-report.html

It's quite unpleasant to read these sections of Matteini's report, which - don't forget - formed the basis of Knox's and Sollecito's ongoing detention and the basis of their having a case to answer. It's frankly astonishing quite how Matteini could have been persuaded that this was what happened - let alone to make the damning and utterly unsupportable assertion that "As far as the juridical aspect of the case, there are no doubts at this moment in presuming this to be correct".


Incidentally, in case anyone has forgotten, Mignini continued on this theme in his opening statement in Knox's/Sollecito's first trial in January 2009 - merely substituting Guede for Lumumba:

New details about a sex game that allegedly led to the murder of Meredith Kercher, the British exchange student, have been revealed by an Italian prosecutor.

Giuliano Mignini, the official leading the case, alleges that Amanda Knox, Kercher’s American housemate, instigated the “erotic game” and probably persuaded an accomplice into “softening up” the 21-year-old Briton.

Reconstructing the student’s final moments, Mignini alleges that Kercher’s killers became “incensed and violent” after she resisted their advances.

Mignini said Kercher, from Coulsdon, Surrey, was likely to have been irritated with Knox for allegedly bringing Sollecito and Guede to the cottage the young women shared late on the night of the murder in November 2007.

“Knox, whom Guede was always trying to please, probably pushed him into ‘softening up’ the English girl and preparing her for the erotic ‘game’ . . . while Knox ‘dedicated’ herself to Sollecito,” said Mignini.

“And when Guede failed because of energetic resistance by the victim, the three became incensed and violent.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5537365.ece


And to think that just this evening "commentators" elsewhere have accused the media of being the ones who have conflated the terms "sex game" and "sexual murder". I think we all need to look to Sig Mignini for instruction in that fine art...

 

[LondonJohn]

I hope you return regardless of the decision in the appeal. My bet is there will be a lot of interesting things to discuss before the decision, so I hope you change your mind.

And I think there will be lots of interesting discussions to be had about these interesting developments. But only between people with interesting arguments to add to the debate. Not, for example, including people who are unable to objectively assimilate and critically evaluate the changing landscape in this case, and who seemingly prefer to sick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalala"....

 

[banquetbear]

I do find the fact that those arguing for guilt almost exclusively confine themselves to personal sniping and procedural wrangling to be quite frustrating. But telling, too I suppose.

Rolfe.

...if you want to read the case for guilt, you really are in the wrong thread.

I became convinced of guilt after following along on the original "cartwheels" thread. Back then there were a number of participants, notably Fiona, who really put the effort into examining the available evidence and attempting to look at it through neutral eyes. Debate would rage for pages, cites would be offered from both sides, and both sides were quite convincing in their arguments.

So if you want me to offer you a comprehensive defense of the conviction of Amanda Knox, the honest truth is I can't. The cites and the arguments that convinced me of that are burred in three gigantic threads, in posts and links that now lead to dead internet pages.

Over in the conspiracy version of this thread I made a simple post that I thought was relatively uncontroversial: that it was reasonable for police to act on the statements made by Amanda placing herself at the crime scene, even if those statements were coerced. They were not in the position to ignore it.

I then went about my life and came back to the thread and there were about three pages of posts attacking that position. Now I tried to clarify that position but to be honest it was hardly very nuanced. I'd link to that page in the discussion of that thread to prove that I'm not misrepresenting what happened but the honest truth is I really can't be bothered.

This thread is now principally dominated by the pro-innocence lobby, and there is nothing wrong with that, its a free world. The thread can go for pages and pages of people talking about stuff and and agreeing with each other. Right now it is next to impossible for someone who believes in the guilt of Amanda Knox to post something here without having to point-by-point rebut and extraordinary amount of claims from a number of different people.

I would attempt it, but unfortunately, and I don't mean this as a slam or an insult to those participating in this thread, I have a life. If I wanted to argue the case for guilt properly for Amanda against ten-twenty people convinced of her innocence I would have to devote hours of my time reading and quoting trial transcripts and debating minutiae. And you see, that was done years ago in the original thread. And I just don't have the time.

