Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Antony]

There comes a time in the investigation when they get someone in their sights as the suspect, and then the whole focus changes from finding out the truth to building a case against that person.

God help you if you are that person, and you didn't do it, and you don't have a cast-iron alibi.

I describe this as "solving the crime the easy way". The history of miscarriages of justice is littered with such approaches; and when you recognise that that is what has happened, then they are oddly easy to spot.

What told me that this was such a case was that Amanda and Raffaele being at the scene when the murder was discovered, was something altogether too convenient for the investigators. At the time I knew very little about the case - but everything I found out afterwards confirmed my original judgement.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Once again, this is patent nonsense.



There's nothing at all rude about asking someone to focus on the subject matter at hand instead of going off on tangents when they don't like being confronted with their own words. And I post here as a member, just like you, so why are you again going off on yet another non-sequitur and silly tangent while simultaneously trying to avoid your own words?

Your assertion that I am demanding that you agree with me is patently ridiculous. I've asked you to support your repeated insinuations and your repeated assertions with evidence to support them but it appears from your posts that you are decidedly unable and unwilling to do so. Will you start any time soon?

How about starting with explaining what it is about the publicly available evidence, which you've never seen personally, of course, that led you to believe so strongly in the guilt of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito? Even leaving aside the "secret" evidence to which you keep alluding.

Thank you! This is really becoming a problem with some of the posters around here. Its really driving me nuts

 

[lionking]

Thank you! This is really becoming a problem with some of the posters around here. Its really driving me nuts

Same here, but probably for different reasons.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Are you seriously suggesting that police whistleblowers end up in prison in Italy? You do know that there are whistleblower protection laws there? Unless you have evidence of this ridiculous assertion, you should withdraw it.

You know, when I see a poster who refuses to address the meat of the opposition case and instead slinks around looking for any inconsequential part of a post they can snipe at, I conclude that they don't have any sensible answer to the meat of the opposition case.

Yes, yes, I know, you're a big boy and we're not the boss of you and you'll post whatever you like. You can continue to do so. You are not being gagged, silenced, oppressed or made to sit in the corner. I'm just pointing out that there's an elephant in the room and you're trying to pick fights about dust bunnies under the couch.

See, I believe that the majority of police take their oath seriously, and that any conspiracy of silence, which would be necessary to keep this widespread wrongdoing covered up, would have been exposed long before now.

The idea that it is more extraordinary that one town in Italy might have a corrupt and incompetent police force than it would be for the laws of nature to have made a special exception to allow undigested pizza to sit in a healthy young woman's stomach for five and a half hours puzzles me.

Are you genuinely such a blind authoritarian that you find outright miracles more plausible than police corruption? Or did you just not think this through?

 

[lionking]

Pretty uncivil post Kevin, but I will let it slide. I think needing a conspiracy of silence to hold the innocentisti position together is fairly elephantine. And thank you for permission to post in this thread.

 

[Draca]

I've been thinking about these new witnesses who are designated to testify next weekend.

I've read some items that say that the new witnesses are designated to testify in rebuttal to the recent inmate testimony to the effect that Rudy said Knox/Sollecito are innocent. It seems to me that the only direct ways to rebut this testimony is to find someone to say either (i) that Rudy did not say what the inmates say he said, or (ii) the inmates said that they had not be told this by Rudy. It seems to me very unlikely that someone would be found who would testify as to (ii), in effect, that the inmates by their own admission lied in court. And, Rudy is the only one who really can testify as to (i). So, I think what we will see on direct rebuttal is Rudy in effect saying "no, I didn't tell those inmates what they say I said." Fair enough.

When Rudy gives this testimony, we might have a big argument on how far the defense gets to go on cross-examining him. Do they have to limit their cross-examination to issues that go to the truthfulness of his testimony that he did not tell the inmates what they say he said? Or is the whole enchilada fair game? Honestly, the defense might not want to go too far in cross-examining Rudy, because it could lead to a direct accusation against the defendants. Of course, the court might have its own questions once it gets Rudy in the hot seat. We'll see.

