Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

The Kercher family are 100% responsible for the words and actions of their lawyer, who is acting as their agent. I consider him to be a hateful and dishonest presence in this proceeding.

The same applies for each of the families directly effected

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So, since I probably won't wade my way through the whole Massei report, can you summarise the flaws as you see them, in roughly the same way?

Rolfe.

Massei/Christiani's signature move is the "possible, indeed probable" manoeuvre, where they establish that something is possible and then with absolutely no evidence or argument whatsoever leap from "possible" (P>0) to "probable" (P>0.5). They do this repeatedly with multiple items of evidence to turn a string of items which should be evidence for acquittal into evidence for conviction.

For example Massei argued that since it was possible that the trace of Meredith's blood mixed with Amanda's DNA in the sink was caused by Amanda washing her hands of blood in the sink, that this was probably what happened. The fact that washing your hands removes comparatively little DNA compared to, say, brushing one's teeth, and that DNA traces do not come with time stamps hence there is absolutely no reason to think that the blood and the DNA were deposited at the same time is ignored.

The bloody footprint on the bath mat was shown to be incompatible with Raffaele's foot by the work of Vinci, but Massei/Christiani tossed his entire body of work out wholesale by asserting that since they (Massei/Christiani) thought the second toe mark was part of the big toe mark then everything Vinci said was wrong, and instead they endorsed the hilariously flawed work of Rinaldi on the footprint wholesale and uncritically.

The minor problem that there was absolutely no coherent narrative that got the kitchen knife from Raffaele's house to the murder room, since the proposed narrative was of an unpremeditated murder, was dodged by merely asserting that since Raffaele liked knives and Amanda sometimes walked the Perugian streets alone it was "possible and in fact probable" that he had made her carry that kitchen knife around with her in a cloth bag at all times for self-defence.

At times they appear to be outright twisting the facts in order to conjure up evidence against Amanda and Raffaele out of nowhere. For example in the footprint case I just mentioned they simply ignore Rudy's statement that he went from the room where Meredith had been murdered to the bathroom and back, and have Rudy running straight out the front door as soon as he sees Meredith injured. This appears to be nothing more than a device to allow them to claim that the bathmat print and all the luminol prints must therefore by elimination all have been made by Raffaele and Amanda cavorting about with blood on their feet.

Contrariwise, and in defiance of the correct way of managing conditional probability, they do the same manoeuvre in reverse to do away with inconvenient items of evidence. For example they establish that it's "improbable" that Raffaele's DNA on the bra hook arrived there by accidental contamination (by not taking into account the fact that Raffaele's guilt is even more improbable) and on this basis dismiss it entirely. Thus any possibility for reasonable doubt is squeezed out by fiat.

Overall the Massei/Christiani report looks very much like a document put together with the purpose of justifying a conviction, whatever intellectual backflips are required, and nothing at all like an even-handed and rational examination of the evidence. Strong exculpatory evidence is tossed out arbitrarily, weak evidence is accepted totally uncritically, and mere possibility is elevated to probability as necessary to make the narrative work.

Nowhere at any stage is the fact that the Mignini/Commodi narrative is incredibly implausible ever raised, when from a rationalist perspective that should be the starting point of the entire reasoning process.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It is a worrying for me how some people on either side of this case refer to each other, I wonder if some would be happier if those who believe in guilt were forced to were capital letter G on their clothing whilst those who believe in innocence were identified with an I, would that make them happy?

I just look for overuse of *stars* and "quotes" and I can pretty well identify what side someone is on.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Please do not mischaracterize what I said. My post does not say that John Kercher was hateful. To the contrary, it says he acted from pure motive. I did say that many guilters (you know who they are) are hateful, but I clearly distinguished them from John Kercher.

Further, no one said that he didn't have a "right" to voice his opinion (in the sense of free speech and all that). But I did say that he is wrong. He has a right to speak his mind, even if it's wrong, but at the end of the day, he's still wrong. Unfortunately, his actions have contributed to the harming of two innocent, young people. And for this reason, I don't think that he will ever allow himself to believe in innocence.

