Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katody Matrass said:
Frank Sfarzo writes about yesterday's proceedings.
Click to expand...

I'm baffled why Frank defends the inmates who support the defense case as if their motives are pure as the driven snow. He really seems to believe they are there simply out of their strong sense of morality. They are no better than the prosecution's inmates IMO and also have hidden agendas or incentives.
 
Danceme said:
Agree, ridiculous.

I read this as well. Utterly unbelievable they were unaware of Rudy's letter.
Click to expand...

Is it possible the report should have said the lawyers were unaware the letter was going to be read in court?
 
agendas

Danceme said:
I'm baffled why Frank defends the inmates who support the defense case as if their motives are pure as the driven snow. He really seems to believe they are there simply out of their strong sense of morality. They are no better than the prosecution's inmates IMO and also have hidden agendas or incentives.
Click to expand...
Danceme,

It is clear that there could be a hidden agenda when an inmate supports the prosecution. It is not clear what the hidden agenda might be when an inmate goes opposite to the prosecution.
 
So when this appeal fails will she be finally guilty? Or do we have to wait for another trial?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
The court appointed experts will hopefully address the issues you raise above I’ll reserve an opinion until then.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take DNA experts to reason about validity of evidence which were handled in undocumented ways, visibly contaminated and can't be retested because it "deteriorated" while in police custody.
 
Open letter of 19 November 2009

Katody Matrass said:
It doesn't take DNA experts to reason about validity of evidence which were handled in undocumented ways, visibly contaminated and can't be retested because it "deteriorated" while in police custody.
Click to expand...
Katody Matrass,

Agreed, but it might be helpful to recall what some experts had to say about the clasp, "Handling and movement of this sample has compromised its probative value. The laboratory results for this sample cannot reliably be interpreted to show that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was actually on the bra clasp at the time of Meredith Kercher’s murder, and it does not establish how or when this DNA was deposited or transferred." And they did not mention the alleles of the unidentified individuals.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Rolling Stone has an article out. Madison Paxton said, "All of a sudden, Amanda wasn't next to me. I turned around and she has this shocked look on her face. She says, 'I cannot believe that you just walked by her.' Amanda grabbed my hand and pulled me back. This woman couldn't even speak, she was crying so much. But Amanda took her by the hand into a cafe, ordered her a coffee and started talking to her, trying to get her to calm down."
Click to expand...

By the way, that Rolling Stone piece is one of the best I've read (despite a few minor issues/inaccuracies). Among many other things, it includes this striking observation of a phenomenon that has long perplexed me:

Yet in the court of Italian popular opinion — the highest court in the land, since jurors are not sequestered — the confession remains the single most damning piece of evidence. When I asked Perugians why they thought Knox had been involved, they never mentioned physical evidence or a motive. She admitted to it, they said, shaking their heads.

She signed a confession.
Click to expand...

Compare also a comment on the Rolling Stone website by "Will Beck":

She's guilty. No amount of propaganda can explain why Amanda pointed the finger at an innocent man or why she and her "boyfriend" still can't get their stories straight. Innocent people don't accuse others of murder. Innocent people have just one story to tell. She's a sociopath. I hope Italy gets to keep her for life.
Click to expand...

(In addition to the highlighted falsehoods, this contains an example of another common misconception: that the word "sociopath" means "bad person".)

A new Italian pro-innocence article also acknowlegdes the same curious psychological fact about guilters:

2. "Della Knox, invece, non c'è traccia alcuna sulla scena del delitto. La "prova regina" nei suoi confronti è la calunnia nei confronti di Patrick Lumumba. Ma non dimentichiamo che la Knox fece il nome di Lumumba dopo 53 ore e 45 minuti di interrogatorio...

2. "Of Knox, however, there is no trace at all at the crime scene. The 'smoking gun' against her is the slander against Patrick Lumumba. But let's not forget that Knox named Lumumba after 53 hours and 45 minutes of interrogation...
Click to expand...

To me, it is astonishing bordering on incomprehensible that, of all the possible pro-guilt arguments one might put forward, Knox's statements could somehow be considered the strongest. This is one of these things that make me feel like I'm living in a separate world, an isolated subculture of education and rationality. Because to me, it is utterly axiomatic that people's statements and memories are the absolute last place you look for strong, solid evidence that some physical event happened a certain way. Maybe if you're a historian researching some event with little reliable evidence, and you don't have anything else, you can get away with saying "well, this person is usually reliable, and we don't have any particular reason to doubt their account, so we'll accept it". But in a contemporary criminal case, where there are abundant physical traces, why would you ever assign even the slightest credence to an incoherent statement that you were able to browbeat out of a foreign student after hours of interrogation, days after the fact?

Knox's confession, including, indeed perhaps especially including the accusation of Lumumba, isn't even in the top five best pro-guilt arguments. (And it's not like there are any good ones to begin with.) You'd be better off trying to argue that Knox had motive because she hated Kercher for criticizing her bathroom habits. Or citing the damning piece of evidence that tipped off Edgardo Giobbi: the fact that she and Sollecito were seen eating pizza just days after the crime.

There is no actual way in which Knox's statement connects her to the crime. There is no logical inferential path that permits the rational deduction of guilt from the premise of the accusation of Lumumba. It is a purely emotional argument, which runs basically like this:

(1) What happened to Patrick was really crappy.
(2) What happened to Patrick was caused by Amanda.
(3) Therefore, Amanda did a really crappy thing to Patrick.
(4) Therefore, Amanda is a really crappy person.
(5) Murder is something that really crappy people do.
(6) Therefore, Amanda must have committed murder.

If this reasoning were valid, then I would be obliged to believe that Giuliano Mignini must have killed Meredith Kercher, because he has accused not one but two innocent people of the crime, and they remain in jail to this day!
 
Always the same ??

Katody Matrass said:
I like how Curt Knox comes through as articulate, composed and calm speaker for his daughter case:
Fox News interview
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely

Especially when he answers so calmly, composed, and articulately that Knox's and Sollecito's stories have "always been the same".

A less calm, composed, and articulate reply might have faltered and at least alluded to the unequivocal existence of directly contradictory statements:
1) by Knox's lead attorney that he had difficulty finding what is true because Knox kept changing her "story", and he cited 3 versions *so far*
2) by Sollecito himself saying his *first* "story" was rubbish or if you quibble translations still, a sack of crap.

Uh huh.. sure........."always the same":cool:
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
DrDave,

In the minds of some, they will never be innocent. That is a part of the tragedy of this case.
Click to expand...

Well if there was no confession then perhaps more people would be inclined to think there may have been a mistrial.

If she says she did it then, why should I believe her now she says she didn't do it?
 
Does anyone have a link or pdf to rudy's letter disputing Alessi? I am curious if his hand writing matches previous samples, e.g. The german prison diary. It is very odd that he would have trouble reading his own handwriting.

= sd =
 
DrDave said:
Well if there was no confession then perhaps more people would be inclined to think there may have been a mistrial.

If she says she did it then, why should I believe her now she says she didn't do it?
Click to expand...

It's because that "confession" was coerced after they smacked her in the head for turning a cartwheel. Or....something. It's hard to keep all the conspiracies straight. :boggled:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom