Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

I think I already answered that, in quite a lot of detail.

Rolfe.

 

[spartacus]

Really - so there is nothing in this world that could stop or slow down digestion when the attack first happened on Meredith, like stress, fear and anxiety and I dare anyone on this board to tell me how long the attack on Meredith lasted. How long from the first stab wound till the last one. No one knows except the ones responsible. Stomach contents and TOD mean nothing, stomach contents and time of attack on the other hand, probally do.

Actually, Amanda went for a stroll at 9:00 pm, met Rudy (whom she'd only met once before), struck up a conversation and decided to go assault her house mate. They entered the house where Rudy entered her room and made the first cut to the neck, the shock of which stopped digestion in the stomach (although not resulting in evacuation of the lower bowels). Amanda danced around the edge of the room, coaching Rudy for about half an hour, and then went home and got Raffaele, who had started playing Naruto per his Mac logs at 9:26 pm, returned to the cottage and continued to torture and have sex with Meredith until 11:30 pm, when they decided they had to finish the job or rot in jail, and they delivered the fatal thrust, which caused Meredith, who had been silent up to that time, to utter a blood curtling scream. They then ran away and the normally slightly hard of hearing Nara Capezzali had a sudden but temporary surge in hearing acuity which caused her to hear feet in leaves through double glazed windows that normal people were not able to replicate months later. The next day the couple returned and used their microscopic vision to selectively clean up their DNA, but Raffaele missed a spot on the bra clasp.

Anything else unclear about the case?

 

[spartacus]

I think I already answered that, in quite a lot of detail.

Rolfe.

I looked it up for you here.

I guess Sherlock wants us to believe the two and half hour prolonged torture session with a scream at the end that is based on no evidence. Other than that it is the "no one can know anything if they weren't there".

Sherlock, why don't you just try and convince us that the sky is green? It would probably be less boring.

 

[snook1]

Actually, Amanda went for a stroll at 9:00 pm, met Rudy (whom she'd only met once before), struck up a conversation and decided to go assault her house mate. They entered the house where Rudy entered her room and made the first cut to the neck, the shock of which stopped digestion in the stomach (although not resulting in evacuation of the lower bowels). Amanda danced around the edge of the room, coaching Rudy for about half an hour, and then went home and got Raffaele, who had started playing Naruto per his Mac logs at 9:26 pm, returned to the cottage and continued to torture and have sex with Meredith until 11:30 pm, when they decided they had to finish the job or rot in jail, and they delivered the fatal thrust, which caused Meredith, who had been silent up to that time, to utter a blood curtling scream. They then ran away and the normally slightly hard of hearing Nara Capezzali had a sudden but temporary surge in hearing acuity which caused her to hear feet in leaves through double glazed windows that normal people were not able to replicate months later. The next day the couple returned and used their microscopic vision to selectively clean up their DNA, but Raffaele missed a spot on the bra clasp.

Anything else unclear about the case?

That's exactly what the guilters are working on. It's such a mess of a story, but apparently there are people that believe it happend just the way you described it, though it does not make any sense whatsoever.

Thanks for that entertaining post.

 

[komponisto]

Actually, Amanda went for a stroll at 9:00 pm, met Rudy (whom she'd only met once before), struck up a conversation and decided to go assault her house mate. They entered the house where Rudy entered her room and made the first cut to the neck, the shock of which stopped digestion in the stomach (although not resulting in evacuation of the lower bowels). Amanda danced around the edge of the room, coaching Rudy for about half an hour, and then went home and got Raffaele, who had started playing Naruto per his Mac logs at 9:26 pm, returned to the cottage and continued to torture and have sex with Meredith until 11:30 pm, when they decided they had to finish the job or rot in jail, and they delivered the fatal thrust, which caused Meredith, who had been silent up to that time, to utter a blood curtling scream. They then ran away and the normally slightly hard of hearing Nara Capezzali had a sudden but temporary surge in hearing acuity which caused her to hear feet in leaves through double glazed windows that normal people were not able to replicate months later. The next day the couple returned and used their microscopic vision to selectively clean up their DNA, but Raffaele missed a spot on the bra clasp.

