Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Ask yourself, what evidence have you actually seen vs. what evidence you have read about.

Show me the evidence, please.

If you are asking only for evidence we can see and not read, then let's turn to the videotapes and photographs. In the videotapes of Amanda testifying in court, some of us see a straightforward young woman who took the time to learn a wholly foreign language, at least in part to show respect for the country that was prosecuting her. To my admittedly biased point of view, in this tape, she appears to be focused, passionate and sincere. She even thanks the court.

Meanwhile, in the videotape of a recent interview with Giuliano Mignini, we see a man who says this (through translator): "I don't remember now how long [Preston] was interviewed for. I believe it was about 20 minutes. Perhaps half an hour. Perhaps who knows. About an hour. I'd have to look at the statements. However what is certain is that when you make a statement, that person must tell the truth. And I challenge some of the things he said."

And this:

MIGNINI (through translator): "After the first few weeks we were convinced because of the behavior of the two people and especially Amanda that they were both involved in a crime."

And this:

MIGNINI (through translator): "No, absolutely not. I did what I did because I was convinced given the evidence that had been gathered that they were responsible. I am absolutely convinced."

From my perspective, he comes across as a man who does not consider other people or standards of criminal evidence seriously or deeply enough to be allowed to hold the kind of power he holds. I see an odd combination of rigidly ideological and smugly casual.

We also have the videotape of the forensic investigators retrieving the bra clasp from Meredith's bedroom floor. They repeatedly rub their filthy gloved fingers over the metal hooks and then take it back to the lab where "abundant" DNA is found, in opposition to all laws of physics and nature. Then we have the videotape of the police investigators bundling the murder victim's clothes into a wad and stuffing them into a suitcase that is too small to hold them.

Photographs? Yes, the many photos we have seen of Amanda are inevitably interpreted by the individual viewer as to whether she was a happy, healthy All-American girl, or a murderer with crazy, icy eyes. However, there is nothing left to the imagination in the picture of Mignini outside the cottage on November 2nd, holding a digital recording device to record Dr. Luca Lalli's words. Where was the recording device on the night of the 5th-6th, when the system at the Questura failed?

When I look at these pieces of evidence, which can only be seen and not read, my life experience tells me that Amanda is respectful and not a liar, but the police and prosecutor are disrespectful and have lied quite a bit. What does your life experience tell you?

 

[Mary_H]

Does anybody know why Monica Napoleoni is being recalled as a witness next Monday week,to do a little more lying as Frank Sfarzo thinks,she was a reluctant witness when the absurdity of Curatolo as a witness to anything was revealed for all to see,in one of Franks last posts before it became necessary for Frank to change the address where he spends the night regularly for his own safety,he slated Monica for her part in bringing about this miscarriage of justice,according to Frank Mignini's blind faith in Monica is the reason why so many innocent lives have being irreparably damaged,it would be nice indeed if she was being set up as a scape goat

Frank does seem to be making the point that Mignini followed the lead of the police, not vice versa. It provides a new perspective, that's for sure. It will throw off Rose's prediction of Curatolo and Stefanoni being the scapegoats, though. Oh well, they traded Lumumba for Guede -- they can trade Patrizia for Monica, right, Rose?

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe - Instead of blindly believing everything your pro innocent Foaker crowd says, do a little research yourself and come up with your own conclusion. Yes, for the most part, they are telling the truth, but they are leaving out important aspects, they know about them, they researched them, but these aspects don't jive with what they are saying so they omit them. That deceitful and very telling. Search TOD and stomach contents, and not just one site, see what most are saying, and when they state that stomach contents are not reliable in determining TOD, find out why.

Hint - look for what can slow down or stop digestion all together and see if it fits in with this case.

I've said for quite a while, stomach contents will probally show us when the attack stated, but not when it ended.

Others have already addressed this, but I'll add my thoughts.

Sherlock, the two things I stated in my post that I had understood from people in this forum are that Meredith's last meal began between 6.00 and 6.30 pm, and that at post mortem her duodenum was empty, while her stomach contained about 500ml of ingesta, including recognisable semi-digested pieces of pizza.

If either of these facts is incorrect, all bets are off. However if both facts are correct, then I don't need to google elementary digestive physiology to come to a conclusion about the time of death. As I believe someone else has pointed out, I am a pathologist who does forensic work for the courts. I am sitting here looking at a legal citation to show up next Monday to give expert witness evidence as to time of death, in court. Indeed, I am a veterinary pathologist, but Homo sapiens is just one more species, quite frankly, and one which happens to be extremely well studied.