So for those convinced of her guilt there really is only three options: invest the time to pour over the old thread to find evidence and hope the three year old links still work, or ignore this thread all together, or snipe. The fact that a few people have chosen to snipe bears no significance on the general strength or weakness of the pro-guilt argument. The honest truth is that most people who believe in guilt consider the debate closed years ago and are simply no longer participating in this thread.

You see:there is no new evidence being presented here. The "star witness" who's testimony is "in trouble" hardly rated a mention in the original threads and was never a factor in my opinion on the guilt of Amanda Knox. There is nothing new being discussed here at all. The appeal will be over in a few months, then there will be something new to be discussed. If the conviction of Amanda Knox is overturned I won't be upset, and if it is upheld I won't be celebrating. I think it is entirely reasonable to want justice to be done: and if there is anything that unites everyone in all of these threads is that we all want justice for the death of Meredith.

 

[Rolfe]

I have always had a high respect for Fiona, but since she went to a forum where I don't post, then I was deprived of her point of view. I did try a thread or two there, but small white Arial on a black background is beyond me.

I have to say, I was only reading this thread for a pastime, as my main interest lies elsewhere. I was initially drawn in when someone referred to the post mortem evidence that Meredith died around nine o'clock, which I found, and still find, compelling. I have looked for the huge anomaly that can suggest this compelling evidence should be re-evaluated, but not seen it.

I can't say I'm impressed by the position that the case for guilt can't be outlined concisely. It is always possible to outline a case concisely, even if later elaboration is required. The case for innocence seems to manage it.

How can Meredith's death about 9 o'clock be consistent with Knox and Sollecito being guilty? Or what killer evidence do you have that I should start straining the possibilities of physiology to imagine she might have died later?

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

...if you want to read the case for guilt, you really are in the wrong thread.

I became convinced of guilt after following along on the original "cartwheels" thread. Back then there were a number of participants, notably Fiona, who really put the effort into examining the available evidence and attempting to look at it through neutral eyes. Debate would rage for pages, cites would be offered from both sides, and both sides were quite convincing in their arguments.

So if you want me to offer you a comprehensive defense of the conviction of Amanda Knox, the honest truth is I can't. The cites and the arguments that convinced me of that are burred in three gigantic threads, in posts and links that now lead to dead internet pages.

Over in the conspiracy version of this thread I made a simple post that I thought was relatively uncontroversial: that it was reasonable for police to act on the statements made by Amanda placing herself at the crime scene, even if those statements were coerced. They were not in the position to ignore it.

I then went about my life and came back to the thread and there were about three pages of posts attacking that position. Now I tried to clarify that position but to be honest it was hardly very nuanced. I'd link to that page in the discussion of that thread to prove that I'm not misrepresenting what happened but the honest truth is I really can't be bothered.

This thread is now principally dominated by the pro-innocence lobby, and there is nothing wrong with that, its a free world. The thread can go for pages and pages of people talking about stuff and and agreeing with each other. Right now it is next to impossible for someone who believes in the guilt of Amanda Knox to post something here without having to point-by-point rebut and extraordinary amount of claims from a number of different people.

I would attempt it, but unfortunately, and I don't mean this as a slam or an insult to those participating in this thread, I have a life. If I wanted to argue the case for guilt properly for Amanda against ten-twenty people convinced of her innocence I would have to devote hours of my time reading and quoting trial transcripts and debating minutiae. And you see, that was done years ago in the original thread. And I just don't have the time.

So for those convinced of her guilt there really is only three options: invest the time to pour over the old thread to find evidence and hope the three year old links still work, or ignore this thread all together, or snipe. The fact that a few people have chosen to snipe bears no significance on the general strength or weakness of the pro-guilt argument. The honest truth is that most people who believe in guilt consider the debate closed years ago and are simply no longer participating in this thread.

