Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

What she actually said would be helpful

Actually, I was thinking of the jailhouse conversation where she seems to want to tell the truth and her parents shut her up, but now you mention it, she should have retracted the accusation. She didn't. It looks for all the world she would be hoping that he would go down for it. Amanda Marie Knox is solely responsible for Lumumba's arrest

highlighting mine
bucketoftea,

Nonsense. The police were already suspicious of Lumumba prior to the start of her interrogation, possibly because of the text message or because they had met during the day. The police were initially uninterested in hearing what the Swiss professor had to say; he had to travel to Perugia to tell them. Even then they sat on their hands for days. There is no excuse for failing to ask Patrick whether or not he had an alibi. As kaosium has eloquently pointed out, Amanda's confession/accusation doesn't make enough sense to qualify as grounds for arresting anyone. The police are chiefly responsible for the length (and solely responsible for the conditions) of his incarceration. At least he was not told that he did (or might) harbor the HIV virus and then given no counseling that has ever been documented, unlike Amanda.

Maybe you should quote what Amanda actually said rather than claim that she "seems to want to tell the truth." While you are at it, can you possibly explain why it is good advice to talk to the police (who have just arrested you for making a nonsensical statement and claimed to have nonexistent evidence against you) without a lawyer? Other than keeping quiet (the logical thing for any incarcerated person to do) what evidence do you have to back up the statement I highlighted? The bugged conversation would seem to cut the other way, and she had no way of knowing where Lumumba actually was that night.

 

[LondonJohn]

Since LondonJohn has evidently seen the actual paper describing the T_lag study cited earlier, I'm hoping he might be able to offer some insight into some of the details, which have become relevant in my discussion with Rolf Nelson:



Incidentally, I should note that the distribution of other human variables (such as female heights, as pointed out by Rolf) argues against taking the normal distribution model too literally for estimating probabilities of extreme values; in other words, LJ's "cautious" estimate is probably to be preferred. (Actually, I haven't even technically updated on the stomach evidence at all, since I still generally use my December 2009 estimate of 0.1% probability of guilt, which didn't take time of death into account. Properly updating -- cautiously, as per LJ -- should decrease that to around 0.001%; although at this level of confidence we're getting close to the breaking point for the reliability of things like the computer evidence.)

Just quickly fill me in on why Rolf Nelson disputes the 81min median? He seems to be suggesting that there are other comparable studies that indicate "25, 10 or 40 minutes" for T(lag). What are these studies?? Are they for a moderate-sized mixed-food-group solid meal, eaten by healthy adults? Because I've seen three or four studies based on these criteria, and they all show similar results with a bell curve centred on an 80-90min median.

the answer to all this might be obvious in the Less Wrong discussion, which I have yet to read back through. I'll scan through it now to check.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

anonymous

Of course no one would accept this authorless statement.

bucketoftea,

It is an anonymous source, and the information was communicated to me, also.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and by the way, Rolf's example of female heights is baloney and irrelevant. The reason why there are unusually high numbers of extreme outliers in height statistics (for both males and females, incidentally) is because of genetic abnormalities or diseases/illnesses. These are the factors that cause people to grow to huge heights or remain stunted.

That's why, when I was making reference to height at one point as an analogy in the T(lag) argument, I specifically excluded people whose height was abnormally affected by extrinsic factors. Robert Ludlow was 8ft11 by the time of his death, but his huge height was not caused by normal growth: he had hypertrophy of his pituitary gland, resulting in an abnormally high level of human growth hormone flowing round his body. And we can exclude pretty much anyone over around 7ft6 (the practical upper limit for adult males with no genetic or health abnormalities), plus anyone suffering from low-height factors such as genetic or medical dwarfism.

The bell curve for T(lag) in healthy adults follows a lovely smooth bell curve, with a high peak and a classical tail-off to zero. As does adult height for both males and females, where genetic/medical anomalies are excluded. You may tell Rolf from me that he's made an elementary-school mistake

 

[katy_did]

That is the limit of what can be determined from the the blood spray evidence. From then on, we have to figure out what took place and fit each event into the sequence that seems most plausible. I think Guede's next move was to wipe an area of the floor with towels, remove her lower garments, put a pillow under her buttocks, and sexually assault her.
[...]
Then he stood up to walk out of the room, and he put his left shoe on a bloody towel that was jutting out from under the duvet, which is visible in one of the photos linked above. That is how he left bloody shoe prints near the foot of the bed and in the corridor.

