Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

The Expert report has changed my opinion on this case. For anyone who cares feel free to call me a Conspiracy Theorist. In my opinion, the report clearly shows Stefanoni attempted to conceal and obfuscate the truth in order to support a conviction based on her reported results. I do not believe this can be explained by incompetence, poor documentation, or simple confirmation bias.

A remaining distinction, of course, is whether Stefanoni believed in the case she was helping to build, or whether this was an actual "framing". I don't see reason to assume the latter. More likely, she assumed the prosecution had gotten the right people, and didn't mind "cutting corners" in the interest of "justice".

Needless to say, that is not in any sense an excuse.

 

[platonov]

CT's, moveable feasts and 'arguments from authority'

The Expert report has changed my opinion on this case. For anyone who cares feel free to call me a Conspiracy Theorist. In my opinion, the report clearly shows Stefanoni attempted to conceal and obfuscate the truth in order to support a conviction based on her reported results. I do not believe this can be explained by incompetence, poor documentation, or simple confirmation bias.

Changed you opinion how ?

Werent you one of the many posters who claimed or insinuated previously that [among many many other things] the cops planted the evidence on the clasp and knife.

So now its Stefanoni not the cops - Like all good CT's it can be amended as necessary without changing the overall effect.

But on this 'Expert report' - funny how those who railed against 'arguments from authority' suddenly embrace an 'expert opinion' when it seems to suit their argument - do you have an opinion on whether it confirms that RS' profile is on the clasp.

 

[Kaosium]

Earlier (previous page) when you and LJ finally accepted that the cops had good reason to arrest RS and AK I thought -- Hallelujah , That's 'Good News' and imagined I could hear trumpets in the distance.

Turns out they weren't trumpets but bassoons !

Not quite, that they had good reason to suspect Amanda and Raffaele for being involved with Patrick Lumumba in the murder. However that's when they went wrong, and browbeating Amanda with physical deprivations while inflicting emotional and mental abuse on her to produce those two worthless statements she signed in a language she could hardly read does not reflect on Amanda but on them!

Now, show me where Amanda accused Patrick of the murder. Something solid enough it justifies arresting her and Raffaele and then hauling Patrick out of his home whilst feeding his baby, interrogating him all day long without the cameras on and no lawyer present and then convoying the three of them through a parade through Perugia and announcing 'case closed.'

They blew it Platonov, and they blamed their victims. You think this sort of thing can't happen, I know better, so do all the real grown-ups involved in this discussion. This isn't a political issue, it's one of right and wrong that transcends such petty distinctions. Even if Amanda and Raffaele were guilty of the crime, the police in Perugia still screwed the pooch.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Expert report has changed my opinion on this case. For anyone who cares feel free to call me a Conspiracy Theorist. In my opinion, the report clearly shows Stefanoni attempted to conceal and obfuscate the truth in order to support a conviction based on her reported results. I do not believe this can be explained by incompetence, poor documentation, or simple confirmation bias.

I think that any conspiracy is very much a second-order affair. In other words, the only conspiracy might have been to conceal exculpatory evidence or evidence that might be of assistance to the defence - not a conspiracy to frame Knox or Sollecito per se. I think that all the law enforcement officials probably truly believed Knox and Sollecito were involved, and wanted to keep things as "simple" as possible in court.

 

[LondonJohn]

Finding Machine/Harry Rag quotes is easy because she uses the same phrases over and over. On this one she uses This is ominous for Knox and Sollecito almost every time.

Don't forget "abundant amounts of Sollecito's/Knox's DNA"

 

[LondonJohn]

Finding Machine/Harry Rag quotes is easy because she uses the same phrases over and over. On this one she uses This is ominous for Knox and Sollecito almost every time.

Oh, and "footprints set in the victim's blood"

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems like PMF should now be renamed "DSK Rape File". Maybe even the idiots have now come to understand what the DNA report means, and its implications not only for the knife/bra clasp, but also for all the rest of the shockingly sloppy forensic work in this case.