I posted an opinion, I did not accuse you of anything, I merely stated that I do not believe John Kercher or his family have said anything publicly that remotely demonstrates hatred towards Guede, Raffaele or Amanda. Indeed, if you accept the principal of free speech for all those involved I am not sure why you believe you have been mischaracterised:

Kerchers = Pure motive, but wrong. Hurt innocent people.

Given the above comment from your previous post, how would you characterise Meredith Kercher?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I just look for overuse of *stars* and "quotes" and I can pretty well identify what side someone is on.

Remarkable!

 

[Rolfe]

I see no evidence of hatred towards Guede, Raffaele or Amanda.

I do not recall any words or behaviour from the Kercher family after the first trial or since that supports this view of hatred. I have said John Kercher wrote prior to the start of the appeal of Raffaele and Amanda’s culpability, I do not what his current opinion might be, although I doubt that it will have changed. However, it is wholly possible for Meredith’s family to believe in culpability, this is not hatred of Guede, Raffaele or Amanda.

As for what may or may not happen at the end of this appeal, let’s wait and see.

Well, that's as maybe, but it seems to have nothing at all to do with the post of mine you quoted at the head of your rant. I mentioned neither the Kercher family nor hatred in my post.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Massei/Christiani's signature move is the "possible, indeed probable" manoeuvre, where they establish that something is possible and then with absolutely no evidence or argument whatsoever leap from "possible" (P>0) to "probable" (P>0.5). They do this repeatedly with multiple items of evidence to turn a string of items which should be evidence for acquittal into evidence for conviction.

For example Massei argued that since it was possible that the trace of Meredith's blood mixed with Amanda's DNA in the sink was caused by Amanda washing her hands of blood in the sink, that this was probably what happened. The fact that washing your hands removes comparatively little DNA compared to, say, brushing one's teeth, and that DNA traces do not come with time stamps hence there is absolutely no reason to think that the blood and the DNA were deposited at the same time is ignored.

The bloody footprint on the bath mat was shown to be incompatible with Raffaele's foot by the work of Vinci, but Massei/Christiani tossed his entire body of work out wholesale by asserting that since they (Massei/Christiani) thought the second toe mark was part of the big toe mark then everything Vinci said was wrong, and instead they endorsed the hilariously flawed work of Rinaldi on the footprint wholesale and uncritically.

The minor problem that there was absolutely no coherent narrative that got the kitchen knife from Raffaele's house to the murder room, since the proposed narrative was of an unpremeditated murder, was dodged by merely asserting that since Raffaele liked knives and Amanda sometimes walked the Perugian streets alone it was "possible and in fact probable" that he had made her carry that kitchen knife around with her in a cloth bag at all times for self-defence.

At times they appear to be outright twisting the facts in order to conjure up evidence against Amanda and Raffaele out of nowhere. For example in the footprint case I just mentioned they simply ignore Rudy's statement that he went from the room where Meredith had been murdered to the bathroom and back, and have Rudy running straight out the front door as soon as he sees Meredith injured. This appears to be nothing more than a device to allow them to claim that the bathmat print and all the luminol prints must therefore by elimination all have been made by Raffaele and Amanda cavorting about with blood on their feet.

Contrariwise, and in defiance of the correct way of managing conditional probability, they do the same manoeuvre in reverse to do away with inconvenient items of evidence. For example they establish that it's "improbable" that Raffaele's DNA on the bra hook arrived there by accidental contamination (by not taking into account the fact that Raffaele's guilt is even more improbable) and on this basis dismiss it entirely. Thus any possibility for reasonable doubt is squeezed out by fiat.

Overall the Massei/Christiani report looks very much like a document put together with the purpose of justifying a conviction, whatever intellectual backflips are required, and nothing at all like an even-handed and rational examination of the evidence. Strong exculpatory evidence is tossed out arbitrarily, weak evidence is accepted totally uncritically, and mere possibility is elevated to probability as necessary to make the narrative work.

