Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

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.

No, that's a fair assessment, I was one of the ones attacking your position and I'll vouch for your interpretation.

However, there's a piece of information you were missing when you read through those Cartwheels threads initially, that is the story the cops told in court about the interrogation. If I tell you what it was, you'd think I was satirizing it, and I don't even have to try to be honest, it's that silly. Why don't you assemble some information available about the testimony the cops told in court, and beware of CARTWHEELS as that's about all you'll find from most sources, ironically enough considering what convinced you they were guilty.

I'd just tell you to go to ~page 7 of the conspiracy thread you spoke of and use the links I collected in a post to Amazer, but guess what happened since? The website of the Italian who was in court and reported on what they said has since had his website closed down by Google due to a court order Mignini filed against him, who incidentally is the eighth journalist to have charges filed on him or investigations started who was reporting on this case.

His offense? He wrote a post a year and a half back or so saying Mignini shouldn't rely on testimony from Curatolo, the homeless dude currently in prison for dealing smack. Apparently Mignini thought that by doing so he was 'associating' Mignini with criminals and it was worthy of a defamation suit. Personally I think that's just an excuse, being as Mignini isn't that stupid, he just needed something to close down that blog as when the five 'heroes' of the interrogation hauled him out of his house, placed him under arrest on trumped up charges as reported by the Committee to Protect Journalists

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Now, if he does something absurd like that and I say it, does that mean I'm a conspiracy nutter for saying it and it can't be true?

At any rate, I'm pretty sure I remember the Cartwheels argument on the arrest, it went something to the effect of they were 'required by law' to arrest Amanda for saying she was at a crime scene, and they had to rush out and arrest Patrick before he murdered again just in case, and then they had to parade through town with ten cops cars with lights flashing and sirens blaring and announce 'case closed' just because.

Oh, wait. That last part they pretended wasn't true in the Cartwheels thread, didn't they?

They were wrong.

 

[Danceme]

Banquet bear, great posts!

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.

Rolfe, are you not at all concerned that this argument hasn't taken front and centre in the appeal? You and many others are convinced of innocence based on stomach contents, yet the defense is not using it to full advantage.

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.

I think you seriously underestimate Fiona and belittling her is not making you look better.

 

[komponisto]

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

[...]

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.

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.

You point out a legitimate general problem here, which isn't limited to the pro-innocence side, or even this particular case.

Here's what I suggest: pick a single pro-innocence poster to have a one-on-one debate with. Let others watch; they can comment on your arguments, but you only need respond to the one person. For case details, the two of you should confine yourselves to citing only two currently-available sources, one on each side: I suggest the Massei/Cristiani report and the appeal documents of Knox and Sollecito, considered together (non-Italian-speakers can substitute the Injustice in Perugia website). Or, as I once upon a time proposed, True Justice and Friends of Amanda.

I think this would be adequate, since in my view the fundamental issues in this case are conceptual: they don't turn on tiny facts, legal niceties, or the details of what was said in court. As proof, simply observe that there are people on both sides with extensive knowledge of all these things. People don't disagree about this case because those on one side know more about it; instead, they disagree because those on one side aren't reasoning properly -- aren't drawing the correct conclusions from the facts that both sides agree on.

So dead links etc shouldn't be a problem. By now, everyone knows what "the evidence" is, and what both sides' claims about it are. (By the way, I agree with you that very little important new information has come out in the last few months, media hype notwithstanding.) Anyone who was going to change their mind as a result of learning more case details has already done so. This is a question of epistemology. Not "Did Amanda Knox say X?" or "Did the police find Y?" but rather "If we agree that Amanda Knox said X and the police found Y, what follows?" Really, as far as I'm concerned, the debate here should at this point look like a philosophical debate, with people giving short theoretical arguments consisting of a few numbered premises (1), (2), (3), (4)... and a conclusion.