"Free DSK! Yeah! Meredith who?"

(Incidentally, and deeply off-topic, I read a post from someone "correcting" people on the pronunciation of French President Sarkozy's name, on the basis that it has Hungarian origins. Well, that's of course totally irrelevant: the only important thing is how he himself chooses to pronounce his own name. And I believe he pronounces it in the francophone manner: "sar-koh-ZEE". So that's how it should be pronounced. End of. Funnily enough, the subject of the new "DSK Rape File" site has a surname of germanic origin, but pronounces it in a francophone style: the vowel sound in "Strauss" should rhyme with "toast", not the germanic rhyme of "house". But nearly every media report pronounces his name in the germanic style.)

 

[Kaosium]

A remaining distinction, of course, is whether Stefanoni believed in the case she was helping to build, or whether this was an actual "framing". I don't see reason to assume the latter. More likely, she assumed the prosecution had gotten the right people, and didn't mind "cutting corners" in the interest of "justice".

Needless to say, that is not in any sense an excuse.

I like how Katody put it once, it was something to the effect of:

'The boys all know, sometimes you have to help--sometimes you have to get your hands dirty.'

I suspect that is very much what happened, in part to cover their asses, and in part because they actually believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty and they were doing the wrong thing for the 'right' reasons.

 

[platonov]

Bassoons it is then.

Oooh I know what you've done here! You've seen Kaosium and I propose that the police/prosecutor had some basis for believing Knox/Sollecito were involved, and dishonestly misrepresented that as "good reason to arrest" Knox/Sollecito. Very well done!

PS: I bet if there was a search for the four words most frequently found in the same order in this thread, they would likely be these: "Last edited by platonov" Is (s)he incapable of ever constructing his/her "arguments" properly first time....?

That's really a minor point but I hoped some progress had been made.
But just to be clear you are back to the 'shouldn't have been arrested on Nov 6th' argument.
OK. Bassoons it is then.

I was more interested in the fact that you are both still sticking to the CT that the cops had PL in their sights, forced AK to name him and thus they and the translator perjured themselves on the stand.

That's a CT with absolutely no evidence to back it up no matter how you slice it. Nor has it been even remotely hinted by AK's lawyers or anybody in the real world.


Still upset that I edit, as opposed to using the preview pane, my posts for spacing typos etc. Given all the claims of incomprehensibility I thought you would be happy either way

 

[LondonJohn]

I see that it hasn't yet dawned on the rabbit-idiot that a cause is only noble if it is right. No amount of moral-high-ground false rhetoric about "representing the victim" (let alone the arrant nonsense about "never having had the chance to get to know Meredith") can disguise the fact that aggressively campaigning for the convictions of people who likely had nothing to do with the murder is not only wrong - it's also doing the victim an injustice. Maybe she ought to think about that some more.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The Expert report has changed my opinion on this case. For anyone who cares feel free to call me a Conspiracy Theorist. In my opinion, the report clearly shows Stefanoni attempted to conceal and obfuscate the truth in order to support a conviction based on her reported results. I do not believe this can be explained by incompetence, poor documentation, or simple confirmation bias.

The experts make it as clear as possible that Stefanoni lied in court. She lied about the quantification of DNA on the knife. She lied that there were no DNA on the bra clasp apart from Meredith's and Raffaele's. It cannot be explained by simple incompetence, there is obvious wrongdoing. Stefanoni fought hard to not disclose data proving that wrongdoing - in the case of the quantification she didn't disclose the data at all, which is noted - this shows she's very well aware of what she's done wrong.

I expect hard time on the witness stand for her.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's really a minor point but I hoped some progress had been made.
But just to be clear you are back to the 'shouldn't have been arrested on Nov 6th' argument.
OK. Bassoons it is then.

I was more interested in the fact that you are both still sticking to the CT that the cops had PL in their sights, forced AK to name him and thus they and the translator perjured themselves on the stand.

That's a CT with absolutely no evidence to back it up no matter how you slice it. Nor has it been even remotely hinted by AK's lawyers or anybody in the real world.