Stomach contents are often a poor guide to time of death. However, in the particular circumstances of this case, where the victim had eaten little or nothing earlier in the day, and there is good evidence as to when the meal was eaten, and there is post mortem evidence of an empty duodenum, they happen to provide extraodinarily good evidence. It's pointless to look at generalities, when the specifics of this case are quite different from the cases these generalities have been derived from.

You have said this before, and I recall thinking it was desperate reaching at that time. You seem to be suggesting that Meredith was attacked soon after nine o'clock, and was then subjected to prolonged torture for several hours before she died. And that this torture brought on some sort of paralytic ileus which preserved the stomach and duodenum in the condition they had been in when the attack began.

Even on the face of it, this assertion is unlikely. Such fear often makes victims evacuate the lower bowel, and nothing is said about this in the post mortem report as far as I know. Conversely, there was said to be ingesta in the distal jejunum. At the other end, the stomach may churn, the victim may vomit - all sorts of things might happen. Two hours of paralytic inaction is not a given.

However, I cannot see where you are going with this in the context of the case. I am not aware of any evidence suggesting a prolonged torture session, most of which must have been carried out by a single assailant. I am also not aware of any credible allegation that Rudy Guede attacked Meredith, immobilised her, and tortured her for a couple of hours before Amanda and Raffaele walked in on this - and instead of calling the cops and rushing to help their friend, decided to join the attacker and help finish her off. This, however, is what you seem to be suggesting.

It may have merit as a plot for a far-fetched thriller, but it doesn't seem to be a credible scenario in the real-life situation under discussion.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

This is not the Amanda Knox support forum. It's a forum for skepticism and those who propose that they are certain of the pairs innocence without benefit of the trial transcript, all the photographs put into evidence or the actual various scientific reports are not skeptics.

Just to bring this into focus one more time. I've seen few people here declare they are "certain of the pair's innocence". I have seen quite a number say that on the basis of the evidence which is in the public domain, they can see a great deal of reasonable doubt as regards their guilt, and incline to the view that they are innocent.

These people are able to explain their reasoning, on the basis of that evidence which is in the public domain. Those who are apparently certain of the pair's guilt appear unable to do the same.

So, can one not equally say that those who propose that they are certain of the pair's GUILT without benefit of the trial transcript, all the photographs put into evidence or the actual various scientific reports, are not sceptics?

It's even more applicable to that position, because it is the position actually held (rather than the real position being one of reasonable doubt), and it is the pro-guilt side which refuses to explain its reasoning even in relation to the evidence which is available.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm a skeptic and a critical thinker, that's why I post on this forum. Just show me the actual evidence/verbatim testimony, not what others say the evidence and testimony is. Why is this so difficult? You would expect nothing less if it was a claim of a UFO or Bigfoot.

Many of your posts also seem to be suggesting that 'the court got it right because they must have seen some secret stash of evidence that the rest of us haven't seen and that's good enough for me' - which is decidedly non-skeptical and decidedly antithetical to critical thinking.

In fact, the suggestion that there is some secret stash of evidence that the court relied upon, but that was never mentioned mentioned in the 400+ pages that make up the Massei sentencing report, never mentioned in the press, and never mentioned in the appeal documents - not even by the prosecution who are simultaneously appealing - strikes me as patently ridiculous.

I note that in his/her short participation in the Lockerbie threads, Alt+F4 also relied on the "secret evidence" card. In that case, once s/he had realised that in that case the entire trial transcripts plus most of the photographic productions ARE in the public domain, s/he then reverted to the theory that there must be other evidence, not brought forward at trial, which would prove guilt.

The position was, as I recall, that the issue should be left to the relatives of the victims, because they must have information not available to the public, which allows them to be certain. This of course completely ignores the well-publicised fact that the relatives of the victims are split down the middle on this one, with some convinced of guilt and some convinced of innocence.

On one hand s/he asks to be shown the evidence, but then when shown the evidence, declares that there must be more hidden somewhere.

On one hand, s/he declares that s/he is convinced of Knox/Sollecito's guilt on the basis of evidence in the public domain, but on the other, when anyone tries to debate that opinion with him/her, s/he falls back on the "how can you argue your position when you don't have access to the transcripts" line.

Alt+F4, I point this out merely to ask how you can justify describing yourself as a sceptic on the basis of your approach to these cases?

I could understand the position that nobody can know for sure. However, the position that you can declare you are certain of guilt based on what is in the public domain, but nobody who believes the same evidence shows reasonable doubt as to guilt is allowed to argue for that position unless they have access to original transcripts and photographs, is perverse - to put it politely.

Rolfe.

