Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bolint]

Phantomwolf wrote:

Since there are a few people that still believe in guilt here (i.e. believe that there is no reasonable doubt) can I ask them, they know who they are, what would convince you that there was reasonable doubt in this case? What would it take to falsify your current position?

Well, as long as Raffaele is exercising his right to silence, basicallly nothing.

The absolute minimum is two independent, coherent and detailed account of what they were doing that night. Without many "don't remember"-s.

 

[PhantomWolf]

There is computer use at 21:26, that's all. After that a complete blackout in Raffaele's alibi.

Not according to Raff's appeal documents.

Amanda told him a false story in which she was innocent and fearing that she may get into trouble.

Evidence of this beyond what a stoned boy told the police to get them off his back?

Yes they were, though I don't know if Raffaele knew immediately that there had been a murder.

They did not act irrationally. Amanda knew that she was in big trouble, Raffaele, however, thought that she is basically innocent and began to help her.

Evidence of this other than pure speculation?

There had to be some more blood in the bathroom, not only what has been found.

Evidence?

The partial bloody footprint alone proves some cleanup.

How?

Also in the corridor from Meredith's room to the bathroom there had to be some blood. I don't think that the owner of the footprint jumped there.

Evidence?

 

[Kaosium]

I alluded to that earlier, because it's something I see a lot. It's particularly prevalent where there has been a successful appeal against a conviction, even where the original conviction has been a blatant miscarriage of justice. How dare anyone acquit this person, my child's memory has been sullied and s/he has been denied justice, and so on.

I don't think I've ever seen a reaction from the victim's family which has said, now we realise that the accused person didn't do it, our sympathies are also with them and their family for their ordeal, and we hope the case can be re-opened and the real culprit apprehended as soon as possible. I don't think I even heard that after the original acquittals in the Damilola Taylor case, even though that is exactly what subsequently happened.

I'm afraid I'm often reduced to impotent shouting at the television to the effect that what bloody good do you think it's going to do your son/daughter to bang up the wrong person for the murder??

It's entirely irrational, but it may stem from a need to have closure to the ordeal, thus it may be simpler to believe that those who were caught were guilty, the courts just mishandled it, than to think the murderer got away clean and may never be caught.

Which causes me to wonder, being as I generally don't follow court cases, in how many of these other instances you mentioned, was it the case that the real murderer had already been caught and prosecuted? That's the curious thing about this case, going from the evidence presented and even throwing out the DNA evidence (which would have been tough to contaminate in the lab as they had to go to his place and get his DNA off his toothbrush or somesuch to match what they found at the scene) Rudy Guede comes off as guilty as charged. He can't even deny being there when it happened, and he was never interviewed without a lawyer in the backroom of the police station with the cameras off to make anyone doubt his statements to that effect, in fact he even said so to a friend he didn't know was surreptitiously bird-dogging him for the police.

In a very real sense there were two 'investigations' of the death of Meredith Kercher, one done by 'instinct' which led to Raffaele and Amanda being arrested along with Patrick, and another one based off the evidence collected at the scene, which after a tip from one of his friends, led to Guede's arrest. The three have nothing in common outside that Rudy hung around in their neighborhood sometimes, and no evidence outside an introduction to Amanda that they ever interacted. Considering the two very different ways the investigations were conducted, there's no reason to believe one must necessarily be connected to the other, and quite a good chance the ones following the evidence got it correct.

I have to agree, although it's something I see a lot, it hadn't occurred to me it was a peculiarly British reaction.

It's not, in my experience, however it is particular to Daily Mail readers, and when I read their comments pages I am amused to find so many Texans posting there.

Actually I was surprised at how many Britons were appalled by this and post on it regularly, there's a fair sight more of them innocentisti etherwide than post at PMF as I think on it. There's quite an extensive network dedicated to watching for these MoJ that I was entirely unaware of, despite following your (main) newspapers daily for about a decade.

I see that a lot in the posts at PMF. Well, of course Meredith was the innocent victim of a particularly brutal and harrowing murder, and the thought of that must haunt her parents every day of their lives. It pretty much goes without saying, though it doesn't hurt to say it from time to time.

But what the hell does that have to do with justifying attempts to pin a spurious conviction on a couple of other innocent kids, no matter how stupidly they behaved in the days following the murder?

Rolfe.