But what about these other witnesses? Benedetti, Napoleoni, Chiarrara (sp?)? I don't think that they can testify in direct rebuttal, i.e., as to points (i) and (ii) above. Instead, after having thought some about this, I think that these witnesses will testify to the effect that "Rudy previously told us that Knox/Sollecito are guilty" (Benedetti visits Rudy in prison, and the other two are police officers who likely interviewed him). The door to such testimony might have been opened as a result of the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence last weekend. This takes the accusation out of Rudy's mouth, and puts it into the mouths of witnesses who are likely to be deemed more reliable (of course, still Rudy's underlying words). This could potentially avoid the problems for the prosecution that might arise with a blistering cross-examination of Rudy.

If the above is true, then this seems a bit of gamesmanship by the prosecution because there is a difference between what the defense witnesses said and what these new rebuttal witnesses would be saying. The difference being that the statements to the inmates are statements against Rudy's interests, while the statements Rudy made about the alleged guilt of Knox/Sollecito would be more self-serving. Perhaps there is an evidentiary argument still to be had here.

If the prosecution adopts this strategy, it would be nice to question Rudy about deals he may have cut with the prosecution. It would also be nice to question Napoleoni about potential police misconduct as a way to undermine her reliability. The answers to these lines of questioning are not certain, though, so maybe we will not see these questions.

Diocletus,

Great post. Thanks for looking into this. I would like to know why Monica Napoleoni and Marco Chiaccheria are being called to testify. Two of the heros of Nov 6th back on the stand. Did they interrogate Rudy Guede at some point? Is this when Rudy changed his story to saying Amanda was there ? I think that was in Dec 2007 right?

Giacomo Benedetti - Is this about the skype call or visit with Rudy?

 

[Draca]

The Skype call

R. In the newspaper they’re writing that I was drunk and slept on the toilet. That’s crap. In that house we were smoking joints, we smoked and so did those girls, everyone did. After that I said to the guys, who are men of their word, "Listen, guys, I'm tired, I can't walk now, can I sleep over here?" So I slept on their sofa. I was only ever at their place twice.

After that, after that I met Amanda, but I didn’t talk to her any more, I just saw her one other time, at that pub with Lumamba whatever his name was –

G. Right, Lumumba –

R. – just one other time, and we talked in that pub, but after that I didn’t see her any more, I mean I'd see her in the street, but just to say “hi”.

R. The girl who was killed, I knew her. The evening before, we talked.... well, I got to know her during a rugby match.

G. Wait - the girl you’re talking about, the one you knew, who was that? This Meredith?

R. Yes, Meredith. I’m talking about her now.

G. You knew her? [talking over each other]

R. Yes. I don’t mean that we hung out together. Up to then, we just saw each other a couple of times, mainly that evening where there was the rugby match between England and South Africa, I was together with a couple of friends at this place, now I can’t remember the name…

G. Wait, I don’t get it, you saw her with her? I didn’t get it.

R. I'm telling you how I met her.

G. Oh, okay.

R. I met her in that place...

G. pub?

R. That Irish pub in the center near the Kurdish place, what’s it called?

G. Oh, the Shamrock?

R. The Shamrock. That’s where they were showing the England-South Africa match, and I was there with a couple of friends, and she was there too.

G. Oh yes?

R. She was there too and we were teasing each other, bantering.

G. Uh-huh.

R. So then...

G. So you were actually trying to…

R. No, because I already knew her, it isn't that...

R. Oh, right, right.

R. So on Halloween, I went out with the Spanish girls, these two girls who live upstairs, two Spanish girls who live upstairs from me, and on Halloween I spent some time with them. Then we went over to some friends of theirs, together, friends of these girls, and then we went to the house of some other Spanish kids, and that’s where I really talked with…

G. This was on Halloween?

R. With Meredith.

G. Right.

R. During that party.

G. Where?

R. She was disguised as a vampire. You probably saw the pictures.

G. Yep. In the newspapers.

R. Well, the next day, we had an appointment to see each other again.

G. I see.

R. I don’t know if you get me. The next day…

G. Yes.

R. Umm, she was there. And I was there. So we're seeing each other…

R. So we went in, and I think it was about eight-thirty, or eight-twenty, they're saying that she told her friends she was tired and wanted to go home. But in fact no, we were supposed to see each other, we had made an appointment the evening before during the Halloween party, at the Spanish kids' house, and I can also say, well I don't know the street but I can say where it was.

G. What street was it?

R. If I were in Perugia I could say where that house is, and anyway those kids can confirm that I was at that party.

G. Okay.

R. And then, we saw each other at Meredith's house and we started talking...we started talking, and I, well, I tried, I mean I tried and she was willing. But in the end we didn't do anything because...she didn't have any condoms and neither did I.