You see:there is no new evidence being presented here. The "star witness" who's testimony is "in trouble" hardly rated a mention in the original threads and was never a factor in my opinion on the guilt of Amanda Knox. There is nothing new being discussed here at all. The appeal will be over in a few months, then there will be something new to be discussed. If the conviction of Amanda Knox is overturned I won't be upset, and if it is upheld I won't be celebrating. I think it is entirely reasonable to want justice to be done: and if there is anything that unites everyone in all of these threads is that we all want justice for the death of Meredith.

If someone who believes in the safety of the convictions of Knox and Sollecito can visit this thread and list the evidence/testimony which proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (with a coherent supporting argument), then I will applaud them and change my mind. But it seems that nobody can do so. It wouldn't take all the rigmarole that you're suggesting: it should be pretty easy to present in a couple of paragraphs.

I could, for example, outline a coherent and very sound argument for Guede's guilt very quickly and easily. It would revolve around his hand print in Meredith's blood being found in her room (placing him definitively at the scene during or shortly after the murder), coupled with his behaviour after the murder (going out dancing the same night, seemingly without a care in the world, and fleeing to Germany some 48 hours later) - which is totally at odds with his story of being an innocent bystander who came out of the bathroom to find Meredith dying and the "real killers" running away. There ya go - it's not difficult to do is it? But nobody has yet come here and done the same for Knox and Sollecito.

There's lots more in your post to take issue with, but I'm tired and going away tomorrow - I'm guessing others will address more of your post. In passing, it's interesting that you think Curatolo was not "important" in the first trial - and that by extension his total discrediting in front of Hellmann's court is of little consequence. I think you might be very wrong - just ask Mignini how important he thought his superwitness Curatolo was in the first trial.....

 

[banquetbear]

I have always had a high respect for Fiona, but since she went to a forum where I don't post, then I was deprived of her point of view. I did try a thread or two there, but small white Arial on a black background is beyond me.

I have to say, I was only reading this thread for a pastime, as my main interest lies elsewhere. I was initially drawn in when someone referred to the post mortem evidence that Meredith died around nine o'clock, which I found, and still find, compelling. I have looked for the huge anomaly that can suggest this compelling evidence should be re-evaluated, but not seen it.

I can't say I'm impressed by the position that the case for guilt can't be outlined concisely. It is always possible to outline a case concisely, even if later elaboration is required. The case for innocence seems to manage it.

How can Meredith's death about 9 o'clock be consistent with Knox and Sollecito being guilty? Or what killer evidence do you have that I should start straining the possibilities of physiology to imagine she might have died later?

Rolfe.

...people have suggested that you read the motivations report as this lays out the case for guilt fairly well. This was never a case that had "killer evidence", which is why no one can supply it, and I'm not entirely sure why you are looking for it. The case was built on layers, from the initial accusation of Patrick in the police cells to various inconsistencies in stories to the evidence of the alleged faked break in.

Now, can you provide the evidence that was produced in court regarding time-of-death? How about what is pending in the appeal? Because I go back to the fundamental problem with debating the case now, I can't believe everything that everyone is saying. Again, this isn't a slam against anyone in this thread. Its just that this topic is so emotional that one person says something, then it is repeated, then it is distorted. And now some people make the claim that "there is no evidence against Amanda Knox at all."

If you want to make arguments regarding time of death, it is not enough that you lay out your credentials and expect people to trust you, nor is it enough to expect me to read through a couple of hundred pages to find the cites to verify your times. Lay out the evidence that leads you to the conclusion that the time of death is incorrect based on the evidence that was produced in court, then we might have something to discuss.

Now, real life has intervened, I may be back to this discussion in a month or so!

 

[banquetbear]

If someone who believes in the safety of the convictions of Knox and Sollecito can visit this thread and list the evidence/testimony which proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (with a coherent supporting argument), then I will applaud them and change my mind. But it seems that nobody can do so. It wouldn't take all the rigmarole that you're suggesting: it should be pretty easy to present in a couple of paragraphs.