Even more so because there's no need to 'blame' anyone besides Rudy Guede, the arrests were entirely separate and the investigations off of different evidence. Were Rudy not ever caught, the traces he left everywhere in the murder room that had no business being there would still demand explanation, whereas that is not the case with Raffaele and Amanda, the other 'evidence' (outside the clasp and knife) adduced against them at trial amounts to Amanda's DNA being in Amanda's sink when Rudy washed up, the bathmat stain, luminol footprints that tested negative for blood and DNA and form no coherent pattern relevant to the murder, and the police insistence that the break-in was 'staged' when they couldn't even reproduce their 'hypothesis' in court lest the laws of physics deny them.

No, I think this smells like something different than merely unrequited vengeance smoldering about still. This is a dedication to no more than a theory that should have died an ignoble death when Rudy's traces showed up in the murder room and nothing of Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele was found. Except in this case Mignini just kept his bizarre theory with the stark mundanity in the form of a burglar caught staring him in the face. Just as he was able to 'hypothesize' scenarios in which he might still be 'right,' so can they, believing what one wants to believe is easy when you're just posting on a website and people agree with you as long as the conclusion is 'AmandaDidIt!'

After all, Mignini just made that part up and he got people to believe it, why can't anyone?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well, as long as Raffaele is exercising his right to silence, basicallly nothing.

The absolute minimum is two independent, coherent and detailed account of what they were doing that night. Without many "don't remember"-s.

So no amount of physical evidence would be enough for reasonable doubt?

I find it sad that you cling to the outdated and well known as the most faliable forms of evidence, eye witness testimony and confessions.

 

[lionking]

I find it sad that you cling to the outdated and well known as the most faliable forms of evidence, eye witness testimony and confessions.

And yet people are convicted daily on precisely this basis. Tell you what, how about designing a criminal justice system without these characteristics?

 

[RoseMontague]

Quote:
Also in the corridor from Meredith's room to the bathroom there had to be some blood. I don't think that the owner of the footprint jumped there.

Evidence?

Exactly. In the hallway near Filomena's room are three blob/footprints and one shoeprint. The shoeprint is the one that shows both Meredith and Amanda's DNA. But Amanda was barefoot and the blood was on her feet (per the prosecution theory), not her shoe. So the evidence her shows that Amanda hopped in a circle making 3 footprints with the same foot then put a bloody shoe on to make one shoe-print in the middle, took the shoe back off and hopped in Filomena's room on her other foot (that wasn't bloody on the bottom) to put the bloody foot back down to make a blob or two in Filomena's room, then hopped back out on her non bloody bare foot carrying the bloody shoe in her hands.

Luminol shows evidence of cleaning very clearly with smearing and streaking. There is no evidence of a cleanup of any "bloody" footprints or shoe prints here. For that she would have had to miss the visible prints and fail to clean them, cleaning only the invisible prints but missing a few of those, leaving no streaking or smearing in the process.

What the evidence tells me is that some of these prints were most likely made by different persons at different times and the negative TMB test raises considerable doubt that they were made with blood at all.

 

[bolint]

So no amount of physical evidence would be enough for reasonable doubt?

Of course it could be enough. But I can't imagine what physical evidence could turn up now.

I find it sad that you cling to the outdated and well known as the most faliable forms of evidence, eye witness testimony and confessions.

It is not "some eye witness testimony" but the simple narrative of a night of an innocent person unjustly accused. That's what Raffaele has failed to provide to this day.

 

[RoseMontague]

So no amount of physical evidence would be enough for reasonable doubt?

I find it sad that you cling to the outdated and well known as the most faliable forms of evidence, eye witness testimony and confessions.

In this case the eyewitness testimony has been completely discredited and the ear witness testimony is worthless.

The "confession" amounted to be a proven false accusation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And yet people are convicted daily on precisely this basis.

People are still being convicted by them because people aren't willing to realise how seriously flawed they are, and how easily manipluated both confessions and witness statements can be. People don't want to believe that they can't trust their senses and memory about things, despite the mountains of evidence that the way we perceive things can vary greatly, and that memory is extremely fragile.

Tell you what, how about designing a criminal justice system without these characteristics?

You are jumping to extremes here. Both have their place in court, but it should not be above and beyond the physical evidence. It should be used where and when the physical evidence backs it up, and discarded on the basis of unrelability when the physical evidence doesn't. Ignoring the physical evidence and only accepting testimony is to do a fundamental dis-service to any Justice System.

 

[RoseMontague]

It is not "some eye witness testimony" but the simple narrative of a night of an innocent person unjustly accused. That's what Raffaele has failed to provide to this day.

What do you think he told the cops on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th? And he did tell Matteini that he spent the night at home with Amanda. That is his one and only statement made "in court" about what he did that night.

It is interesting that the prosecution did not even enter his statement of the 5th breaking his alibi into evidence in the trial.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Of course it could be enough. But I can't imagine what physical evidence could turn up now.

It's not so much a case of what turns up now, though the computer logs are still be to argued, it's what gets removed from the table. The Prosecution have never shown that there was a faked break in, they claimed it happened, Massei accepted it was possible, then changed it to probably and concluded it did without showing any evidence for that progression. If it is shown that the Prosecution's claim of how the break in was staged is impossible, would that be enough? If no evidence of a clean up can be presented, will that be enough?

It is not "some eye witness testimony" but the simple narrative of a night of an innocent person unjustly accused. That's what Raffaele has failed to provide to this day.

One has been given, you just don't accept it. Raff has said that they were at his place all night, that they watched a movie, had a shower, smoked some illegal substances, played about, then Amanda went to bed, he messed about on the computer a bit, then went to bed too. According to his appeal papers a log on his computer supports this.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

But no matter how much prose Mr. Kercher writes which invokes sympathy for his family, the fact remains that Halides' quote highlighted a passage where he appeared to be denying the right of the Knox family to state their belief that their daughter is innocent, and is also a victim.

This is not nice, frankly.

Rolfe.

I read it differently; he seemed fed up of Amanda’s parents on or in the UK media, quite natural if he feels his family’s pain and loss are being ignored and his daughter’s murder being forgotten by the media. Just as Amanda’s parents have been publicly defending their daughter Mr Kercher clearly wanted people read about his family view and as I have said know something of Meredith other than a murder victim.

It is strange how some posters passionately argue that Raffaele and Amanda’s parents have a right to speak out about the case as they see it, but somehow when Mr Kercher does the same thing it’s wrong, should anyone really be surprised that he believes in the prosecution’s case is this unusual in some way?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

where one should draw the line is not obvious

Exactly. Attacks on the Kerchers reflects very badly on the innocentisti.

lionking and CoulsdonUK,

What about bloggers who make eighteen false or misleading claims about Edda Mellas? It would be helpful if one of you would explain your view of where one should draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate criticisms of either family.

 

[bolint]

Which was the point. If they didn't notice them, how did they avoid smearing them?

It was dry by the time of the cleanup.

So you think it's Rudy's?

Yes.

"Why would she be nervous about the police turning up? They were standing outside waiting for the police to turn up."

They came within 2 minutes and started to talk about the phones of Meredith.
No way that a person knowing about the murder wouldn't be nervous.

"If she didn't know what Raff had said, why would she assume that he had told the police that Patrick had been involved rather than Rudy?"

Well, if Raffaele had named Rudy, would the police have asked Amanda about Lumumba?
Amanda improvised the Lumuba scene "He is bad" etc. and then everything went that way.
It took her a few days to realize that Raffaele did not name anybody.

"With Amanda's lack of Italian at the time, and Rudy's lack of English, Raff would have had to be there to translate between them, or do you think that Amanda would have let an almost unknown black man into the house without being able to communicate with him?"

She could communicate with Rudy, just as she could with Raffaele. So no there was need for translators.

As for who let Rudy in, I think they both (Amanda and Meredith) were there.
Rudy arrived first and then the two girls almost simultaneously.

Anything other than personal incredulity?

It may seem strange but my judgments are based on what I believe true.

It's not up to the defence to prove that a rock was thrown from outside, it's up to the Prosecution to prove that it wasn't. Where is that proof?

Let it be the prosecution's problem.
To me the rock is in wrong place under the chair and the glass pieces could not fall that way on the sill if a rock had been thrown through the windows,

 

[lionking]

lionking and CoulsdonUK,

What about bloggers who make eighteen false or misleading claims about Edda Mellas? It would be helpful if one of you would explain your view of where one should draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate criticisms of either family.

I didn't even open that link because I can't see the relevance to my point. Criticism of the Kerchers reflects badly on the innocentisti. I am not even a member of the "guilter" community, let alone a spokesman for it.

 

[bolint]

It's not so much a case of what turns up now, though the computer logs are still be to argued, it's what gets removed from the table.

Well, to convince me those parts should be removed which cause me to think that they are guilty.

One has been given, you just don't accept it. Raff has said that they were at his place all night, that they watched a movie, had a shower, smoked some illegal substances, played about, then Amanda went to bed, he messed about on the computer a bit, then went to bed too.

That's new! Where did he say that?

According to his appeal papers a log on his computer supports this.

Could you provide that log?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

lionking and CoulsdonUK,

What about bloggers who make eighteen false or misleading claims about Edda Mellas? It would be helpful if one of you would explain your view of where one should draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate criticisms of either family.