Still upset that I edit, as opposed to using the preview pane, my posts for spacing typos etc. Given all the claims of incomprehensibility I thought you would be happy either way

You're completely wrong, and not waving but drowning. But whatever.

And you think your edits correct your typos?! Presumably that does not include grammar......

 

[RoseMontague]

Changed you opinion how ?

Werent you one of the many posters who claimed or insinuated previously that [among many many other things] the cops planted the evidence on the clasp and knife.

So now its Stefanoni not the cops - Like all good CT's it can be amended as necessary without changing the overall effect.

But on this 'Expert report' - funny how those who railed against 'arguments from authority' suddenly embrace an 'expert opinion' when it seems to suit their argument - do you have an opinion on whether it confirms that RS' profile is on the clasp.

Nope, not Rose.

Rose posted on many occasions her belief there was never any DNA on the knife blade, that it was possibly and in fact quite probably the result of machine contamination from cranking up the ye old knob well past the recommended settings, a machine that had been used in previous testing of Meredith Kercher's DNA.

 

[platonov]

No but yeah but no

You're completely wrong, and not waving but drowning. But whatever.

And you think your edits correct your typos?! Presumably that does not include grammar......

If you don't have a response beyond 'whatever' - that's fine.

But pretty please don't attack my grammar - surely there must something posted elsewhere on the internet that is more worthy of your undivided attention !


.

 

[Justinian2]

"Knox and her family have other legal battles. She will be in court on Monday as her lawyers try to block the Lifetime movie "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy" starring Hayden Panettiere from airing in Italy. Her lawyers also want Google and YouTube to remove clips of the movie from the internet and seek more than $4 million in damages. "

I still don't like this, at all. The idea that a court in Italy can decide what movies Hollywood is allowed to make or what is allowed on the internet is obscene to me. I think that sort of sublime arrogance needs to be rectified posthaste. With extreme prejudice.

These movies can cause real damage. I think they are libelous and damaging at this time (during the appeal).

I hate the law especially when people use it to make mountains out of molehills. I think the laws of both Italy and America should be destroyed, but not before careful deliberation over the replacement system.

The argument you mention is group rights versus individual rights. Unfortunately the rights of the beast - government - is too often the winner every time a discussion like this is opened. I think the beast belongs in a cage.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you don't have a response beyond 'whatever' - that's fine.

But pretty please don't attack my grammar - surely there must something posted elsewhere on the internet that is more worthy of your undivided attention !


.

Oh, I have plenty of answer beyond "whatever". But a) you never listen to responses and distort things to your own agenda anyhow; b) you don't (in my opinion) argue in good faith, and are mainly here merely to snipe and bait; and c) you're just not worth arguing with.

(PS There's no space between the end of a word and an exclamation mark)

.

.

 

[Kaosium]

Finding Machine/Harry Rag quotes is easy because she uses the same phrases over and over. On this one she uses This is ominous for Knox and Sollecito almost every time.

Thank you Rose, that worked. An interesting aside, I also found just about every other talking point also includes the word 'ominous.' Methinks Harry lives in a world of ominousness!

Now I have to fumigate it, some of these people don't belong, do they? Harry just made that part up. I don't even recognize some of them, and frankly I don't think Garofano could spell 'DNA,' he's the one who thought big peaks mean recent blood for sure, isn't he? Even he was dubious of the 'murder knife' as I recall.

Which of these actually 'looked at the data and came to the same conclusions?'

"Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti haven’t uttered a single word in public about Dr. Stefanoni’s forensic investigation and findings. They were unable to perform any DNA tests on the knife and bra clasp. They are now looking at the same data as Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano and Professor Giuseppe Novelli. The fact that these independent experts looked at the data and came to the same conclusions as Dr. Stefanoni is ominous for Knox and Sollecito."

 

[komponisto]

Authority, indeed

But on this 'Expert report' - funny how those who railed against 'arguments from authority' suddenly embrace an 'expert opinion' when it seems to suit their argument -

No, platonov, I'm afraid you've got it wrong.