To lay out my own cards on the table: I am strongly pro-innocence. I think the most important mistake underlying the pro-guilt position is the failure to take into account Rudy Guede's involvement in the crime. Those on the pro-guilt side simply do not appreciate how much less likely Knox and Sollecito are to be guilty given that someone else (Guede) is. Even if we were to accept all of the prosecution's judgemental, sinister interpretations of the facts (such as regarding Knox's behavior and so on), the fact remains that all of this evidence requires the assumption of a murder having taken place in order to be incriminating. However, the murder is already adequately explained by the evidence against Guede; as a consequence, therefore, the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is no more incriminating than it would be if you didn't know Meredith had been killed.

Now I for one would be interested in having a discussion with an intellectually honest pro-guilt advocate who understands this point and either (1) thinks it's wrong for some interesting reason I haven't thought of, or (2) thinks that the evidence against Knox and Sollecito really is so compelling as to be able to overcome the much higher burden of proof imposed by the evidence against Guede.

Now I don't know if you yourself fall into such a category, but the invitation is open to anyone who does.

The fact that a few people have chosen to snipe bears no significance on the general strength or weakness of the pro-guilt argument.

This is true; but on the other hand one does also observe a near-total absence of non-snipers on that side.

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.

It will be interesting to see whether this changes in the event that Knox and Sollecito are acquitted.

if there is anything that unites everyone in all of these threads is that we all want justice for the death of Meredith.

Very true.

 

[RandyN]

Quote:
if there is anything that unites everyone in all of these threads is that we all want justice for the death of Meredith.


There can never be justice for Meredith. The prosecutor and judges gave the murderer Rudy Guede 16 years in the end. The prosecutor never appealed his conviction so he gets 16 years that will likely be reduced even further.

The fact that two innocent people have been held for over 3 1/2 years now is the opposite of justice.

I have personally spoken to Frank Sfarzo and he claims that in Italy murder suspects are rarely held in prison while their case is ongoing. He is an Italian who has followed this case by attending every session. He also follows several other murder cases in Italy. He claims that it is highly unusual that AK and RS are held in prison while their trial is underway. On his site Perugia Shock he talks about this . He lists several murder suspects who remained free for the years it takes Italian courts to slog thru a case.

I believe Frank when he says the court is acting unusually by holding these defendants w/o parole.

 

[Kaosium]

How certain are you of this?


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.


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

Odds are she wouldn't have. The US has a 'probable cause clause.' Here's the US code, this is the relevant section:

Whenever there is a treaty or convention for extradition between the United States and any foreign government, or in cases arising under section 3181(b), any justice or judge of the United States, or any magistrate judge authorized so to do by a court of the United States, or any judge of a court of record of general jurisdiction of any State, may, upon complaint made under oath, charging any person found within his jurisdiction, with having committed within the jurisdiction of any such foreign government any of the crimes provided for by such treaty or convention, or provided for under section 3181(b), issue his warrant for the apprehension of the person so charged, that he may be brought before such justice, judge, or magistrate judge, to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered.

Such complaint may be filed before and such warrant may be issued by a judge or magistrate judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if the whereabouts within the United States of the person charged are not known or, if there is reason to believe the person will shortly enter the United States. If, on such hearing, he deems the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge under the provisions of the proper treaty or convention, or under section 3181(b), he shall certify the same, together with a copy of all the testimony taken before him, to the Secretary of State, that a warrant may issue upon the requisition of the proper authorities of such foreign government, for the surrender of such person, according to the stipulations of the treaty or convention; and he shall issue his warrant for the commitment of the person so charged to the proper jail, there to remain until such surrender shall be made.

Here's the probable cause clause:

This chapter, so far as applicable, shall govern proceedings authorized by this section. Such proceedings shall be had before a judge of the courts of the United States only, who shall hold such person on evidence establishing probable cause that he is guilty of the offense charged.

Here's section 3181 referenced in the first one:

-HEAD-
Sec. 3181. Scope and limitation of chapter

-STATUTE-
(a) The provisions of this chapter relating to the surrender of persons who have committed crimes in foreign countries shall continue in force only during the existence of any treaty of extradition with such foreign government.