G. Like...in the newspapers it says that...well, you did something if...

R. Yes but in fact, I'm just telling you we did...oral stuff. No, no penetration, because I didn't have a condom, we didn't do anything. And so it's all crap according to me that they said they found my...sperm...male sperm. Then I, that... it's not mine because we didn't do anything.

R. When we got there, I don't know what happened, but she said "damn" - the money's gone!

G. - something about money you were saying?

R. The money is gone, she said, when's Amanda coming back - I have to talk to her. Because they had quarrelled in the evening, because of problems that...Amanda smokes, she smokes...a lot and they quarrelled.

G. So you think that, like, she took her money for...

R. - no, wait, let me get there, after...

G. - sorry -

R. Let me get you to understand better, well, it's been said...well, okay, so something that hasn't come out yet, it hasn't come out that...Amanda hasn't talked about umm...money, Raffaele hasn't talked about the money. So only I know this, that she told me her money was missing, that was hidden in the drawer where she kept her underwear.

G. I see.

R. She told me this. And after that I went to the bathroom. I really had to go take a ****. And I heard the doorbell. For me, that must have been one of the girls who lived with her. So, I was calmly in the bathroom, like that. And at a certain point -

G. - So you thought it was someone from upstairs?

R. Yes, no, I thought that, well clearly someone rang the doorbell, they rang and she went and opened it -

G. Okay

R. so for me it was...it could have been anyone for me, see?

G. Sure, sure.

R. It could have been Amanda, it could have been... anyone.

G. So you were calmly taking a ****, I get it.

R. I was in the bathroom, so for me, well, I didn't worry about it, because anyway in the end we were going to be seeing each other and...

R. I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this ****, but then I heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud...and then, then, I got a bit worried and I got out of the bathroom right away, without even putting my pants back on, they were practically falling down, I was wearing just my underwear and my pants were falling around my...

G. But if I understand, I mean like where was this...I mean, what time do you think this happened, I don't know...

R. Around nine, nine twenty or so, because in the meantime we had gotten to talking about all that stuff.

G. I see.

R. I think nine-twenty, nine-thirty, around then, and then, when I heard the scream, let me tell you she screamed so loud that you could hear it even in the street, Giacomo, she screamed really loud. When I came out, it was in semi-darkness, I came out and I saw him -

G. But who?

R. His back was turned, and I said to myself what the hell is going on?

G. Masked? What the hell was this guy like?

R. Well, firstly this person wasn't bigger than me, I mean taller, physically, in height, he wasn't taller than me. His back was turned, and I saw there...Meredith...I saw Meredith who was bleeding already, she had a slash in her throat, and this guy took a knife and I've got wounds on my hands because I grabbed his hand, he tried to stab me and I still have the wounds on my hands, the signs, that are healing now, but I still have them on my hand...

R. ...I was trying to help her, Giacomo, it's not that...my blood, no, I don't know if there is any or not, because I didn't bleed, I didn't actually bleed, my wounds that I had, the guy just wounded me lightly, it didn't bleed, now I can't tell you...

G. OK, but anyway, I mean, the point is that in my opinion you should [missing word] them, maybe if you have to find some...

R. I tried to help her, and if my prints are in the house, it's obviously because I touched everything, Giacomo.

G. Sure, I believe it if you were there, but listen, this guy, you can't manage to say anything about what the hell he was like? That could be important.

R. Yes but that guy, well, it was almost dark, I didn't see his face, but I say he was Italian because he, we...we insulted each other. I insulted him. And he insulted me and he didn't have a foreign accent, and he wasn't any taller than me, I don't know how tall this Stefano or whoever is, but he certainly wasn't taller than me.

G. So was he, like, blond? What the hell was he like, didn't you manage to see anything?

R. I can't tell you, I think...brown-haired, more brown, not blond because, well you can really see when someone is blond...

G. All right, so not exactly blond, hell do I know, say chestnut?

R. Yes, brown, like brown between...between blond and brown.

G. It's called chestnut.

R. But not light.

G. It's called chestnut, but...

R. In the room it was dark, it was intimate, it was dark.

G. I get it.

R. And it was like my pants were falling down, because I hurried out of the bathroom, I hurried out of the bathroom, so I fell on the ground, and then the guy ran away, he escaped, he went out the door, see? And then I got up, and I tried to help, to staunch the wounds, I took a towel in the bathroom, I tried to...to...

