Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

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.

The plain truth is that nobody can supply a coherent rebuttal to the ToD argument in relation to the condition of Meredith's stomach/duodenum at autopsy. Nobody can do this, for one of two different reasons:

1) They are not sufficiently intelligent and/or capable of conducting decent research to understand the issue properly in the first place;

2) They do understand the issue and have done their own research, but realise that it's impossible to intellectually argue a ToD later than 10pm based on what they now know.

When various posters here such as Kevin and I first started delving into this issue, we soon became confident that we knew what we were talking about - despite none of us having direct expertise or experience in pathology or gastroenterology. The reflex reaction of many who didn't want to agree with our findings was that we were semi-educated dilletantes, who arrogantly thought that we knew everything, simply on the basis of "library cards and Google" (this lame attempt to discredit still crops up with weary regularity).

When someone such as you, who has direct experience and gravitas in the field, joins the debate and essentially confirms (and adds to) what many of us have been arguing for some time, those who don't want to accept it are suddenly stymied. They can't now play the "library card and Google" card against you. I suspect that they are currently racking their brains for "ingenious" new ways to try to argue against the ToD evidence, which somehow manage to sidestep the irrefutable medical/scientific facts. I'm actually quite intrigued to find out what kind of sophistry they will come up with next

 

[Kaosium]

Hi all, longtime lurker here.
I have some reflections on the whole "you are just people debating on the internet without having access to the real evidence" thing.
Not sure if anyone is interested, this is just how I see this ongoing discussion.

Great post! We had similar experiences, I too was holed up away from home when I first became interested in the case and did nothing but lurk for a while. I also recall being annoyed when reading through the threads as the wondrous chaos of sniping I was secretly enjoying in the Cartwheels thread was straightened out, and even entertained theories of why one side always seemed to make more sense on this board.

LondonJohn can correct me if I'm wrong, but I find it hard to believe his analysis of the Kercher case is really all that different from mine. I find it hard to imagine that (as his wording implies) he sees significant room for the possibility that Knox and Sollecito are guilty where I don't. How would that work? What would be the most plausible scenario? How would one get around the stomach evidence, for example? I think that if you start to actually think about what the most plausible guilt scenarios are, you'll realize that, though they may not be literally impossible, they're around as statistically improbable as my stated confidence level indicates they should be.

Brilliant post as well! I only snipped either for aesthetic reasons, and have little to add but compliments on your insights to most of it, but wanted to offer a theory as to this part.

I wonder if perhaps some, because they've argued other miscarriages of justice are less inclined to go any farther than establishing reasonable doubt in their mind as it's something of a trap in these discussions to try to 'prove innocence.' Also most cases don't have the plethora of information available like this one, so it may be impossible anyway.

I, and perhaps you, was ruthless in my pursuit of tracking down any last vestige of possible evidence for guilt and rationally having to put it to rest as I was attempting to assemble a coherent guilt theory as I'd read at PMF a suggestion it was impossible, and here as well--so I was gonna try to do what hadn't been done. I failed miserably in the endeavor, but in the process developed a realization that with the evidence available, of all the people who could have been at that crime scene that night, the least likely people to have been involved in the crime were Raffaele and Amanda, they'd had their underwear turned inside out and the prosecution couldn't provide any legitimate evidence of murder. Also the whole timeline just didn't make any sense, or their actions square with guilty people, even trying to twist everything so it might. You have to 'cheat' outrageously on so many things.

Those that are of the opinion that all that has to be raised is reasonable doubt may not go through that process.

 

[lionking]

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

Rolfe.

Talk about memes!

It matters what I think?

This is a debatable issue and seemingly not a major plank of the appeal. Excuse me if I don't automatically accept opinions from anonymous posters who rely on google for their expertise. Let's see what Hellman makes of this issue. Of course if the judgement doesn't accord with the opinion of many here, add another person to the conspiracy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

TOD and the appeal documents

This is a debatable issue and seemingly not a major plank of the appeal. Excuse me if I don't automatically accept opinions from anonymous posters who rely on google for their expertise. Let's see what Hellman makes of this issue. Of course if the judgement doesn't accord with the opinion of many here, add another person to the conspiracy.

lionking,

It is definitely part of one of the appeal documents. Rolfe is a veterinary forensic pathologist. Here is something on an unrelated case, that of Claude Jones (not a sympathetic person, BTW): "Usually when someone is convicted of something they didn't do, there's not just one error that caused it but multiple, usually well-intentioned sources of error that come together to collectively generate a false conviction. That's not to make excuses for avoidable errors, only to argue in favor of tweaks to the system that would help avoid more of them in the future."