(b) The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to permit, in the exercise of comity, the surrender of persons, other than citizens, nationals, or permanent residents of the United States, who have committed crimes of violence against nationals of the United States in foreign countries without regard to the existence of any treaty of extradition with such foreign government if the Attorney General certifies, in writing, that -

(1) evidence has been presented by the foreign government that indicates that had the offenses been committed in the United States, they would constitute crimes of violence as defined under section 16 of this title; and

(2) the offenses charged are not of a political nature.

Probable Cause defined:

Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a Cause of Action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit.

Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true.

I think the US Court it came to would have laughed at the Matteini Report. I find it highly unlikely they'd decide a reasonable person would conclude on the 'evidence' presented there that Amanda and Raffaele had committed the crime they were accused of.

Incidentally, I once said that a EU court probably wouldn't turn them over either, but I guess with the European Arrest Warrant these days they just hand them over unless it's extraordinary circumstances. I could have sworn I saw something where they required evidence of Rudy's involvement before they'd send him back, but perhaps that was a formality under these new rules. Amanda and Raffaele's situation might have applied, but I can't really argue it. They didn't get that cook in Staffordshire extradited, so there must still be hearings and so forth, but they did send that poor old guy back based on 'double hearsay' evidence so I wouldn't bet on it these days.

Enrico Mariotti, an Italian living in England for 14 years, was tried in his absence and convicted to 26 years for allegedly taking part in the kidnap and murder of an Italian duke in 1977. The only evidence against him was what his English barrister Helen Malcolm QC called "double hearsay" which would have been unacceptable in Britain.

Mr Mariotti's trial in Italy took 6 years, and if he had returned to stand trial he would almost certainly had to spend those years waiting in prison. He decided not to turn up for his trial.But last year he was extradited by John Reid, the Home Secretary.

Mr Mariotti is now 67 and faces 25 more years in jail. Yet no Italian court has ever heard what he may have to say and his case is closed.

However these new European Arrest Warrant rules is just one more indication in my mind the EU is going to start taking a closer look at Italian justice, probably in the near future...

 

[Chris C]

Banquet bear, great posts!


Rolfe, are you not at all concerned that this argument hasn't taken front and centre in the appeal? You and many others are convinced of innocence based on stomach contents, yet the defense is not using it to full advantage.



I think you seriously underestimate Fiona and belittling her is not making you look better.

Wouldn't ToD take 2nd fiddle to the Murder weapon. The murder weapon is what allows the court to think about that 1 percent chance that Meredith died outside a time frame the stomach contents places Merediths death into. ToD is part of the appeal, but if you take away Curatolo and the Murder weapon, you fail at placing Knox in the murder room or at the scene, at claiming the bloody footprints were hers, and you cast doubt on the staged break in theory. After taking away the Murder weapon, you put icing on the cake by taking away the prosecutions ToD and place it in a time frame even they can't argue against.

 

[Mary_H]

Wouldn't ToD take 2nd fiddle to the Murder weapon. The murder weapon is what allows the court to think about that 1 percent chance that Meredith died outside a time frame the stomach contents places Merediths death into. ToD is part of the appeal, but if you take away Curatolo and the Murder weapon, you fail at placing Knox in the murder room or at the scene, at claiming the bloody footprints were hers, and you cast doubt on the staged break in theory. After taking away the Murder weapon, you put icing on the cake by taking away the prosecutions ToD and place it in a time frame even they can't argue against.

Good point, Chris. A 9:00 ToD exonerates Amanda and Raffaele, but an 11:00 ToD does not exonerate Rudy.

 

[pipelineaudio]

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.

I don't think Fiona actually ever presented or examined any evidence that pointed to guilt. I don't think she would claim so either. The most she did was to point out that some of the claims could be true based on available evidence, or that a statement about the evidence was true or false

 

[pipelineaudio]

...read the motivations report.

Anyone getting flashbacks of "Read the 500!" from the West memphis three case?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>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.

It's not true that no new evidence is presented here. For example, Draca realized that the blood on the neck of Meredith's jacket implied Meredith was killed before she had had time to take her jacket off. The police had not even collected the jacket from the scene during their first investigations; they put it in the hamper.