Anything else unclear about the case?

Beautiful. I'm genuinely curious about which part(s) of that, if any, guilters would not endorse.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm tempted to nominate that, except it would be in pretty bad taste outwith this thread.

Poor Meredith. No matter how well this gets unravelled this year, nothing will bring her back.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris C]

Really - so there is nothing in this world that could stop or slow down digestion when the attack first happened on Meredith, like stress, fear and anxiety and I dare anyone on this board to tell me how long the attack on Meredith lasted. How long from the first stab wound till the last one. No one knows except the ones responsible. Stomach contents and TOD mean nothing, stomach contents and time of attack on the other hand, probally do.

So Rudy attacked her before Sollecito/Knox showed up? I dont think the prosecution has used that scenario yet.

 

[Antony]

Well, one way to look at the situation is like this:

Imagine a scale of 0-10, with 0 representing total belief that the defendant did not commit the crime, and 10 representing total belief that the defendant committed the crime.

The issue for those who believe in the proper convictions of Knox and Sollecito is that they have to sit at 10 on the scale. They have to have total certainty (to the exclusion of any doubt that a reasonable person might reasonably hold) in order to agree with the convictions.

By contrast, anyone who sits at any other point on the scale - any point between 9.99 and 0 - must by definition believe that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted. This is the inherent asymmetry in the arguments for conviction and acquittal.

Personally, I spent a very brief time at 10 on the scale, after reading what turned out to be gross inaccuracies in "Darkness Descending". Once I began to learn the truth, it didn't take me long at all to move down to 9 on the scale - which by definition meant that I went from arguing for conviction to arguing for acquittal.

As I've learned more and more, my position on the scale has moved down to somewhere in the 2-3 range. In other words, I strongly lean towards believing that neither Knox nor Sollecito were involved in any way, but I currently can't be certain. If the screensaver log computer evidence proves to be accurate and reliable, I'd very likely move down to around 0.1 for Sollecito, and 1 for Knox.

Of course, I understand why some people currently place themselves at 0 (or 0.01) on the scale - and I appreciate that part of it may be as a statement of principle. But I personally think that, as of right now, it's very difficult to intellectually defend placing oneself at 0 (or close) on the scale. I repeat, however, that there is absolutely no need to be totally convinced of Knox's/Sollecito's innocence in order to be convinced that they should be acquitted.

With regard to that last sentence, there's often an argument made (a fallacious argument, it has to be pointed out) that it's a "weasel" position to say that you don't believe entirely in the defendants' innocence, yet you think they should be acquitted. This smells (to some, erroneously) of some sort of legal trickery, akin to "you're suggesting that they get off on a technicality". I can't state strongly enough that this is categorically not the case. If the state makes criminal accusations against a person, it is entirely incumbent upon the state (and the court) to prove these accusations.

For example, if I accused my neighbour of punching me in the face outside the door of my apartment, it would be entirely up to me to prove that accusation. My neighbour's girlfriend might not be 100% certain that her partner had not carried out this assault (suppose she was out shopping at the time that I alleged it occurred), but nor would she need that level of certainty to know that my accusations had no validity - unless I was able to prove my accusations with evidence. It's exactly the same with the case against Knox and Sollecito.

While I can see the point you're making, and it's manifestly true that the prosecution did not prove their case by any stretch in the original trial, I would go further than that. I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the crime - IOW, no reasonable person (familiar with the facts) would consider them guilty. I don't think it's useful to put a scale of 1 to 10, or 0-100% on it.