I can only be responsible for my own views, if you have issue with comments others have made then the logical action would be to ask them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a consistent set of principles would be helpful

I didn't even open that link because I can't see the relevance to my point. Criticism of the Kerchers reflects badly on the innocentisti. I am not even a member of the "guilter" community, let alone a spokesman for it.

lionking,

Do criticisms of the Knox, Mellas, or Sollecito family reflect badly on the pro-guilt community? If not, then why do criticisms of the Kercher family reflect badly on the pro-innocence community?

CoulsdonUK,

You have affirmed the rights of parents to speak on behalf of their children, yet you have not said that Mr. Kercher was wrong to express displeasure at Ms. Knox's parents for doing just that. Does he not deserve the mildest criticism for doing so? In the same article Mr. Kercher also indicated that Amanda's and Raffaele's appeal has kept his family from closure, thus suggesting that they should abandon the appeal process. I agree that it is his right to that belief, but I also assert my right to point out where his thinking has gone wrong.

 

[Justinian2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5vPZHWJjWw

Donald starts the video by saying the Norwegian who killed over 70 people should get the death penalty, 21 years is absurd.

Later Donald Trump says (paraphrased) "Let Amanda Knox go now, don't wait until September! She is not guilty now and she never was guilty. The prosecutor was a wacko."

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium wrote:

"How did they clean up the corridor without smearing Rudy's barely visible shoe-prints in blood (remember they were walking over them awhile until they noticed)"

They did not notice it in the hall.

Then how did they avoid them? You've seen what this hall looks like, right?

Or wait, are you arguing they just didn't do a 'clean-up' of the hall?

"Why not clean up the bathmat too if you think that print is Raffaele's?"

I don't think it's Raffaele's. No way they would have left it there if it had been his.
Specifically Amanda placed the bathmat there after the "bathmat boogie".

Are you suggesting she took a shower and then used a bloody bathmat to cross the hall?

"If you think it's Rudy's, why did Amanda lead the cops straight to it"

She couldn't say that she had not seen it.
At that time she must have been quite nervous because of the sudden appearence of the two policemen.

Why, when they just called the police? At first they said they thought they were the Carabinieri they'd called, a pretty natural assumption.

"as well as the mess in the toilet"
If you mean Rudy's deposit, she did not show it to the postals IIRC.

If I recall her e-mail correctly she mentioned it there, though from a cursory search I couldn't find it in the requisite section of Massei. There she leads them straight to the blood stains, the ones Harry Rag thinks were Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith, though Massei didn't buy that either. I wonder if Harry has ever stopped to think how such tiny bloodspots could all have been 'mixed blood.' That would really take some doing, an eyedropper perhaps, carefully adding her blood to Meredith's?

"and then sign papers with Patrick's name on it after an all night interrogation?"

She was in total panick. She did not know what Raffaele had said, but from the fact that the police asked her even then about Lumumba she either must have thought that Raffaele told them about Patrick or she knew that Raffaele does not know who the murderer was and she did not want to name the real murderer because that would have surely incriminated her, too. Patrick was her best idea at that time.

That's actually pretty good!

However, the point was why would she lead the police straight to evidence of Rudy Guede that she could have easily destroyed by actually doing a clean-up? She must know that people's DNA can be traced, she grew up in a world where such knowledge is commonplace.

Think about it for a second, outside the murder room there's not much actual evidence, it would have taken maybe five minutes to mop that floor down with bleach, then to wipe up the bathroom. Why would she have left all that of Rudy, then brought it to the attention of police, but when she gets panicked she mentions Patrick?

"What makes you think the break-in was 'staged?"

Most simply I don't believe that anybody went in through the window.
Other details of the staging too, but they are not so important if there was no break-in.

Considering the window was open I don't think he went through it, but unlatched it first and then went in the opening. He then probably went through the side with no glass on the sill.

"If someone were to 'stage' a break in, why wouldn't they just throw a rock through the window from outside, open it up, and brush glass off part of the sill? Sixty seconds of work."

It is not proven at all that a rock was thrown from outside. The glass on the sill does not look like that.

Well at least it was proven it was possible for the glass to broken in that pattern from a rock thrown from the outside, Massei gets points for thinking outside the box with his 'bank shot ballistics,' but the entirety of the glass pattern falsifies that, are you just wondering about the big pieces on the sill? I imagine he removed a few of the big sharp pieces so he wouldn't cut himself reaching in. That's a whole lot easier to hypothesize than the laws of physics being invalid in Umbria, or that anyone would actually think of such a thing!

I mean, if anyone is going to go to that much trouble to figure out how to make it look like someone broke the window from the outside, why not just throw the damn rock from the outside as they left and could flee the area, immediately being able to disappear into those trees?