Nowhere at any stage is the fact that the Mignini/Commodi narrative is incredibly implausible ever raised, when from a rationalist perspective that should be the starting point of the entire reasoning process.

That's amazing, it's a litany of exactly the same flawed reasoning seen in the Zeist judgement. Possible, therefore probable, if it supported guilt. Unproven, therefore coincidental, if it supported innocence.

There was another trick the Three Wise Monkeys pulled though. It was to say that they recognised there were problems with this train of reasoning, and had taken these into account, but nevertheless still concluded that their improbable fairy-story was what had happened. This played badly for the defence at the appeal, because when the submission was made that there were problems with certain trains of reasoning, the appeal judges said, well yes but they said they recognised these and took them into account, so the appeal falls.

You have to go to the very best law schools to think of that one.

Rolfe.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Well, that's as maybe, but it seems to have nothing at all to do with the post of mine you quoted at the head of your rant. I mentioned neither the Kercher family nor hatred in my post.

Rolfe.

Well that is simply because I was responding to Diocletus's post and you chose to respond, please do review, rant me? Surely not!

 

[HumanityBlues]

Remarkable!

grazie mille

 

[Rhea]

I hate to bring this up again, but this is just too hilarious. A poster by the name of Stint7 who is constantly giving updates about JREF on PMF.net has now referenced my above post saying that I ridicule as "hilarious" the "idea that an idiot from PMF could possibly believe that the FOA interacted with the Knox/Sollecito Defense team."

This is what I said: "They are also hinting that the FOA/Defense are colluding with the experts.".... as in the *independent experts* Then he goes off on a diatribe about different "FOA"s helping the defense (which would be totally unnecessary had he actually read what I wrote). He has also accused the rest of you "groupies" as piling in.

Maybe because the "groupies" actually realize what was being said and that Stint7 can't read too well. I sure wish he'd come here and voice his displeasure.

So funny.

Yes, I read that, so absurd; Michael was actually suggesting that FOA is colluding with the independent experts, not with the defense (nobody denies that). And of course, as always, he doesn't have the slightest of evidence for this. That is why it got ridiculed. Improbabilty plus lack of evidence; basically what the whole case consists of.

But for them, if they believe it, it must be true and it becomes fact as soon as somebody utteres the word. And Stint7 alias Pilot Padron seriously has got some weird fixation with JREF going on …

 

[Diocletus]

I posted an opinion, I did not accuse you of anything, I merely stated that I do not believe John Kercher or his family have said anything publicly that remotely demonstrates hatred towards Guede, Raffaele or Amanda. Indeed, if you accept the principal of free speech for all those involved I am not sure why you believe you have been mischaracterised:

Given the above comment from your previous post, how would you characterise Meredith Kercher?

You most certainly did. You quoted my post, and then said that you could not agree that John Kercher had said anything hateful, as if to suggest that I had said the contrary. Now that I think about it, though, I do believe that I have seen comments and conduct out of Maresca that I would characterize as hateful. And for that matter, I can understand why they might/should feel hate if they believe that Knox and Sollecito killed their daughter. However, they are wrong.

I do not understand your comment about Meredith Kercher. She was killed by Rudy Guede. How am I supposed to characterize her? Her death has nothing to do with Knox/Sollecito.

 

[Diocletus]

The same applies for each of the families directly effected

True. But irrelevant.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Diocletus

You most certainly did. You quoted my post, and then said that you could not agree that John Kercher had said anything hateful, as if to suggest that I had said the contrary.

No, I was expressing an opinion and that opinion was John Kercher had not written anything that could be regarded as hateful; he did state that he believed Guede, Raffaele and Amanda were culpable for his daughter’s murder.

Now that I think about it, though, I do believe that I have seen comments and conduct out of Maresca that I would characterize as hateful.

John Kercher is not Marseca vice versa; of course you are entitled to your opinion of the possible outcome of the appeal.