G. Staunch the wound?

R. ...to put it into the wound, see, I was trying, and she was clinging to me hard, very hard. So before anything, I know...it's not that I ran away, but I was scared, I don't know why I didn't call the ambulance, it's because...I was alone there right then, alone, and it was a huge mess of blood, and I was scared that they would blame only me.

R. Listen, Meredith's clothes got put in the washing machine. When the police came to the house it was still full, the girl's clothes were soaked, so if that really did happen, Amanda or Raffaele did it. That must have been them, if it really happened.

G. Why would they have done that?

R. Because when I left she was dressed, see?

G. Meredith? The girl who died?

R. But Meredith was dressed.

G. So they killed her dressed?

R. Yes, but it says here that they were washed in the washing machine, but it's not true, she was dressed, she had a pair of jeans on and a white shirt and a woollen thing. She was dressed.

G. All right, and that...

R. It's obvious that they washed them, Giacomo. I went out, and he'll have gone out of the house, and...

G. But what the hell did Amanda go wash the clothes for?

R. How the hell do I know?

G. But if she's not involved, sorry - I'm reasoning like you would, if I were...

R. Yes but then, after, though, from what I've read, someone else came, because when I left, the window wasn't broken, Giacomo, the window of the house, that window out front, it wasn't broken.

G. And you think it's important about the window and the money that wasn't there
any more?

R. Sure, it means someone broke it, and I wasn't there.

In my opinion, the way Rudy Guede lies is classic. He knows the police will find out he was at the scene of the crime. So he pulls out the oldest excuse in the book: I was there, but it was not me, it was a stranger I've never seen before /I didn't get a good look at. Every criminals last line of defence. The unknown man, totally made up, doing exactly what we can suppose Rudy Guede did in real life.

He mentions the things he know the police will blame him for. The missing money (someone else stole them; maybe Amanda), the broken window (wasn't me, wasn't there), the scream (that he heard from the bathroom), the wounds on his hands (from when he confronted the unknown intruder) and so on and so forth.

Guede broke the window, stole the money, got the wounds while Meredith was fighting back, no-one else was there, he heard the scream from a very close range because Meredith screamed when he attacked her and subsequently killed her, probably panicking.

Notice how this unknown man makes his return in his story to Alessi.

I think Rudy's friend in the Alessi story is his new BHS bushy haired stranger. A new way to explain what happened and say he didn't do it. His convenient 'friend' did all those bad things and not him.

I wonder if they will now track down Aviello's brother to say he doesn't even know Rudy Guede? I suppose a logical question to ask Rudy Guede on the stand is if he knows Aviello's brother.

 

[Kaosium]

Are you seriously suggesting that police whistleblowers end up in prison in Italy? You do know that there are whistleblower protection laws there? Unless you have evidence of this ridiculous assertion, you should withdraw it.

They might put their buddies there, don't you think they might think of that? Do you suppose they'd be celebrated or reviled?

As for whistleblower laws, they have something of the sort, it's called the calunnia charge. That means if you blow the whistle and can't prove it, then you go to jail. Ask Amanda Knox!

Or for that matter her parents. Did you read this Times article Fine reposted about seven or so pages back now? What do you see there that constituted a viscous slander? Something worth suing people 6k miles away for?

With the charge on Alessi that's the nineteenth extra person whose had charges brought on him during the course of this debacle for either criticizing the police, the investigation, Mignini or just for supporting Amanda Knox and wanting to give her family a picture.

Maybe you've seen people refer to Frank Sfarzo, he's the guy in Perugia whose been blogging about the case since the beginning. He used to tell us silly Knoxies that we were out of line criticizing the police, He thought their theories were ridiculous, being sane and all, but he didn't think they deserved some of the criticism they were getting from overseas. He doesn't feel that way anymore:

The harassment reached its peak on September 28, 2010, when five officers of Squadra Mobile forcibly entered Sfarzo's apartment. They did not produce a warrant or show their badges, Sfarzo told CPJ. Four of the five shoved Sfarzo to the ground, struck him, handcuffed him, and climbed on top of him, crushing his air supply, he told CPJ. They stopped when a neighbor, disturbed by the commotion, showed up, Sfarzo said.