In order to believe them guilty, you have to believe too many impossible things:

• they would have to have left Raff's flat, gone to the cottage and committed the murder in an impossibly short time;
• after 6 days, their relationship had to have become so stale that going out in search of this kind of excitement had more appeal than a cosy twosome in private;
• they displayed a violent side to their characters which had never appeared before (notwithstanding the rubbish that has been put about to smear them);
• noting that Guede was unquestionably involved - they would have to have co-operated with him, who was known to Amanda only (barely) and with no common language;
• the police would have to have had psychic powers in picking them out as the killers before any genuine evidence was known.

This is what it comes down to: an extraordinary claim (such as Amanda and Raff as Guede's accomplices) requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, there is an extraordinary lack of evidence. Talking in terms of "not proved 100%" implies a level of balance between the innocence and guilt arguments that does not exist.

 

[spartacus]

I just skimmed the Sollecito appeal and they have underlined and bolded that the trial of the first instance did not consider the Mac log files showing and opening of the Naruto file at 9:26 pm and computer activity at about 5 am the next morning. I think that may be almost as important as stomach contents. What amazes me is that none of the bone head journalists have ever reported on this stuff. Bob Graham did a story about the filing of the appeal but he just mumbled something about challenges to the DNA and "forensic evidence". It is obvious he didn't read the document, so why is he reporting on it?

I also read on GQ.it that Alessandra whatshername said that the American and English journalists did not see eye to eye in the first trial, that the Americans reported on problems with the evidence and judicial procedures (Barbie and Andrea said that? did I miss something?) but that now they see eye to eye that the whole procedure is bizarre.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

Ms. Popovic spoke with Amanda around 8:45 PM (20:45) at Raffaele's place and described her as acting normally. Now one has to postulate something like Amanda's and Raffaele's getting (very) high from 8:45 to 9:08 (last undisputed human action on his computer?), then meeting up with Rudy and murdering Meredith in the next twenty minutes or so. It is not impossible, I suppose, but it is not a story i find likely. If one includes a file-opening event around 9:29 (is this disputed?), then it seems to be even less likely. Why wouldn't Meredith have rung up her mother again?

Halides, I'm trying to encourage them! The guilters I mean. I'd like someone to tackle the post mortem evidence head-on and deal with it. Accepting the time of death and tackling the alibi might be one way to go, I don't know....

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I looked it up for you here.

I guess Sherlock wants us to believe the two and half hour prolonged torture session with a scream at the end that is based on no evidence. Other than that it is the "no one can know anything if they weren't there".

Sherlock, why don't you just try and convince us that the sky is green? It would probably be less boring.

I'm not sure Sherlock has really thought his position through. Has come out with this idea before, and actually challenged me earlier to shake off the grip of the innocenti and consider the possibilities of terror causing digestion to stop. I explained all the problems with this idea at the time. But now he just comes back with the same unadorned suggestion, as if he still hasn't thought about it any further.

So I explained the problems again. And he just came back for third time with the same post. It's as if he thinks he's hit on some sort of magic incantation, and that when we hear it we'll all say, "oh we never thought of that, why that explains everything!"

Sherlock, can't you raise your game a bit? This is just silly.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Halides, I'm trying to encourage them! The guilters I mean. I'd like someone to tackle the post mortem evidence head-on and deal with it. Accepting the time of death and tackling the alibi might be one way to go, I don't know....

Rolfe.

I'd like to think that most of us have played devil's advocate with ourselves at various times regarding this case - I know I have. In other words, I've actively tried to create theories that debunk my own views. I believe that I've made objective attempts to do so, but without success.

One major problem with accepting a ToD earlier than 10pm - from the POV of guilt - is that it completely negates the "earwitness" testimony, all of which is contingent upon a ToD of after 11.30pm (when viewed in conjunction with the broken down car occupants' testimony). It also negates Curatolo's testimony, but I think he's already made a pretty good job of doing that himself.