I do not understand your comment about Meredith Kercher. She was killed by Rudy Guede. How am I supposed to characterize her? Her death has nothing to do with Knox/Sollecito.

Well as we all know the Italian Supreme court ruled in Guede’s final appeal, that he (Guede) and unnamed others were responsible for Meredith’s murder.

Meredith = Innocent murder victim.

PS
It’s not necessary for us agree, well not for me.

 

[Diastole]

But I think a much more important and interesting area to discuss - in the light of what's likely to transpire in the appeal - is the motivation and psychology of Massei and his court. Ever since his motivations report was published (courtesy of PMF), it's been glaringly obvious that there was some desperately bad reasoning made in Massei's court, coupled with some equally bad judicial rulings. I wasn't following this case at the time of the first trial, but it didn't take me long after I started following it (in March 2010 - before I'd even known the Massei Report was available) for me to work out the numerous significant flaws in the guilty verdicts.

I would agree that this is one of the most interesting questions to arise from the whole fiasco. Some commentary by John Hooper in the Observer from Dec. 6, 2009 is worth quoting:

Of all the millions of words written about the marathon trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher, some of the most revealing appeared in a dispatch from Italy's leading news agency, Ansa, on Wednesday.

"Certainly, the decision facing the [judges and jurors] will not be an easy one," wrote Ansa's reporter, Matteo Guidelli, as he looked ahead to the final phase of the trial of Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito.

"Sentencing to life imprisonment two young people, aged 22 and 25, would mean destroying their lives forever," he continued, "but letting them off would mean gainsaying not only the entire investigation, but also the judges who have reached decisions before them."

It hardly needs to be said that the "danger" of contradicting police and prosecutors would not exactly weigh heavily in the deliberations of a British or American jury. But Italy is not Britain or the US.

I believe that one of Douglas Preston's informants (perhaps one of the Capponi's), made a similar observation in his Guardian article of Dec. 10, 2009:

"This verdict had nothing to do with the actual evidence. It's all about 'la faccia', face. They had to convict her. Now, with the conviction, everyone has saved face, the judiciary, the prosecutors and police have been vindicated. There will be an appeal and she will be acquitted, and that will be done to satisfy the Americans. Then everybody will be happy. Of course Amanda and Raffaele will be in prison for another two years, but that's a small matter compared to the careers of so many important people"

This interpretation of Massei's trial would suggest that it was devoted less to a determination of guilt or innocence, and more to the public demonstration of confidence in the probity and integrity of Italy's magistracy - qualities perhaps seen as lacking at times in Italy's recent past.

 

[Diocletus]

John Kercher is not Marseca vice versa

John Kercher pays Maresca to represent him. Maresca is Kercher's agent. For purposes of this case, Maresa's actions and statements are fully attributable to Kercher.

And yes, Meredith Kercher is an innocent murder victim. But Knox and Sollecito played no role in her death.

Knox and Sollecito are innocent victims of a wrongful imprisonment. Unfortunately, we cannot say that John Kercher played no role in their imprisonment.

Misplaced vengeance is a terrible thing.

 

[Draca]

Meredith = Innocent murder victim.

CoulsdonUK,

I see in your posts a view that I find disturbing that I have seen from many UK posters. I am perplexed by the attitude.

You see:
Meredith = Innocent murder victim.

What I see is:
Meredith = Innocent murder victim.
Amanda = Innocent wrongful conviction and media tabloid victim.
Raffaele = Innocent wrongful conviction and media tabloid victim.
Kercher Family = Innocent murdered family member and judicial mess victims.
Knox/Sollecito Families = Innocent family members wrongfully convicted victims.

Do you not have any feeling at all for what Amanda and Raffaele have suffered when they have done nothing to deserve it?

Is there some reason that in your mind you can not support both ideas at the same time? Meredith and Amanda both victims in different ways.

Does loyalty to Meredith and the Kerchers not allow you to sympathize with those wrongfully convicted? How would you like to spend 4 yrs in jail?

