Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[snook1]

I laugh at people who continuously claim that there is no reasonable doubt in this case. It's one thing to believe fully in Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence (which I do), but it's completely another to discuss reasonable doubt in this case.

No evidence was presented to suggest their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Oh Dear

"world" splitting ???

Can someone here really use that skill when they argue innocence ??

One innocence poster here repeatedly argues conclusions that he could only obtain through supernatural abilities at mind readingto argue innocence.

But now world splitting too ??

Who and where said that ????

Surely your argument is confused:
1) I would have never imagined much less argued that any mere mortal, even here, could, "split worlds" to argue innocence.
2) I was definitely not "proven wrong"

Do you have a *straightforward* link showing where I ever said that per haps ???


Mama mia;
Adios

Wow, you managed an entire post from one typo. I hope you are proud of yourself. The text was obviously meant to be "word splitting" and you know that because you posted it. Here's your quote: "When reminded that only *registered members* have access even to the index on his copycat mostly ignored Forum, he immediately goes into a typically characteristic exercise in word splitting about how IIP also refers to his other website."

Your response highlighting a typo instead of admitting that you are wrong proves the point that you have no interest in the truth.

IIP refers to the organization "Injustice in Perugia" and not to a specific website. We currently have an informational website, a discussion forum, and a blog, with many others that gather on facebook. IIP hides nothing. I hope that clears up your confusion.

 

[LondonJohn]

Fine,

A very good point. Roger Koppl's article "CSI For Real" is a good discussion of investigator bias. In addition I don't believe that Rinaldi even had anyone else's reference prints (Garofano, among others, commented on this). Having the reference prints of Laura, Filomena, and Giacomo would seem to be a good start.

Agreed for the luminol prints in the hallway.

For the dilute blood partial print on the bathmat, however, having those reference prints would have been less of an issue. The print was clearly made in Meredith's blood - meaning it was almost certainly made by someone who was either involved in her murder or some sort of clean-up. And it was also clearly made by an adult male with pretty large feet. So Filomena and Laura would be irrelevant in that regard, and Silenzi had a pretty sound alibi for the night of the murder (and the following day). The print on the bathmat must therefore belong to either Guede or some other male with fairly large feet who was involved in the murder/clean-up.

The plain truth about the partial print on the bathmat is that it was made in a very dilute mixture of blood and water, and that it was deposited onto a thick-pile, tufted, irregular, patterned cotton towelling bathmat. It's therefore impossible to compare it "with millimetre accuracy(!!)" against reference prints from Guede and Sollecito - which were made onto a hard paper surface using specialised print ink.

In my opinion, the only thing that can be said about the partial print on the bathmat is that it was deposited by a male with large feet (corresponding to a European shoe size of around 40-44). In my opinion, it's just as likely to have been made by Guede as by Sollecito (or, for that matter, by any male with similar-sized feet). And my personal view is that it was deposited by Guede, while he was in the process of washing blood off the front of his trousers in the bidet or shower. I think that a dilute pool of blood gathered in the bidet bowl (or floor of the shower), and that Guede stepped into this pool before partially stepping onto the bathmat.

 

[LondonJohn]

I laugh at people who continuously claim that there is no reasonable doubt in this case. It's one thing to believe fully in Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence (which I do), but it's completely another to discuss reasonable doubt in this case.

No evidence was presented to suggest their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I totally agree. Personally, I'm not at the "totally innocent" level yet (and I actually think it's difficult to reside at that extreme end of the scale, in the absence of firm exculpatory evidence). But I have a firm foot on the "innocent" side of the fence.

However, as you've just pointed out here (and it can't be pointed out often enough, in my opinion), one has to have both feet firmly rooted on the "guilt" side of the fence in order to believe that Knox/Sollecito should be convicted. If one has even a single foot tentatively placed on the fence (even if the other foot is still grounded on the "guilt" side), then one should argue for acquittal. One doesn't need to even climb the fence - and far less jump across to the "innocent" side - to abandon a belief in conviction. I think that many people continue to misunderstand this fundamentally-important and logically-correct asymmetry.

 

[snook1]

LondonJohn,
I couldn't have said it better. The part that the main focus should be on, is :

I think that many people continue to misunderstand this fundamentally-important and logically-correct asymmetry

That's, in my opinion, the core of the discussion about this case.

 

[Poppy1016]

Hi Bruce, I wanted to thank you for the great work you have done in this case. However, I'm apalled at having to click my mouse once in order to access your hidden pictures. Lol

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Hi Bruce, I wanted to thank you for the great work you have done in this case. However, I'm apalled at having to click my mouse once in order to access your hidden pictures. Lol

Thank you. We are working on alleviating the tedious clicking action needed to navigate the website. Hopefully we will solve that problem soon.

 

[lionking]

halides,

LK seems to have missed the point of PW's question and is answering the different question: "what evidence do you have of AK and RS's guilt?"

But ISTR he answered the question some time ago. LK is convinced of guilt because the Massei court found them guilty, and he will change his mind if the Hellman court overturns the Massei verdict. Simples!

Good attempt at mind reading. Could you show me where I have said that I'm "convinced of guilt"?

 

[benno]

Thanks LondonJohn

I didn't understand why, but thought it neccessary in court after you're insight. Thanks.

 

[PhantomWolf]

LK seems to have missed the point of PW's question and is answering the different question: "what evidence do you have of AK and RS's guilt?"

I suspect that the missing of the point and answering a different question was quite deliberate.

But ISTR he answered the question some time ago. LK is convinced of guilt because the Massei court found them guilty, and he will change his mind if the Hellman court overturns the Massei verdict. Simples!

Which isn't actually answering the question at all. The question wasn't "Would you accept the appeal court's verdit if it was not-guilt?" but rather, "what evidence would change your belief to one of reasonable doubt?" The funny thing is that this isn't a hard question to answer, except if the belief in guilt is by blind faith alone rather than through logical consideration of the evidence.

I am convinced that Apollo was real and that 19 Al Qaeda Hijackers and their various support people in Afghanistan planned and conducted the 9/11 attacks because of the evidence. I could be persuaded that I am wrong in these if someone ever was able to present logical and consistant evidence that what I accept is indeed wrong, and in doing so undermine the current evidence that points solidly to my conclusion.

Likewise, in this case, anyone that has a rational belief in guilty has done so because of certain evidence, and that evidence to them is strong enough to convict, be it the mixed DNA, the alledged staged break-in, the luminal footprints, or the bloody footprint on the bathmat. The question is, at which point is the removal of those items enough to convince them of reasonable doubt. Does the belief in guilt hang on the "staged" break in. If that was proved to have been real, or at least impossible to have been created by the method the prosecution claim, would that create reasonable doubt? If Filomena came forward and admitted under oath that her room was indeed a little messy that night and so the glass could have fallen on top of clothing she'd left out, would that create reasonable doubt? How many pillars need to go? If all they had left was the so called "confessions/accusations" would that still be enough to claim guilt beyond reasonable doubt? What if the time of death is confirmed at before 10pm and the computer records show activity until at least 9:45pm? Would that create reasonable doubt?

I suspect that the main reasons that none in Camp Guilty want to answer this question is that they are scared to examine their own beliefs and how they got there, or that if they do commit to a specific position for reasonable doubt, and this court then reachs that point, they won't be able to backtrack further and hold onto their conclusions. Of course it could be both too.

 

[Poppy1016]

I believe that those believing in guilt have their opinions based on emotions rather than facts. And much like the Italian authorities involved in this case, are now doing and saying anything to save face.

 

[daydreamer]

Good attempt at mind reading. Could you show me where I have said that I'm "convinced of guilt"?

So what you are saying is that you have doubt. So the question is, is it reasonable doubt or unreasonable doubt?

What say you?

 

[RoseMontague]

_______________________

Here's what's crackpot about the Rinaldi Report. When determining the dimensions of the bathmat print and the luminol prints, Rinaldi had ---at the same moment---the inked impressions of the three suspects feet. So there was confirmation bias back-loaded into his study. Instead, when determining the dimensions of the bathmat print and the luminol prints, he should not have seen the inked impressions. He should have first determined, dimensionally, which feet would be consistent with the prints and which would be inconsistent with the prints. Only then should he have been able to see the inked impressions of the suspects' feet.

I wonder whether Rinaldi's results would have been the same had he performed in a scientifically respectable manner.

///

I wanted to mention to you that Rinaldi also calls it a shoe-print in his conclusions, not just on page 19. They were not able to get any measurements on this shoe-print because again florescent tape was not used (ignore the incorrect translation by PMF in the Massei report) and from what I can see the tile is not visible to make a comparison measurement.

This shoe-print could belong to anybody and could have been made weeks before the murder. It is an outlier and does not belong with the others.

 

[theRealBob]

An astute observation. I currently suspect that personality may be among the biggest determiners of a person's viewpoint on this case.

This is especially likely to be so when you correct for the inevitable truth that some people who claim to believe in guilt actually don't anymore, but are merely rehearsing the arguments to themselves to avoid having to admit they made a mistake.

Actually I really meant that PMFer's seem to be narrow-minded, a*ally retentive d**kheads whose arguments on the various pieces of evidence were childlike to begin with, and just continue grinding moronically on day after day, in the same vein...

If going to a guilters website like PMF or TJFMK doesn't quickly switch you onto the fact that something wrong is going on in this case nothing ever will...

 

[theRealBob]

Hi the real Bob,
I don't think any rational thinking person can truly believe in the staged break in theory. There is definitely evidence of an actual break in, or at least evidence of the rock being thrown from outside.
On a side note, there is one thing that has always bothered me about this case. Are the lay judges or jurors really permitted to think and analyze the evidence. Or are they more for show, as I suspect. I believe they are totally directed by the real judges. After all, their absolutely was reasonable doubt expressed by one juror.

Check out the new photo on TJFMK of the house.

It's a burglar's paradise.

Also I regard the large pieces of glass (in the photos on IIP) being carefully placed on the windowsill, as it is obviously being used as a means of entry, to be the most obvious and conclusive clue regarding the window...

And another good clue is the other photo on IIP, of the footprint on the top windowill of the window beneath Filomena's, where the cops forgot to look....

There is no doubt Massei told those folk how to vote. I have a feeling that Massei and the jurors probably mingled over more than a few morning teas too during that rather longish trial...(possibly more frequently than normal at crucial evidence stages)

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Evidence has been provided. Search for it. You don't accept it. Big deal. Troll away.

Let me guess... it doesn't say anywhere in the MA that you are not allowed to call civil requests to engage in rational discussion "trolling"? So you're going to do it if you want to? And we're all being very, very mean in asking you to engage in rational discussion and you see no reason to engage in rational discussion until we stop being so mean to you?

 

[Antony]

Which isn't actually answering the question at all. The question wasn't "Would you accept the appeal court's verdit if it was not-guilt?" but rather, "what evidence would change your belief to one of reasonable doubt?"

I am aware of this, and I don't give any validity to LK's POV (which is shared explicitly by at least one other poster). The point I was making is that people who hire out their thinking to official bodies do see it (apparently) as a valid way of forming an opinion, and don't quite appreciate the distinction between primary evidence and the voice of authority.

Of course one of the ironies is that if, and when, an accused person is found not guilty, or the guilty verdict is officially overturned, then this trust in authority often turns out to be one-way only, as we saw in the Casey Anthony thread.

 

[RoseMontague]

Frank has a new post up:

http://perugiashock.com/2011/07/19/a-farewell-to-weapon/

That knife as the murder weapon has never made any sense to me at all.

 

[RoseMontague]

_______________________

Here's what's crackpot about the Rinaldi Report. When determining the dimensions of the bathmat print and the luminol prints, Rinaldi had ---at the

same moment---the inked impressions of the three suspects feet. So there was confirmation bias back-loaded into his study. Instead, when determining the dimensions of the bathmat print and the luminol prints, he should not have seen the inked impressions. He should have first determined, dimensionally, which feet would be consistent with the prints and which would be inconsistent with the prints. Only then should he have been able to see the inked impressions of the suspects' feet.

I wonder whether Rinaldi's results would have been the same had he performed in a scientifically respectable manner.

///

I wanted to mention to you that Rinaldi also calls it a shoe-print in his conclusions, not just on page 19. They were not able to get any measurements on this shoe-print because again florescent tape was not used (ignore the incorrect translation by PMF in the Massei report) and from what I can see the tile is not visible to make a comparison measurement.

This shoe-print could belong to anybody and could have been made weeks before the murder. It is an outlier and does not belong with the others.

Further documentation is found in Massei on page 338:

Massei pg 338 (pmf translation)

– 4 photos of prints revealed by means of Luminol (found by Forensics on 18/12/07).
Of these, traces 1, 2 and 7 corresponded to three footprints, while trace 6
[corresponded] to a shoe print.
Specifically,
. trace 1 was a footprint, revealed by Luminol inside Amanda’s bedroom
. trace 2 was made up of two footprints present in the hallway facing the exit
. trace 6 (hallway) a shoe print pointing towards the exit, it did not result in
being useful for comparisons
. trace 7 (hallway) a footprint orientated towards the entrance into Meredith’s
room

Trace 6 is the same as Foto 4, Rep 183, L8 (I wish they would stick with just one number-no wonder Massei is confused).

Massei pg 194

sample called L1 in the inspection report, taken in Romanelli's room,
corresponded to the genetic profile of the victim; the sample called L2, also from Romanelli's room, yielded a mixed genetic profile of the victim and Knox; the sample L3, taken from Knox's room, as well as the other two (L4 and L5) yielded Knox's genetic profile. Of the samples L6, L7, L8 and L9, only L8 (item 183) from the corridor, almost in the middle of the corridor in front of the door to Amanda Knox's room, gave the result: victim plus Knox. The last sample L9 yielded no result.

And from the index of test results:

Rep.183 – Sample of presumed blood substance (which shows the shape of a shoe print) revealed by luminol, present on the floor of the corridor situated between the room of the victim Meredith Susanna Cara KERCHER and of Amanda KNOX, with the direction turned toward the door of entry of the corridor (sample L8) – page 138 A.F./223 R.;

ETA: Rinaldi also ties trace 6 and foto 4 together as a shoe print:

Rilievo nr 6 del Verbale di Sopralluogo presso il domicilio di KERCHER Meredith del 18.12.2007: impronta da calzatura rilevata nel corridoio su cui si affacciano le camere di KNOX Amanda e KERCHER Meredith, orientata verso uscita, impressa per deposizione di sostanza ematica e rilevata con Luminol, riprodotta a foto 4 dell’allegato fotografico.

 

[Fine]

Frank has posted a new comment: The Vienna Circle

///