That leads me indirectly onto another point. I feel that the defence will need to do a pretty good job of discrediting Quintavalle (the shopkeeper who claims to have seen Knox in his shop just before 8am the morning after the murder). This is because if his testimony is accepted as reliable and accurate, it is directly contradictory to Knox's claims of being asleep in Sollecito's apartment at that time. And there would appear to be little or no reason for Knox to lie about this, unless she was hiding something related to the murder. I would quickly add that my opinion is that Quintavalle is indeed either mistaken or lying in his supposed recollection, and I think there's ample evidence to support such a belief. But I don't believe that the defence brought this issue to the fore enough in the first trial. I believe that their arguments concerning this witness will be far stronger in the appeal trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not sure Sherlock has really thought his position through. Has come out with this idea before, and actually challenged me earlier to shake off the grip of the innocenti and consider the possibilities of terror causing digestion to stop. I explained all the problems with this idea at the time. But now he just comes back with the same unadorned suggestion, as if he still hasn't thought about it any further.

So I explained the problems again. And he just came back for third time with the same post. It's as if he thinks he's hit on some sort of magic incantation, and that when we hear it we'll all say, "oh we never thought of that, why that explains everything!"

Sherlock, can't you raise your game a bit? This is just silly.

Rolfe.

I particularly enjoy the double mistake being made here: the first mistake being that intense fear or trauma can cause the entire digestive system to grind to a halt, and the second being that (regardless of the first mistake) someone could be held in a condition of such intense fear or trauma for a full two hours or so.

 

[Rolfe]

And by a single assailant. And with apparently no sign left of bonds or anything like that.

And then Amanda and Raffaele just happen along, do they, and find Rudy torturing their friend, and decide then and there not to call the cops and save her, but to join in and finish her off.

I don't know if Sherlock thinks any of this is credible or not, because he has never elaborated.

Or maybe he thinks there is no alibi for the earlier time, and all three joined together to torture Meredith for a couple of hours before killing her. Why drag it on for so long, then? Just so as to match up with the alleged time of this hypothetical scream?

I don't think he's thought about it at all. He just thinks that saying "fear can halt digestion" is a magic bullet, and it automatically wins the debate. So he keeps saying it, no matter how often it's explained that it's a ridiculous idea.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

And by a single assailant. And with apparently no sign left of bonds or anything like that.

And then Amanda and Raffaele just happen along, do they, and find Rudy torturing their friend, and decide then and there not to call the cops and save her, but to join in and finish her off.

I don't know if Sherlock thinks any of this is credible or not, because he has never elaborated.

Or maybe he thinks there is no alibi for the earlier time, and all three joined together to torture Meredith for a couple of hours before killing her. Why drag it on for so long, then? Just so as to match up with the alleged time of this hypothetical scream?

I don't think he's thought about it at all. He just thinks that saying "fear can halt digestion" is a magic bullet, and it automatically wins the debate. So he keeps saying it, no matter how often it's explained that it's a ridiculous idea.

Rolfe.

Yes indeed. The whole premise is both preposterous and contrary to medical evidence. As such, it can be easily and readily discarded as an example of poor reasoning, and we can move on.

Talking of moving on, there is chatter elsewhere about a supposed long blonde hair supposedly found in Meredith's hand. Apparently a photo of this supposed hair in Meredith's hand exists, although it's not visible to mere mortals right at this moment.

Now....... there are a number of possibilities here:

1) The long strand was collected, tested, and found to not actually be human hair - in which case its evidential value is significantly lowered (unless it's fibre from clothing worn by one of the defendants).

2) The long strand was collected, tested, and found to be human hair. And its characteristics (width, opacity, colour) matched Amanda Knox's hair. If this were the case, it's absolutely inconceivable that this evidence would not have been prominently featured in the prosecution case against Knox.

3) The long strand was collected, tested, and found to be human hair. But its characteristics did not match Amanda Knox's hair. In this case, the prosecution should have shared this evidence with the defence and the court through the discovery process, since it would be a significant pointer to another as-yet-unidentified participant in the murder.

4) The long strand was lost at some point before there was a chance for it to be tested.


I believe that we can totally discount Option 2, since this evidence would absolutely certainly have featured in contemporaneous media reports of the court proceedings ("Knox hair found in Meredith's hand, court told"), and of course would have featured highly in Massei's report.