Some on PMF have attempted to reassure themselves by claiming there's "nothing new" in this report. You know what? They're right.

Just about all of the problems cited by Conti and Vecchiotti have been pointed out by the defense from (almost) the very beginning. 3 years. "These are the same arguments that Tagliabracci used", said one poster. Ya think? Anyone could have learned about the problems with the knife and the bra clasp from reading the frickin' FOA website in 2008, for FSM's sake.

But now, suddenly,...media reports imply that now, for the first time, there is...doubt about this evidence. Up to this point, somehow, the knife was the murder weapon, the bra clasp proved that Sollecito was at the crime scene. But now, the media (and I must say particularly the Italian media) would have you believe, some are beginning to raise questions about the quality of this evidence!

Newsflash, news media: these questions were never "unraised". You missed the story. You are three years too late.

How interesting it is that the Italian media is just now beginning to raise other doubts. Here is an article, for example, suggesting that Meredith's room may have been a tad too small to accommodate the expansive violent orgy hypothesized by prosecutors -- and helpfully pointing out that Sollecito's defense argued this in 2009, only to be completely ignored by Massei.

Where were you in 2009, TGCOM?

What is the difference now? Why has the tone of the press coverage of the case suddenly changed from blockheadedly-neutral-bordering-on-judgemental to possibly-somewhat-skeptical?

The answer: with this report, an authority now says so. Before, you see, when evidence was disputed, that was just "the defense talking". Tagliabracci, Torre, Gino, Introna, Pasquali (and Pascali too)...who needs to listen to them? They'd probably just make stuff up. Aren't there always "defense experts" in trials? And people still get convicted, right? So, obviously expert opinions don't mean anything when the experts are working for the defense.

The prosecution, on the other hand...they wouldn't bring a case if they didn't have good evidence. If they, did, why, that would be incompetence or worse!

FOA? Puh-leeze. Why, they admit that they're friends of the defendant! If Rudy were rich, his friends would have set up a website too!

But now, we have experts appointed by The Court (authority!) who have raised the possibility that the evidence may be less than rock-solid. Perhaps this story is worth looking into!

The sad fact of the matter is that for most people, not only is everything said by an authority true, but nothing is true until it is said by an authority. Long-time innocentisti are people whose critical thinking skills have been strong enough to buck this human trend on at least one occasion.

do you have an opinion on whether it confirms that RS' profile is on the clasp.

It does not so confirm. At most, it allows for the possibility that it could have been.

 

[Antony]

Ask yourself were the positions reversed, and it so happened that Amanda came home to get a mop when Rudy Guede was there and then Meredith returned shortly after he left. Somehow Meredith catches the ire of Mignini, who proposes that Meredith and the boyfriend with the hemp plants conspired with Rudy to kill Amanda in some sort of sick game he simply invented just like this one. Which ones involved in this debate do you suppose would be using the image and memory of Amanda Knox and smearing Meredith wholesale with merciless abandon employing disgusting exaggerations of character flaws they perceived and utterly unwilling to even entertain the possibility the object of their hatred could be innocent?

I've said this before: if it had been Amanda coming home alone on Nov 1 while Guede was in the cottage, and Meredith who had been first on the scene in the morning, then Amanda would be dead and Meredith would be in prison. Maybe there's a way gently to point this out to John Kercher.

 

[Kestrel]

It's not exactly challenging or provocative to argue against bigfoot, flat earth, 911 conspiracies or homeopathy. This case, however, requires one to swim against the stream somewhat (as others have pointed out, in most instances the rational view is the one held by the "authority" side of the argument - think of 911, moon landings, JFK, etc as examples). It also requires a good amount of independent research and structured, logical thinking. I think that some people are good at that sort of thing. And others are not.

This case also involves areas of science that are poorly understood by the general public. The psychology of false confessions and the ability of experts to detect lies using behavioral clues are two notable examples.