From watching the police-produced video of the collection of the bra clasp, many of us deduced that the claims of Raffaele's DNA on the metal hook of the bra were doubtful, to say the least. By examining the transcript of the trial and other documents, we concluded that Giuliano Mignini did in fact interrogate Amanda after she had become a suspect and before she had a lawyer, something both Mignini and the guilters had long denied.

Revelations and knowledge about ToD and DNA have increased here over time; neither of those subjects was discussed much at all, at first.

It might seem irrelevant when internet bloggers figure out details of the case, but it isn't. From the facts we've been able to uncover, more web pages, articles and books have been written, and awareness of the case has grown. This awareness allows news consumers to more effectively analyze news reports, interviews, documentaries and movies that have come out, and to reach more informed conclusions about the case.

 

[zeb]

The murder weapon

The bloody knife, seeing that Rudy chuck the phones, I say he must have chuck the knife as well, I would think it would be in that woodland some where.
If Rudy, can chuck a nine pound stone to smash a window, just think how far he could throw a knife,which is of a very light weight

 

[Mary_H]

I don't think Fiona actually ever presented or examined any evidence that pointed to guilt. I don't think she would claim so either. The most she did was to point out that some of the claims could be true based on available evidence, or that a statement about the evidence was true or false

Fiona examined all of what she saw as evidence for guilt in this post. She wrote, "So let me review the things I think have led me to believe that the verdict is correct..." She made it clear that she believed Amanda and Raffaele had no alibi and that Amanda's behavior was out of line. Admittedly, most of her conclusions at the time were based on myths that have since been discredited.

 

[RoseMontague]

...read the motivations report.

Before the report was translated this was one of the favorite arguments by some of our former posters. When faced with a tough question they would simply say that when you read this report it would all become clear. The argument only works now if somebody doesn't read the report. Still, those on the side of guilt have not given up. They are planning a summary to be released sometime around September. I doubt the summary will be able to make Massei's reasoning any better but at least those that don't want to wade through the entire mess that is Massei can have an alternative. I am curious as to what they will leave in and what they will take out.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

vague

I think you seriously underestimate Fiona and belittling her is not making you look better.

Dancme,

Do you deny that Fiona said those things? I found it difficult to discuss science with her, and some of the reasons are the ones I indicated. I think that citing Fiona or any other commenter in a generalized way as a reason for one's belief is a vague argument, and not one that is especially convincing.
EDT
If banquetbear was thinking of the post that Mary_H found just now, then that essay is itself not vague and could serve as a starting point for a discussion.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Fiona examined all of what she saw as evidence for guilt in this post. She wrote, "So let me review the things I think have led me to believe that the verdict is correct..." She made it clear that she believed Amanda and Raffaele had no alibi and that Amanda's behavior was out of line. Admittedly, most of her conclusions at the time were based on myths that have since been discredited.

Someone should go through that post and strikethrough all the parts we know now are untrue. I wonder what we'd have left

 

[pilot padron]

If that is the reception Fiona got, silence is golden

Fiona examined all of what she saw as evidence for guilt in this post. She wrote, "So let me review the things I think have led me to believe that the verdict is correct..." She made it clear that she believed Amanda and Raffaele had no alibi and that Amanda's behavior was out of line. Admittedly, most of her conclusions at the time were based on myths that have since been discredited.

Mary, if that absolutely outstanding post that you cited from the widely acclaimed, and since heralded here, poster, Fiona, is now considered by you to have been "since discredited", and is further belittled here as "a vague argument and unconvincing", please forgive me for simply acknowledging again in jaw dropping incredulity, the ever so obvious apparently insurmountable bias and also simply becoming speechless for a while myself.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5637825&postcount=4025

Per chance, you/your 'teammates' might peruse what *scores* of other unbiased posters mostly from other threads here said with over 200 tributes to her reasoning abilities in a complete separate thread said about Fiona's argumentative skills, and how she will be missed in the Knox case/others before you continue this particular argument with the traditional 'pile on' arguing tactics
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197039&highlight=Fiona's+leaving

 

[Matthew Best]

Someone should go through that post and strikethrough all the parts we know now are untrue. I wonder what we'd have left

A load of arguments from incredulity and a lot of "I can't accept that".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think you seriously underestimate Fiona and belittling her is not making you look better.