But I believe that Options 1, 3 and 4 are all reasonable possibilities. Unfortunately, none of these options is of any probative value against Amanda Knox, and Options 3 & 4 would suggest serious mistakes or failings by the forensics team and/or the prosecutors.

I hope we get to find out the real story behind this supposed hair at some point. In the mean time, I think one thing we can be virtually certain of is that it was never demonstrated to have any match to Knox's hair (either because it was tested and didn't match, or because it was lost), and it's therefore immaterial as evidence against Knox.

 

[LondonJohn]

To add: According to one of the prominent pro-guilt commentators who seems to have a hotline to Vogt and Latza Nadeau (which are interesting links in themselves...), the latter "journalist" apparently seems certain that the "hair" was lost by the forensics team. This must have occurred prior to any testing, since even if the hair had been lost after it had been matched (or not matched) to Knox, this information would have been of use to the court.

So, if Latza Nadeau is correct, then we can chalk up yet another example of world-class procedure from the "crack" forensics team in this case. It clearly can't be used as evidence in this case if it was lost before testing: even if it could be visually identified as a long human hair, it could belong to many other people besides Knox - including first responders or members of the forensics team themselves. What a fiasco.

 

[LondonJohn]

Since there's talk about the kitchen knife definitely (apparently) being thrown out by the independent DNA review, it might be a good time to do a very quick review of the whole issue of low template number DNA analysis using LCN amplification techniques.

Some people have cited reports and court judgements from around the world which have validated the used of LCN analysis. These reports are all correct: LCN techniques can be entirely valid and reliable for criminal trial processes, with this critical caveat: the testing has to have been carried out under the extremely strict low-template protocols.

And that's one of the main issues at the core of the problems with the kitchen knife. It's not that it was subjected to a form of LCN analysis in and of itself that is a problem - it's that this testing was conducted without a single one of the specific (and absolutely necessary) additional protocols that are obligatory when working with such minute amounts of source DNA. These protocols include additional cleaning protocols of all equipment (e.g. UV cleaning), and positive pressure ventilation systems (where the immediate testing area is kept at a higher air pressure than the surroundings, to prevent airborne contamination).

Stefanoni employed not a single one of the low-template protocols when working with the kitchen knife (or the bra clasp). And since the amount of source DNA material she discovered was so minute, the lack of proper additional protocols (which are specifically designed to minimise the chance of contamination) is a terminal error on her behalf. And that's one of the main reasons why the kitchen knife will likely be thrown out.

The strangest thing is that neither Stefanoni nor her superiors (all of whom Mignini has constantly referred to as world-leading forensic scientists) seem to have noticed how massively inappropriate her testing methods and protocols were, considering the miniscule amounts of source DNA material involved. I think that if I were a chief police officer or justice official, I'd want some sort of internal inquiry into their collective competence if this is what the independent report concludes.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, that seems reasonable. So it's possible still to construct a case for guilt with the murder happening soon after 9pm.

So why the crickets when anyone asks those who believe in guilt what the time of death was? Why not just go with the medical evidence and take it from there?

Rolfe.

It's only part of the problem, but part of it is that a lot of the guilters are members of the (now split) PMF community which has a habit of drumming out anyone who discusses ideas too far from the exact version of the guilter doctrine embraced by the moderators.

Being a totally committed guilter isn't enough to remain a PMF member in good standing: you have to be the right flavour of guilter, or keep it under your hat if you aren't.

I suspect this is more to do with trying to create the illusion of total consensus than with any actual certainty. They don't want people coming to PMF and seeing that there is doubt in the guilter community about the safety of the prosecution.

However this distinctly limits their ability to seriously discuss heretical ideas like a 9:05 time of death even if that's what the science says.