 

[pipelineaudio]

What shocks me, when i remember what forum we are on, is the absolute...ok I'm just going to go out and say it, dishonesty of quite a few posters on this thread who, when asked a direct question will not only evade it completely, but will then go on to write several paragraphs on an unrelated subject, often making new statements, that when asked, they will not answer for

In creationism vs evolution arguments, we call this the "Gish gallup". I know that many of you know this term, I'm just spelling it out for the benefit of those who may not know.

Rolfe, et al, I don't think you will see any direct answers forthcoming from alt-f4 or platonov.

For all the overarching and extremely heavy handed moderating that goes on here, you would think there would be a rule against the gish gallup, or at least a way to challenge someone from posting in the same thread until they can "put up or shut up"

Frankly, the evasion and galloping going on here is beyond ridiculous

 

[lionking]

My problem is for the innocentisti narrative to play out, it would require a large and sophisticated conspiracy involving the police, forensic scientists and probably also the prosecution. Lasting years. With no whistleblowers. In what many people here describe as a shambolic justice system.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Gish Gallop

It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish

Thanks, pipelineaudio! Interesting to know that various tactics of evading debate I've seen here are so common among other non-sceptics that a taxonomy can be developed

 

[LondonJohn]

My problem is for the innocentisti narrative to play out, it would require a large and sophisticated conspiracy involving the police, forensic scientists and probably also the prosecution. Lasting years. With no whistleblowers. In what many people here describe as a shambolic justice system.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

No, it doesn't mean there would have to be a "large and sophisticated conspiracy involving the police, forensic scientists and probably also the prosecution". Please explain why you think that such a conspiracy would be a necessary precursor to a miscarriage of justice in this case. In addition, do you think that all (or even most) miscarriages of justice are the result of these "large and sophisticated conspiracies" among law enforcement officials, or is this case special in that regard?

I'd also add the following - just as a footnote: how many of the police and prosecutors do you think were aware that Curatolo was under active investigation for drug dealing dating back several years, at the time they were presenting him as a reliable, accurate and trustworthy witness? After you consider that, then try to estimate how many of the police and prosecutors you think might have colluded in the apparent decision not to disclose this information to the defence or to the courts, let alone offer any reason why he had not even been prosecuted in 2009 (some five years or so after the police photographed him supplying heroin to a user (who might well have been a police plant or informant))? How many of the police and prosecutors knew that Curatolo had his own ongoing heroin abuse problem at the time of Meredith's murder and long before/after the murder? How many of the police and prosecutors knew that he was almost certainly (by his own admission) using heroin on the very day that his testimony concerned?

 

[LondonJohn]

Gish Gallop



Thanks, pipelineaudio! Interesting to know that various tactics of evading debate I've seen here are so common among other non-sceptics that a taxonomy can be developed

Yes: certain "arguments" on this thread seem to be poster children for the Gish Gallop

 

[RoseMontague]

Frank does seem to be making the point that Mignini followed the lead of the police, not vice versa. It provides a new perspective, that's for sure. It will throw off Rose's prediction of Curatolo and Stefanoni being the scapegoats, though. Oh well, they traded Lumumba for Guede -- they can trade Patrizia for Monica, right, Rose?

I know what you are thinking. You believe that Stefanoni's reputation as an internationally respected forensic scientist will keep her out of trouble even with the potential of a scathing rebuttal of her work by the independent experts. I guess we will find out soon enough.

I believe the court already knows that Miss Monica is a lying liar. It's amusing that the prosecution keeps calling on her to save the day.

 

[lionking]

No, it doesn't mean there would have to be a "large and sophisticated conspiracy involving the police, forensic scientists and probably also the prosecution".

Well how many police and forensic scientists do you believe were involved in the stitch up?

 

[RoseMontague]

I'd also add the following - just as a footnote: how many of the police and prosecutors do you think were aware that Curatolo was under active investigation for drug dealing dating back several years, at the time they were presenting him as a reliable, accurate and trustworthy witness? After you consider that, then try to estimate how many of the police and prosecutors you think might have colluded in the apparent decision not to disclose this information to the defence or to the courts, let alone offer any reason why he had not even been prosecuted in 2009 (some five years or so after the police photographed him supplying heroin to a user (who might well have been a police plant or informant))? How many of the police and prosecutors knew that Curatolo had his own ongoing heroin abuse problem at the time of Meredith's murder and long before/after the murder? How many of the police and prosecutors knew that he was almost certainly (by his own admission) using heroin on the very day that his testimony concerned?