Whatever you think her other virtues may be, I've read enough of her attempts to grapple with the TOD issue to know that scientific literacy and logic are not among them.

There's a watertight case for a time of death close to 9pm. If Fiona doesn't get that it just means that citing her as an authority is foolishness. It doesn't mean that the laws of the universe must have magically suspended themselves in Meredith's digestive tract.

Fiona's not even capable of understanding the science involved. I'm pretty sure she's not capable of magically changing it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Mary, if that absolutely outstanding post that you cited from the widely acclaimed, and since heralded here, poster, Fiona, is now considered by you to have been "since discredited", and is further belittled here as "a vague argument and unconvincing", please forgive me for simply acknowledging again in jaw dropping awe, the ever so obvious apparently insurmountable bias and also simply becoming speechless for a while myself.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5637825&postcount=4025

Per chance, you/your 'teammates' might peruse what *scores* of other unbiased posters mostly from other threads here said with over 200 tributes to her reasoning abilities in a complete separate thread said about Fiona's argumentative skills, and how she will be missed in the Knox case/others before you continue this particular argument with the traditional 'pile on' arguing tactics
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197039&highlight=Fiona's+leaving

Let's examine the list then.

i. Guede's **** in the toilet

This is an argument that proves Guede was there and has nothing to do with AK and RS. The question she was answering was how strong the case was against AK and RS. She doesn't explain

ii. The broken window

This is a good argument again for the guilt of Guede. He breaks windows to break in.

iii. The glass from the window being on top of the mess

This is also a good argument for the guilt of Guede. When he broke the window the glass got on top of the stuff that was already there. Looking at the pictures and all the items on the floor, the only items I see that may not have already been on the floor are the clothes near the wardrobe which could have come down as a result of the window swinging open or as Hendry suggests, by Guede stepping on the TV cable under the window. Filomena also testified that there was glass under the clothes as well as on top. Fiona does not address this issue.

iv. The footprint evidence revealed by luminol in the hall and Filomena's room

There has been no proof provided as to when these prints were made, by whom they were made, and with what they were made. This evidence is worthless, imo.

v. The mixed blood and dna in the bathroom and in the footprints

Sorry, there is no proof of mixed blood. That is a Machine generated descending of the darkness of reality theory.

vi. The footprint on the bathmat

More evidence of Guede's guilt, imo.

vii. Guede's dna inside Meredith

I think I am seeing a pattern here. List evidence of Guedes guilt and call it evidence against AK and RS.

viii. Guede's fingerprints and hand prints and shoe prints at the scene

Ditto

ix. The lady's shoeprint under the pillow

This is not even accepted by Massei saying that AK and RS were barefoot at the time of the murder, in any case.

x. Meredith's body being moved after her death

This is also not one of Massei's theories, I am not convinced either way. Still, where is the evidence that AK and RS moved the body?

xi. The number and spread of the wounds on Meredith's body

Consistent with a single knife (but not the kitchen knife) and a single attacker, imo.

xii. The different sizes of the stab wounds

Some deep, some shallow, some nicks and slices, etc. All could have been made with one weapon but not the weapon the police selected.

xiii. AK and RS's movements on the night in question

Filomena didn't know about Curatolo's issues at this point. I see no other evidence of their movements.

xiv. The changing stories

AK and RS changed their stories. The reason for that is disputed.

xv. The accusation against Lumumba

Reason also disputed.

xvi. The failure to clear Lumumba given several days to do so

I believe both her statements and her handwritten note contain clear indications of fantasy. Both Mignini and the cops should have realized that the statements were pure invention and untrue. And again the reason for her accusation is disputed.

The list itself is only useful for argument of Guede's guilt. It does nothing to convince me that AK and RS were even involved.

 

[Kestrel]

Someone should go through that post and strikethrough all the parts we know now are untrue. I wonder what we'd have left

Some bits of evidence that can be interpreted more than one way. For example, the mixed DNA evidence. Fiona saw this as proof of guilt, but it was clear from her posts that she didn't understand the nature of DNA evidence.