 

[pilot padron]

Oh Dear

Talking of moving on, there is chatter elsewhere about a supposed long blonde hair supposedly found in Meredith's hand. Apparently a photo of this supposed hair in Meredith's hand exists, although it's not visible to mere mortals right at this moment.

Now....... there are a number of possibilities here:

1) The long strand was collected, tested, and found to not actually be human hair - in which case its evidential value is significantly lowered (unless it's fibre from clothing worn by one of the defendants).

2) The long strand was collected, tested, and found to be human hair. And its characteristics (width, opacity, colour) matched Amanda Knox's hair. If this were the case, it's absolutely inconceivable that this evidence would not have been prominently featured in the prosecution case against Knox.

3) The long strand was collected, tested, and found to be human hair. But its characteristics did not match Amanda Knox's hair. In this case, the prosecution should have shared this evidence with the defence and the court through the discovery process, since it would be a significant pointer to another as-yet-unidentified participant in the murder.

4) The long strand was lost at some point before there was a chance for it to be tested.


I believe that we can totally discount Option 2, since this evidence would absolutely certainly have featured in contemporaneous media reports of the court proceedings ("Knox hair found in Meredith's hand, court told"), and of course would have featured highly in Massei's report.

But I believe that Options 1, 3 and 4 are all reasonable possibilities. Unfortunately, none of these options is of any probative value against Amanda Knox, and Options 3 & 4 would suggest serious mistakes or failings by the forensics team and/or the prosecutors.

I hope we get to find out the real story behind this supposed hair at some point. In the mean time, I think one thing we can be virtually certain of is that it was never demonstrated to have any match to Knox's hair (either because it was tested and didn't match, or because it was lost), and it's therefore immaterial as evidence against Knox.

Oh Dear.

Sure is difficult to follow "arguments" that for whatever reason find it necessary to use so many exotic euphemisms instead of common names and facts everyone can relate to.

1) "chatter elsewhere" is I gather reference to recent posts today on PMF, which again is demonstrated by your reference and obvious reluctance to credit to be the premier leading edge of information for informed followers who politely discuss the Kercher murder.

2) ("chatterings"?) The picture you reference has been clearly posted there by Jools, along with factual answers ("chatterings"?) that clearly address your listed and definitely difficult to follow 1-4 "possibilities" in your above 'argument'.
This picture with accompanying extensive explanations was posted there for a least few hours before your 'argument' here concerning it.

3) "mere mortals" who are able to follow the simple rules of the PMF website merely need to log in and immediately are able view all photos "at any moment".
Just like IIP, etccccccccc

4) If you simply continue your past extensive 'monitoring' of the politely shared factual information about the case on PMF, I am sure "at some point" you will be able to comprehend the "full story" about this hair that has been pretty clearly laid out there by Jools and other very knowledgeable individuals who politely share factual, timely, information about the Kercher Murder there.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh Dear.

Sure is difficult to follow "arguments" that for whatever reason find it necessary to use so many exotic euphemisms instead of common names and facts everyone can relate to.

1) "chatter elsewhere" is I gather reference to recent posts today on PMF, which again is demonstrated by your reference and obvious reluctance to credit to be the premier leading edge of information for informed followers who discuss the Kercher murder.

2) The picture you reference has been clearly posted there by Jools, along with factual answers (chatterings?) that clearly address your listed and definitely difficult to follow 1-4 "possibilities" in your above 'argument'.
This picture with accompanying extensive explanations was posted there for a least few hours before your 'argument' here concerning it.

3) "mere mortals" who are able to follow the simple rules of the PMF website merely need to log in and immediately are able view all photos "at any moment".
Just like IIP, etccccccccc

4) If you simply continue your past extensive 'monitoring' of the politely shared factual information about the case on PMF, I am sure "at some point" you will be able to comprehend the "full story" that has been pretty clearly laid out there by Jools and other very knowledgeable individuals who politely share factual, timely, information about the Kercher Murder there.

Oh dear.

So what parts of my analysis do you disagree with, and why? Or do you just have the intention of attacking the arguer rather than the argument?