 

[LondonJohn]

Talk about memes!

It matters what I think?

This is a debatable issue and seemingly not a major plank of the appeal. Excuse me if I don't automatically accept opinions from anonymous posters who rely on google for their expertise. Let's see what Hellman makes of this issue. Of course if the judgement doesn't accord with the opinion of many here, add another person to the conspiracy.

Ahh, the classic "It doesn't matter what I think" get-out! Well played, Sir!

Of course, since it doesn't matter what anyone thinks here, then why are any of us (including you) posting our thoughts about this case in the first place? I suggest that if you believe it's a total waste of everyone's time - including your own - then you are behaving in a perversely counter-intuitive manner by continuing to post here. Just sayin'...

PS ToD is a major plank of the appeal. Try reading the appeal submissions (or if you can't be bothered to do so, then perhaps it's better not to waste your time and energy making an erroneous assertion about something you haven't bothered to check properly)

PPS The old "library card and Google" nonsense slipped into your "argument" again, I see! Well done again! And in any case, do you think that Rolfe is just relying on Google for her knowledge and opinion on this matter?

 

[lionking]

lionking,

It is definitely part of one of the appeal documents. Rolfe is a veterinary forensic pathologist.

I know Rolfe's background.

 

[pipelineaudio]

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

Rolfe.

Good luck with that

 

[LondonJohn]

Good luck with that

I think that Rolfe got the "answer" that she (and most other people) expected. Too bad....

 

[lionking]

Of course, since it doesn't matter what anyone thinks here, then why are any of us (including you) posting our thoughts about this case in the first place?

For once I agree with you.

 

[lionking]

Good luck with that

So how do you think the appeal will go and why?

 

[LondonJohn]

For once I agree with you.

But yet you continue to waste your time and effort writing posts that are - according to you - essentially a waste of your time and effort. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

(By the way, I don't think that posting here about this case is a waste of time - I think it's an interesting sideline, albeit one which is mainly a purely intellectual pursuit with no practical use. You're the one who has stated that it's essentially a waste of time, not me)

 

[LondonJohn]

So how do you think the appeal will go and why?

So what do you think will happen to the prosecution case if the kitchen knife is thrown out?

(Hey, this habit of replying to questions by ignoring them and asking a totally unrelated question of your own is EASY!)

 

[Rolfe]

I wonder if perhaps some, because they've argued other miscarriages of justice are less inclined to go any farther than establishing reasonable doubt in their mind as it's something of a trap in these discussions to try to 'prove innocence.' Also most cases don't have the plethora of information available like this one, so it may be impossible anyway.

When I say, no I'm not 100% convinced the pair are innocent, I'm really coming from a similar place to Alt+F4. I'm allowing for new and/or different information to emerge which would alter the playing field. On the information as it stands at the moment, no I don't see how they could have done it. And that's leaving aside the fact that the crime as alleged is so bizarre I would want some fairly compelling evidence even to go there in the first place.

I don't care what they say in court, and I don't care how the defence screw it up (if they do), IF it is established fact that Meredith ate her last meal starting before 6.30, and her duodenum was empty at post mortem while her stomach contained about 500ml ingesta including recognisable pieces of semi-digested pizza, then she died not long after 9pm. End of story. A bunch of incompetent lawyers (now there's a tautology) getting it wrong doesn't change reality.

Ergo, if Knox and Sollecito have an unbreakable alibi for that time, they didn't do it. It's that simple. It really is. Change the time of the meal, change the post mortem findings, or break that alibi, and everything changes. But until you do that, I'm afraid it really is that simple.

When I started reading the original cartwheel thread, it all seemed so complicated. Glass that was on top of some other stuff, blood that wasn't blood, a knife that didn't match the imprint of another knife on a sheet, shutters that were broken and wouldn't close, sheesh! And SG making unsubstantiated assertions. And the thread was growing faster than I could read it. And I had other, much larger fish to fry.