Next, the officers took Sfarzo to the Perugia city hospital, where they claimed he had attacked them; they persuaded a doctor to issue a medical report for the injuries Sfarzo was alleged to have caused. In addition, the Squadra Mobile officers brought Sfarzo before a psychiatrist, demanding that she issue him a certificate of insanity. To prove that Sfarzo was mentally ill, the officers produced Sfarzo's reporter's notebook on the Kercher murder case, which they had seized from his apartment. "They told the doctor that I was pathologically obsessed with the case, that I was so fixated on it I must be insane," Sfarzo told CPJ. The psychiatrist refused to issue the certificate.

From the hospital, the officers brought a handcuffed and injured Sfarzo to their headquarters, where, in the blogger's words, they "displayed me as a trophy," referring to him as "the bastard who defends Amanda [Knox]." The officers refused Sfarzo's requests to call his lawyer or his relatives, and put him in a cell for the night.

The next day, the officers brought Sfarzo before a local judge, who validated his arrest and indicted him on several articles of Italy's penal code for "using violence and threats to resist public officials" and "injuring an officer." Sfarzo was released pending a trial in May. He faces up to six years in prison if convicted. "The police can count on the complicity of judges," Sfarzo told CPJ. Police officers, he added, are sure of their impunity."

Were you reading the thread when Halides posted the link about when the mother of the kid who had his back broken in police custody (they tried to say it was a suicide!) called the perpetrators 'felons' and was sued because that wasn't technically correct at that point?

Let me put it in context for you, so you might understand why this might be. The police in Italy have had to fight the mafia a lot longer than the FBI. They also had their prime minister kidnapped and murdered by terrorists some thirty years ago or so. They kinda freaked in Italy as you can imagine, remember what happened when another place had its first big terrorist attack about ten years ago or so? Freak city, right? People were pissed! Laws were passed! The same thing happened in Italy a long time before it did most places.

Thus the police there have had kind of a free hand for a long time now, their Prime Minister ran on reforming the 'police state' in his last election. He didn't lose. This is a situation where the overloaded court system cannot provide the oversight necessary and must rely overmuch on the police. It's a place where mere criticism of the authorities in the police and judiciary can be punished with suits and charges no matter how ridiculous. Most don't do that, because most police officers are honest. They are the good guys, however if they screw up and want to shut someone up the law is completely on their side. In this case they blew it out their warmest hole absolutely, and you ought to be able to tell by the nature of the charges and their actions they have something to cover up here.

See, I believe that the majority of police take their oath seriously, and that any conspiracy of silence, which would be necessary to keep this widespread wrongdoing covered up, would have been exposed long before now.

"Pardon him, Theodotus, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the Laws Of Nature."

--George Bernard Shaw

The innocentisti narrative falls over without a conspiracy of silence, at the very least.

Actually it doesn't in the slightest. Amanda could have walked in there and told them a fairy tale just to amuse herself and she wouldn't be guilty of murder. That's what the evidence says. That DNA 'evidence' isn't even compelling evidence of murder. That knife never left the drawer that night, if there was ever a case-closed example of contamination or secondary transfer that's it. The bra clasp is almost certainly contamination as well, or again some sort of transfer, there's allele soup there of about four people and it's about the size of your pinky-nail! Think about that for a second!

So just pretend it was all a mistake. Pretend you know nothing about any police misconduct whatsoever. Just judge it on the evidence, forget about everything else. We tend to talk about it because it's all out in the open, all the extra people they're charging that noticed is really kinda suspicious when you think of it, like they want people to shut up or something.

Be a real skeptic, go to this site and go through the evidence.

 

[Aber]

In my opinion, the way Rudy Guede lies is classic. He knows the police will find out he was at the scene of the crime. So he pulls out the oldest excuse in the book: I was there, but it was not me, it was a stranger I've never seen before /I didn't get a good look at. Every criminals last line of defence. The unknown man, totally made up, doing exactly what we can suppose Rudy Guede did in real life.

He mentions the things he know the police will blame him for. The missing money (someone else stole them; maybe Amanda), the broken window (wasn't me, wasn't there), the scream (that he heard from the bathroom), the wounds on his hands (from when he confronted the unknown intruder) and so on and so forth.

Any way similar to RS's story of how the DNA got on his knife?

 

[lionking]

Kaosium the IIP site is hardly even handed. It might be propaganda you agree with, but it's still propaganda.