And how many cops knew that Curatola was asked if he had seen something at the very beginning of the investigation and had denied seeing anything or anyone suspicious. This little factoid is curiously missing from both the Massei report and the appeal documents.

 

[LondonJohn]

I know what you are thinking. You believe that Stefanoni's reputation as an internationally respected forensic scientist will keep her out of trouble even with the potential of a scathing rebuttal of her work by the independent experts. I guess we will find out soon enough.

I believe the court already knows that Miss Monica is a lying liar. It's amusing that the prosecution keeps calling on her to save the day.

Don't forget that Stefanoni also selflessly flew to Thailand to offer her world-famous expertise in assisting to identify victims of the tsunami. Surely such a role would only be offered to a handful of the world's top forensic scientists, no...?

And it's funny how pretty much none of the pro-guilt groupthinkers deem it necessary to mention the fragrant Monica these days. It's almost as if she's been airbrushed out of their consciousnesses. I wonder why - given that she's a significantly important figure on the police side of this case?

 

[LondonJohn]

And how many cops knew that Curatola was asked if he had seen something at the very beginning of the investigation and had denied seeing anything or anyone suspicious. This little factoid is curiously missing from both the Massei report and the appeal documents.

Indeed. And I'd love to be able to see a video (or even audio) recording of the "discussions" between Curatolo and the police, once he had decided that he had indeed seen something of value to the prosecutors. I suspect they might contain multiple instances of the police saying things like "Try again, Toto. What time did you see them?"

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I could point you towards all those who have reported (with certainity) that they have seen a UFO or Bigfoot. I'm a skeptic and a critical thinker, that's why I post on this forum. Just show me the actual evidence/verbatim testimony, not what others say the evidence and testimony is. Why is this so difficult? You would expect nothing less if it was a claim of a UFO or Bigfoot.

This.

Don't expect a rational answer.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well how many police and forensic scientists do you believe were involved in the stitch up?

None in the way that you suggest (a large organised conspiracy).

But you were the one who made this assertion:

...it (a miscarriage of justice in this case) would require a large and sophisticated conspiracy involving the police, forensic scientists and probably also the prosecution...

I'm asking you to back up what you asserted. If you can't do so, or won't do so, that's fine, but please let me know if that's the case.

 

[lionking]

None in the way that you suggest (a large organised conspiracy).

But you were the one who made this assertion:



I'm asking you to back up what you asserted. If you can't do so, or won't do so, that's fine, but please let me know if that's the case.

Evasion noted.

I've read countless posts about how police and forensic scientists were complicit in the framing of AK and RS. Is it too much to ask how many?

Or are you saying that there was no intentional wrong doing by the police and forensic scientists? Was there a conspiracy, yes or no? How many were involved? How have the conspirators all remained silent?

These are not hard questions.

 

[LondonJohn]

This.

Don't expect a rational answer.

As others have already pointed out, the issue of burden of proof is all mixed up in this analogy. If someone asserts that they saw a UFO or Bigfoot, then it's entirely incumbent upon them to provide evidence to support these claims. It's not up to sceptics to actively disprove the claims in order to settle the argument in such cases.

In the case of Knox and Sollecito, in order to make a cogent argument in favour of a miscarriage of justice, it is not necessary for the arguer to prove that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the crime. It's not, in fact, necessary for them to prove anything. It's only necessary for them to show that there are reasonable alternative scenarios that do not involve Knox and Sollecito, and that the evidence presented in court does not provide proof of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, in order for anyone to argue that Knox and Sollecito should be convicted of the murder, they need to argue convincingly that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox/Sollecito did indeed participate. There's really no wiggle room if you're going to try to argue for guilt.

I would agree that people who assert that Knox and Sollecito are "100% innocent" (who I would say are in the minority here) would need to provide active proof of innocence. I have said many times before that I think that an active belief in their innocence is untenable at the present time - I've stated that currently the only people who know for sure whether they are innocent are Knox and Sollecito themselves (and probably also Guede). However, if the new computer evidence proves to be accurate and reliable, then it would point strongly to the innocence of at least one of the two defendants.

 

[LondonJohn]

Evasion noted.

I've read countless posts about how police and forensic scientists were complicit in the framing of AK and RS. Is it too much to ask how many?

Or are you saying that there was no intentional wrong doing by the police and forensic scientists? Was there a conspiracy, yes or no? How many were involved? How have the conspirators all remained silent?

These are not hard questions.

Quit with the "evasion noted" crap please. You're the one being evasive here. You made an assertion that only a large and sophisticated conspiracy would explain a miscarriage of justice in this case, and I asked you if you would back that up with a supporting argument. You seem to be refusing to do so. Why?