I could, for example, outline a coherent and very sound argument for Guede's guilt very quickly and easily. It would revolve around his hand print in Meredith's blood being found in her room (placing him definitively at the scene during or shortly after the murder), coupled with his behaviour after the murder (going out dancing the same night, seemingly without a care in the world, and fleeing to Germany some 48 hours later) - which is totally at odds with his story of being an innocent bystander who came out of the bathroom to find Meredith dying and the "real killers" running away. There ya go - it's not difficult to do is it? But nobody has yet come here and done the same for Knox and Sollecito.

There's lots more in your post to take issue with, but I'm tired and going away tomorrow - I'm guessing others will address more of your post. In passing, it's interesting that you think Curatolo was not "important" in the first trial - and that by extension his total discrediting in front of Hellmann's court is of little consequence. I think you might be very wrong - just ask Mignini how important he thought his superwitness Curatolo was in the first trial.....

...read the motivations report.

 

[LondonJohn]

...read the motivations report.

I have. It doesn't (in my view) constitute a compelling argument for their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And the case has got weaker since then.

Have you read the Massei report? I recommend reading it with an open mind, and a willingness to accept that judges can sometimes lack even basic reasoning skills. Good night.

 

[Rolfe]

Banquetbear, I already said I'm only reading this thread as a form of relaxation. If you want any particular detail of the Lockerbie murder conviction, I'll gladly hunt it down for you. That's the fish I'm frying.

I'm hear to learn what other posters are saying about the Kercher murder. I'm not here to research it for myself. So there is no point in telling me to read any document in the case. I'm reading enough documents elsewhere, for a lifetime.

I am however a pathologist, with experience in the courts as an expert witness. I see nobody disputing that Meredith's stomach was full with pieces of semi-digested pizza still identifiable, and her duodenum is empty, at post mortem. I also see that the evidence says she ate that pizza about 6 to 6.30.

That means, she probably died around 9 o'clock. We know it couldn't have been much earlier, from evidence of her friends, and a phone call. How much later could it have been? Not much, frankly. Then we hear about the phone call being cut off, and her clothes suggesting she hadn't removed her street clothes and settled down to an evening in, and there seems to be no evidence at all from within the flat that she lived beyond about 9 o'clock.

There really is no way to argue with that. If we had CCTV imagery of Meredith alive at 11pm, we'd have to deal with it, but frankly I don't know how. It's not actually possible you know.

You have to have some pretty compelling evidence to go against that and say she died at 11.30. It can't just be this and that and suspicion. It has to be something you can explain.

Rolfe.

 

[Poppy1016]

Is it just me or do some posters really just cut and paste the same old BS?

 

[Kaosium]

...people have suggested that you read the motivations report as this lays out the case for guilt fairly well. This was never a case that had "killer evidence", which is why no one can supply it, and I'm not entirely sure why you are looking for it. The case was built on layers, from the initial accusation of Patrick in the police cells to various inconsistencies in stories to the evidence of the alleged faked break in.

I read the Motivations Report, realized it was a house of cards assembled with dubious propositions tied together with repetitions of 'it's possible indeed probable' or the akin and tried to assemble a case for guilt anyway. It can't be done, the 'evidence' is all irrelevant, disingenuous, or downright suspicious. Hell, I tried to assemble a case for guilt regardless with what little I thought I could argue without making a fool of myself, my point is I didn't start there, I ended up there--because of facts.

Now, can you provide the evidence that was produced in court regarding time-of-death? How about what is pending in the appeal? Because I go back to the fundamental problem with debating the case now, I can't believe everything that everyone is saying. Again, this isn't a slam against anyone in this thread. Its just that this topic is so emotional that one person says something, then it is repeated, then it is distorted. And now some people make the claim that "there is no evidence against Amanda Knox at all."

If she and Raffaele are actually innocent, that would be true, wouldn't it? That happens sometimes, everywhere, in which case everything assembled against the defendant(s) must be mistaken either by circumstance, misinterpretation or design. Incidentally I didn't believe it all either, however getting kicked in the face with facts and logic eventually leaves a mark.

If you want to make arguments regarding time of death, it is not enough that you lay out your credentials and expect people to trust you, nor is it enough to expect me to read through a couple of hundred pages to find the cites to verify your times. Lay out the evidence that leads you to the conclusion that the time of death is incorrect based on the evidence that was produced in court, then we might have something to discuss.