 

[Mary_H]

Any way similar to RS's story of how the DNA got on his knife?

Not really. As Paninero noted, "[Rudy] mentions the things he knows the police will blame him for." He anticipated the accusations and pre-empted them. As Paninero also noted, that is a type of classic lying behavior.

Raffaele mentioned the thing the police had already blamed him (or rather, his apartment) for. He tried to explain something that didn't make any sense, after he was informed of it and had given it some thought. If he had any knowledge of the crime and wanted to lie about it to avoid detection, he would have set up at least a few excuses and alibis before meeting with the police, as Rudy did.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Pretty uncivil post Kevin, but I will let it slide. I think needing a conspiracy of silence to hold the innocentisti position together is fairly elephantine.

You haven't addressed the point that the Massei narrative requires a miraculous suspension of the laws of nature, whereas the "elephant" in the innocentisti room is the relatively uncontroversial idea that corrupt cops might not blab, or might not have blabbed yet.

However improbable you claim to think that second idea is, nobody who has any claim to competent skepticism can think it is more improbable than the first.

And thank you for permission to post in this thread.

You also have my express permission to play the victim to your heart's content.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium the IIP site is hardly even handed. It might be propaganda you agree with, but it's still propaganda.

I started my reading experience at PMF, it was invaluable to my understanding of the case. I avoided IIP and FOA for the same reason you do, that was an error in judgment, it just made it take longer for me to get to the basic truth of the matter. However I learned some things along the way!

If they are innocent, then it isn't necessarily biased, is it? If you avoid anything that suggests that an injustice occurred, does that mean you're precluding the possibility an injustice did occur? There isn't anything like an unbiased source in this case, either they did it, or they didn't, and most can figure out from what is available which makes more sense to them.

At any rate it is organized so you can go through the evidence piece by piece. You can also post at their public forum (or private for that matter) and they won't ban you for disagreeing! Even if you keep doing it and annoy the hell out of just about everyone, Bruce won't ban you as long as you follow his rather lenient rules. This is not the case with PMF, as you might have seen.

At least it will give you and overview of what the evidence is. You don't have to accept their analysis of it, but it's helpful to see where the footprints are, what the luminol hits look like, the bra-clasp collection video etc. They have the police's own crime scene videos that the defense released, they wanted people to see. You can look at the pictures of the break-in, see if the bank-shot ballistics Massei pretended happened fit your knowledge of physics.

The front page of TJMK has a summary of the Massei Report, so you don't have to read 400 pages. They do include a summary of the evidence as well.

 

[lionking]

However improbable you claim to think that second idea is, nobody who has any claim to competent skepticism can think it is more improbable than the first.

Another lecture on the nature of "true skepticism" I could have done without.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm sick of being misrepresented. I didn't come up with the idea of a conspiracy. People here who insist on deliberate misconduct by police and forensic scientists are the ones who are proposing a conspiracy of silence (at least), whether they like it or not. Some have been honest enough to say that two dozen would be involved in this conspiracy. I don't buy it, sorry.

So, just remind us all who wrote this post yesterday, Lionking (my bolding):

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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7296587#post7296587


Is the person who wrote this post not asserting that the only way for there to have been a miscarriage of justice in this particular case is if there had been this "large and sophisticated conspiracy"? So is the writer of this post not proposing such a conspiracy as the only viable source of a miscarriage of justice? Or would the write of that post care to clarify his/her position? Or would the writer of that post like to think a little more before (s)he starts writing contradictory statements?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know. You're not allowed to have reasonable doubt, and convict. You are allowed unreasonable doubt. I don't know where you'd place that, mathematically, but I'd say that if you're 9.99% sure someone is guilty, the remaining 0.01% is likely to be unreasonable.

Rolfe.

I can see where you're coming from. I'm assuming (for the sake of argument) that the 0.01% doubt is reasonable doubt. In practice, it's impossible of course to assign numerical values to intangible and unquantifiable matters such as doubt. My underlying point is this: anything other than a total certainty in guilt should imply a belief in acquittal.

 

[Rolfe]

LASHL,

I don't believe that Alt is claiming that there is "secret" evidence that has only been heard by the jury and members of the court. I believe she is simply stating that the evidence that has become public is secondhand information that possibly, or probably, has been misinterpreted, edited or perhaps even altered to the liking of whoever is reporting it.

Just sayin...