But the other fish are fried to a frazzle. I'm 100% convinced that Megrahi had nothing at all to do with putting the bomb on PA103, and I'm 95% convinced he wasn't guilty of other unspecified crimes either, but was merely a wheeler-dealer for the Gadaffi regime who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on perfectly unremarkable business. I'm 99% convinced that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow airport, much later in the day. There's a lot more to it than that, starting with why was it necessary to cover up what really happened and pin the blame on an uninvolved innocent, but people have pretty much stopped talking to me about it on the forum. If a resounding silence can mean one has won a debate, I've got the gold cup.

There's a lot further to go of course. I have four substantial books still to read, and I'm pretty sure there's more to be gleaned from the 14Mb file that is the complete court transcript. But it's boring, talking to yourself. I looked at the Massei/Mingini thread and saw the information about the meal time and state of the duodenum, and thought, WTF??? I came over here, to a thread that at least has actual live people who aren't me posting in it, and found a debate substantially different from where it was in late 2009.

So, for the pair to be guilty you have to do one of three things. Change the time of the meal, change the post mortem findings, or break the alibi. Where is the evidence that we should be seeking to do that? What is there that suggests guilt, so strongly that one of these three things has got to be wrong?

I'm not seeing it. Glass that was on top of cothes on the floor of a young woman's room - like no young woman ever left her clothes lying around. A tiny bit of DNA on an item that was kicking around for weeks before being collected, and seems to be low-copy-number and mixed with other stuff. Some equally weak findings in relation to a knife that seems to have been arbitrarily selected from a kitchen drawer for no readily apparent reason.

Gimme a break!

It even seems to have got to the point where the prosecution cannot even place Knox inside the room while the murder was being committed. Wasn't she supposed to have done the stabbing, before? Some line about "now we will make you have sex"? It's getting quite silly.

So fine, produce the doubt about the time of the meal, or the post mortem findings, or break the alibi. I'm waiting. Or even show some concrete evidence of the "WTF?" variety that strongly suggests one of these three items must be in error.

But all I'm seeing is hand-waving, evasion, obfuscation, and an obsession with arguing irrelevancies and procedural detail.

Rolfe.

 

[Diocletus]

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?

Just my opinions, but . . . I don't think the skype call is rebuttal evidence against the inmates' testimony that Rudy said Knox/Sollecito were innocent. So, I think there has to be another reason for this testimony, and I think its possible that the prosecution wants all three of these witnesses to testify that Rudy previously made out-of-court accusations against the defendants. In the case of the police, yes, this must have happened during an interrogation, perhaps in 2007 or maybe later (didn't Mignini interview Rudy sometime in 2009?). In the case of Benedetti, it could have happened during a prison visit.

 

[lionking]

But yet you continue to waste your time and effort writing posts that are - according to you - essentially a waste of your time and effort. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Apart from having the right to waste my time, I post here because I have seen many so-called guilters piled on and hounded out of this thread because their opinions differ from the prevailing innocentisti worldview. It seems that many people here want to see this thread turn into nothing but an AK cheer squad. It's almost there.

 

[pipelineaudio]

So how do you think the appeal will go and why?

you first

 

[zeb]

Whats next

If Amanda and Raffaele wins this appeal, what can the proscecution do next, or what would they do next.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

Her admission about this, coupled with Mignini's evasions about Amanda not being in the room confirms that the knife is going back in the drawer.

So then we'll have the clasp, which no doubt will be adjudged a highly compromised piece of evidence, even if there is DNA on it. Not enough to sustain a conviction.

Then we'll have all of the fake evidence. The "mixed blood," the "footprints," the "staged break-in". Good luck with that.

Then we're left with the "confessions" vs. the alibis. That is an interesting inquiry, for, if there turns out to be an alibi, then how is it that we ended up with a "confession"?

 

[Rolfe]

I know Rolfe's background.

So you think I'm basing my opininons on Google and a library card?

Sorry, gotta go and do an actual post mortem now, 'cos that's (part of) what they pay me for.

Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

you first

I think it will fail. I don't see any compelling new evidence not considered by the original trial. Calling on convicted murderers to support the appeal is an act of desperation in my opinion.