Meredith ate about 6:15-6:30, she was seen alive shortly before 9:00 PM. She had nothing in her duodenum when autopsied, which means nothing from her small-moderate meal had passed from her stomach yet, an unusual condition for a healthy young woman who'd consumed little or no alcohol in a low-stress environment. Each moment that passed from ~9:00 increased the likelihood something would move to her duodenum, by 10:00 it was virtually assured, by 11:00 it's basically impossible she was alive.

Massei allows a time of death of 11:40. Find out why that is for an object lesson in how the case was constructed. His handwaving attempting to justify it is entertaining as well.

Now, real life has intervened, I may be back to this discussion in a month or so!

Please read the motivations report before you return, pay special attention to the the ToD, the 'staged' break-in--especially the breaking of the window--and the 'bloody footprints.' The last will require some research and the knowledge that they tested them for blood utilizing a TMB test and they failed. Oh, and look into the DNA 'evidence' as well, not because it's going to be around a month from now, but again it is very instructive regarding how that 'evidence' was collected.

Oh, and you want to know what happened in the original Cartwheels thread that so convinced you of guilt? The ones whose opinion you prized so much found themselves a website with an associated messageboard with reams of data they collected on the case, with arguments constructed by those who passionately thought them guilty and had been discussing it for two years. Many of them took those arguments at face value or modified them slightly to rationalize the massive holes in the case. They left not because we're a bunch of meanies, or the mods conspired against them, but because they could no longer defend the evidence or those arguments as events unfolded and more information became available or was confirmed.

Think about that for a minute, and then find out just how wrong they were about everything that has happened since.

 

[Kaosium]

I have always had a high respect for Fiona, but since she went to a forum where I don't post, then I was deprived of her point of view. I did try a thread or two there, but small white Arial on a black background is beyond me.

Clander, their techy-guy, changed it so that even those without accounts could easily access a format much easier on the eyes. Just click along the top kinda on the left where it says 'White PMF #1' or 'White PMF #2'

 

[Chris_Halkides]

every electropherogram tells a story

...read the motivations report.

banquetbear,

In reading the motivations report, I discovered that I knew more about forensic genetics than Massei does (I am a biochemist, so that is not a big surprise). Massei managed to mangle a fundamental principle of forensic genetics, according to Raffaele's appeal, and I agree with the appeal in this instance. I would rather read the electropherograms myself than rely upon Massei's interpretations of them. BTW much as I admire Fiona's ability to write well, she has some very strange ideas about science. She refused to accept something from a textbook, because it was called, "An Introduction to forensic DNA analysis." Nor was this the only such instance of her taking a peculiar position. She seemed to believe that just because Dr. Stefanoni got onto a plane and identified bodies after the great tsunami, that made her an internationally recognized expert in the field.

 

[zeb]

Run away

Seriously? Even if she fled, and the embassy workers forgot to read the newspaper or watch tv, she would have been extradited back to Italy for trial.

If she fled, that would have proved her guilty of the crime, so therefore, only a fool would run away.

 

[Amazer]

The US would have cooperated with the Italian authorities.

How certain are you of this?

If Knox had been released on bail with the condition that she did not leave Italy, I would imagine that the US State Dept would have contacted its embassies and consulates across Europe to notify them accordingly. If Knox had approached any US Embassy or Consulate in Europe requesting a replacement passport, I feel certain that this would have flagged a high alert on the systems, and that the particular US Embassy or Consulate being contacted would have been instructed to notify both the Italian authorities and the local authorities, with arrangements to arrest Knox as and when she turned up at the embassy/consulate.

You can imagine and feel all you want... i'd rather have some iron clad guarantees that this is the case before releasing her from prison.

And if by any miracle Knox made it back to the US (or was believed to have returned there), a federal arrest warrant would have been issued pursuant to the EU/US extradition treaty signed in 2003.

Which isn't a guarantee that she would have been extradited back to Italy.