I think in fact s/he has claimed that, in some posts. It's difficult to know what s/he is claiming because it seems to change a bit from post to post. One day it's all about how can anyone be 100% certain of innocence, I'm not certain of anything because we don't have access to all the evidence, and the next day we're seeing posts virulently attacking Knox and Sollecito as vile murderers and hoping they rot in jail and so on....

But yes, one of the inferences in some posts has been that the evidence that's being discussed is second-hand and may be misreported or misinterpreted. But at the same time Alt+F4 says that s/he is convinced of guilt on the basis of the evidence that is in the public domain.

Now how come it's OK to be convinced of guilt on the evidence that is in the public domain, but at the same time anyone who expresses the point of view that this same evidence in fact reveals a truckload of reasonable doubt is then abused for basing their argument on partial and possibly misreported information? This is dishonest debate, and unworthy of anyone who self-identifies as a sceptic.

I'm interested in the time of death thing. I have said that I understand that the evidence indicates Meredith began her last meal some time before 6.30pm, and that the post mortem findings were that when she died her duodenum was completely empty and her stomach contained 500ml ingesta including some recognisable pieces of semi-digested pizza.

Now is anyone seriously disputing either of these facts? I have also said that if evidence emerges that she actually carried the pizza home, re-heated it and ate it about 9.15, all bets are off. I have also said that if it transpires that the post mortem findings have been misreported and there was actually ample ingesta within the duodenum and proximal jejunum, all bets are off. But I haven't seen anyone seriously claim either of these things.

So I don't see what the problem is. I don't think anyone would claim that their opinion woudn't change if a completely different set of facts emerged - of course it would. But until that happens, it's perfectly possible to debate on the facts as they are currently understood.

It's particularly hypocritical to use these facts as a base for one's own opinion, and vehemently hold to that opinion, but when asked to explain how one has arrived at that opinion on the basis of these facts, or when faced with a different (and well-argued) conclusion based on the same facts, to go into a rant about how it's impossible to draw any conclusions (so long as they involve innocence) without having a full trial transcript.

So no, really. If the facts as they are available point to innocence, and I have to say I rather think they do, it is not rational to hold fast to a conclusion of guilt based on the assumption that the available facts may have been misreported or misrepresented.

Sceptic? I don't think so.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's the way I always saw it too. They really believed they were guilty.

This is a very important point. There's a facile proposition put about by some pro-guilt commentators along the lines of "why would the police and prosecutors have any interest in framing Knox and Sollecito?". The answer is that they almost certainly didn't believe they were framing anyone.

All the available evidence suggests that the police truly believed they'd completely cracked the case by the morning of November 6th (and I personally believe that they thought they'd cracked it by the afternoon of the 5th). They were confident enough to announce this to the world's media, and were almost certainly extremely relieved to have been shown to be competent and efficient in "solving" this high-profile murder case.

From that point on, I believe that confirmation bias, tunnel vision and reputation protection took over in spades. I think that the police and prosecutors were deeply rattled when their "solved" case took a blow, courtesy of Lumumba's cast-iron alibi. But they were then equally relieved when evidence of Guede's participation came back, meaning that they were essentially able to say that their underlying theory was still entirely correct, but that Knox had deviously led them to the wrong "third man".

 

[LondonJohn]

I see that various people are now claiming to have inside info to the effect that the independent DNA review will throw out the kitchen knife (no apparent word on the bra clasp).

What's fascinating is to see the same pro-guilt commentators who were

a) confidently asserting that the knife would remain as solid, reliable evidence, and/or

b) previously listing the knife as the most important piece of evidence against Knox (and, by extension, Sollecito),

now scrabbling around to rationalise the apparent new situation. Accordingly, it now turns out that the knife was "never that important", and, in any case, there's "loads of other evidence" that confirms guilt.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I can see some posters really do believe in something resembling a "grand conspiracy". However, I don't think it's at all necessary to postulate such a conspiracy in order to believe that the pair were wrongly accused. Several people have explained quite clearly how confirmation bias and group-think quite adequately explains what seems to have happened.

So no, I don't think "this would have had to be a conspiracy and I don't believe in conspiracies" is an adequate reason for believing a couple of students brutally murdered their friend. Not when there is so much evidence suggesting they simply didn't.

Lionking, what time do you think Meredith died, and on what do you base that conclusion?

Rolfe.