When will you, the UK, the Kerchers - start directing anger at the right people - Rudy Guede and the PACK that messed up the investigation? The group who railroaded innocent people, while claiming to be doing justice for a beautiful murdered British girl.

* I do know there are MANY UK supporters of innocence. This is more of a general view of a certain attitude I have long been perplexed by that I have seen from uninformed UK posters. I don't mean to be disrespectful to any of my UK friends here.

 

[PhantomWolf]

John Kercher is not Marseca vice versa

While true, Marseca is acting on the Kercher family's behalf, as their representative. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, his actions don't reflect well on them. His determination to prevent the truth being found at any cost, even objecting to things that would help the prosecution if the tale woven by Mignini and Massei was actually true. His continual use of ad homenims and attempts at well poisoning and appeal to emotion speak volumes as well. In a system that is designed to find truth, he is doing nothing but slinging mud and hoping that enough of it will stick.

I'd also note that with Mr Kercher commenting that Knox shouldn't have appealed the original trial, his lawyer hasn't even bothered to explain the Italian system to him in a way that he can understand it.

 

[Draca]

I noticed in the lasted Daily Mail comments a great deal of negative comments. Here the article directly says - The cops are no good at their job - and the comments seem to ignore that and talk about political pressure and technicalities. I was very disappointed in these comments.


A comparison of comments in the UK and IT"

UK comments:

The 'filthy forensics that taint the case against Foxy Knoxy': Incompetent police 'wore dirty gloves and dropped Meredith's bloodied bra on the floor'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ped-Meredith-Kerchers-bloodied-bra-floor.html


"If this murderess gets off on a technicality it will be truly obscene"

"I'm sorry but just by looking at these two, you can tell they are horrible sadistic muderers! 26 years is not long enough!"

"Knox's blood was found mixed with Merediths, thats the damning evidence and it is not being contested, she is still guilty!!"

"one way or another. They will find a way to get her off."

"She needs to show a little respect, smiling and waving in front of the cameras"

"Is it my imagination, but do Knox and Sollecito look smug?"

"This is the girl who was giggling and doing handstands in the police station"

"when was the last time an American was convicted on foreign soil?"

"Maybe she can cling to these technicalities as a life raft but the facts are that she has admitted Meredith was killed whilst she was there. Her bloody footprint was found under Meredith's lifeless body. she went out for cleaning materials and cleaned evidence away. She tried to frame an innocent man. She has changed her story several times and she did carwheels outside the police station shortly after the murder. I think she her eyes are really evil, even when she is smiling she looks evil. Her father has indulged his sociopathic daughter and even now is trying to buy her her freedom."

"What a shambles if this turns out to be true - I would recommend that Meredith's parents contact their lawyers about civil action against the Italian police, hopefully supported by our own Government - Lets hope is doesnt come to this."

* I chose mostly negative comments to highlight my point.

------------

Italian comments:

Meredith, "Amanda and Raffaele are innocent" According to experts, the police got it all wrong
http://www.ilgiornale.it/interni/am...-07-2011/articolo-id=536849-page=0-comments=1


"But is it possible that in Italy everything is unstable?"

"the findings also cast shadows on the professionalism of the police, beyond the liability of the PM! But no one says anything about this .... the shot goes out of fashion to the PM, but the policeman who touches a finding with dirty gloves polluting any evidence that's fine? ... mha ...."

"the main problem is that the word of a prosecutor is worth much more than the defense, might change when both prosecution and defense will have the same rights"

"these are in jail for 3 years with a conviction for murder ... and now turns out that most likely are innocent, and devoted just a blurb"

"Who pays now?"

"With these systems, absurd send people to jail! Other than changing the justice, we must change radically!"

"Who will restore the light-heartedness of the most beautiful time of life? Who will return the honor and respectability otherwise compromised? What will the judges with their parents? Sorry we were wrong? But we realize the horror that they passed the two "defendants" if everything will be revealed (as I believe) a gross miscarriage of justice!"

"beggar and that the prosecutor who had mounted the theorem quirky murder of a sexual nature created by the erotic play of Amanda and Raffaele accomplice in the Ivory Coast (between one and the other kernel real culprit). beat these incompetent in jail for twice as many years since the two boys and the judiciary radiateli immediately. are an offense to the dignity 'of the human race."

----------

Such completely different types of comments! The Daily Mail comments often talk about Amanda's behavior, Americans pulling politics, technicalities. They hardly mention the topic of the article. The il Giornale comments seem to accept innocence and are blaming the authorities.

 

[Slayhamlet]

CoulsdonUK,

I see in your posts a view that I find disturbing that I have seen from many UK posters. I am perplexed by the attitude.

You see:
Meredith = Innocent murder victim.

What I see is:
Meredith = Innocent murder victim.
Amanda = Innocent wrongful conviction and media tabloid victim.
Raffaele = Innocent wrongful conviction and media tabloid victim.
Kercher Family = Innocent murdered family member and judicial mess victims.
Knox/Sollecito Families = Innocent family members wrongfully convicted victims.

Do you not have any feeling at all for what Amanda and Raffaele have suffered when they have done nothing to deserve it?

Is there some reason that in your mind you can not support both ideas at the same time? Meredith and Amanda both victims in different ways.

Does loyalty to Meredith and the Kerchers not allow you to sympathize with those wrongfully convicted? How would you like to spend 4 yrs in jail?

When will you, the UK, the Kerchers - start directing anger at the right people - Rudy Guede and the PACK that messed up the investigation? The group who railroaded innocent people, while claiming to be doing justice for a beautiful murdered British girl.

I haven't noticed any particular trend of pro-guilt believers coming from the UK or any other country. Similarly, I see no preponderance of Americans arguing for innocence either (with the exception of Seattleites, who are disproportionately represented and tend to be pro-innocence. But this shouldn't be too surprising.)

I'm basing this solely on JREF participation in this thread, mind you. I don't pay enough attention to PMF to accurately gauge the distribution of nationalities involved, whereas here I usually know where posters are from even if they have no location listed.

 

[Draca]

I haven't noticed any particular trend of pro-guilt believers coming from the UK or any other country. Similarly, I see no preponderance of Americans arguing for innocence either (with the exception of Seattleites, who are disproportionately represented and tend to be pro-innocence. But this shouldn't be too surprising.)

I'm basing this solely on JREF participation in this thread, mind you. I don't pay enough attention to PMF to accurately gauge the distribution of nationalities involved, whereas here I usually know where posters are from even if they have no location listed.

I don't base this on people from JREF, IIP, PMF, TJMK. All of these sites have informed posters. I am thinking more of the less informed commenters on articles and on Facebook pages. There are definitely people who believe in guilt and innocence from the UK, US and IT.

What I see in CoulsdonUK is a strand of thinking from the UK that I find baffling. It's like they would be betraying Meredith, her family and the Queen herself by supporting Amanda Knox. I don't understand the view. I can not comprehend it completely. Amanda after all is human first; shouldn't there be concern that the verdict is correct on that grounds. It seems with this strand of thought Amanda and Raffaele do not matter. That only Meredith and her family are important. I understand that is where their very interest in the case comes from, but why the resistance to the truth? How will it honor Meredith or help her family to have the wrong people locked in the can?

In the same line is the posts about the dignified Kercher family vs. those loud Americans daring to defend their guilty daughter on UK T.V.

Here is a comment on the difference from a UK poster:
"I think there are a number of reasons why the reaction in Britain has been different from in the USA. (1) The victim was British. (2) The British tabloids are probably the most viscious and unprincipled in the world and they printed lies and misinformation on an industrial scale. (3) People assume that Italy is a Western country with a competent judicial system (I did - I was very wrong). (4) We don't have a dog in the fight. None of the alleged perpetrators was British. (5) The BBC has been lamentable and we usually expect it to be operating on a higher level then the press."