One problem with this sequence are the bloody shoe prints on the pillow (which were also on top of the stain, if you think that's crime-related), and the fact that Meredith was lying on top of the area where the shoe prints were. Given that the shoe prints then lead straight out the door, either Meredith was moved to the position she was found in immediately before Guede left (was he searching the floor for the keys? Dan O mentioned a while back that the bloody marks on the waistband of her jeans could've been from Guede going through the pockets) or he removed his shoes in the bedroom at some point.

As I'm sure I've said before, I do find the extremely calculating actions you describe here (wiping the floor with towels etc) a little implausible given that this was an unplanned first time sexual assault/murder - or at least, in the absence of convincing evidence, it doesn't seem like the most likely scenario to me. As you say, though, it's just one of the possible narratives.

 

[Skwinty]

Have you read about the Stefan Kiszko case? Confession and eyewitness evidence are among the least reliable classes of evidence.

No, I am new to amateur detective work.
My only experience would be "The Hardy Boys".

If the physical evidence says Meredith died soon after 9pm, and Amanda could not possibly have been present at that time, then something is wrong. You have to decide, is it the physical evidence, or the alibi, or the "confession".

Perhaps it just muddled timekeeping. Not unusual for stoned people.

 

[bucketoftea]

highlighting mine
bucketoftea,

Nonsense. The police were already suspicious of Lumumba prior to the start of her interrogation, possibly because of the text message or because they had met during the day. The police were initially uninterested in hearing what the Swiss professor had to say; he had to travel to Perugia to tell them. Even then they sat on their hands for days. There is no excuse for failing to ask Patrick whether or not he had an alibi. As kaosium has eloquently pointed out, Amanda's confession/accusation doesn't make enough sense to qualify as grounds for arresting anyone. The police are chiefly responsible for the length (and solely responsible for the conditions) of his incarceration. At least he was not told that he did (or might) harbor the HIV virus and then given no counseling that has ever been documented, unlike Amanda.

Maybe you should quote what Amanda actually said rather than claim that she "seems to want to tell the truth." While you are at it, can you possibly explain why it is good advice to talk to the police (who have just arrested you for making a nonsensical statement and claimed to have nonexistent evidence against you) without a lawyer? Other than keeping quiet (the logical thing for any incarcerated person to do) what evidence do you have to back up the statement I highlighted? The bugged conversation would seem to cut the other way, and she had no way of knowing where Lumumba actually was that night.[/QUOTE

Look it up yourself. perugiamurderfile.org under "In Their Own Words"...you know, just next time you're there.

As regards retracting the accusation, telling the truth is always best. Her mom could have helped out here even if she doesn't speak Italian.

 

[LondonJohn]

Before I pop out for a couple of hours, I am amused to find that "Catnip" has used all his powers of mathematical know-how to calculate that 4 years is 6.5% of a 26-year sentence

(Polite note to Catnip: It's actually 15.3%. I'd leave those pesky "number" thingies alone from now on, if I were you.....)

 

[davefoc]

How was Guede able to construct a credible story about how Sollecito and Knox were involved in the crime?

I understand some of the details here but I am confused. At one point, at least, he claimed that they actually did the murder. Is that correct? Has he changed his story about that? If he hasn't isn't it a serious problem for the prosecution that they are accepting one part of his story (Knox and Sollecito involvement) and rejecting his testimony that they committed the actual murder? Sorry for my confusion here.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two choices

Actually, I was thinking of the jailhouse conversation where she seems to want to tell the truth and her parents shut her up, but now you mention it, she should have retracted the accusation.

Cite or withdraw the claim.

 

[bucketoftea]

How was Guede able to construct a credible story about how Sollecito and Knox were involved in the crime?

I understand some of the details here but I am confused. At one point, at least, he claimed that they actually did the murder. Is that correct? Has he changed his story about that? If he hasn't isn't it a serious problem for the prosecution that they are accepting one part of his story (Knox and Sollecito involvement) and rejecting his testimony that they committed the actual murder? Sorry for my confusion here.

Hi Davefoc

He did not claim they killed her other than they were there, so that is who HE thinks killed her. He never said he witnessed it.

 

[RWVBWL]

A Fatal Gift of Beauty contains details about one break-in I was not familiar with:

Ten days later, on October 23, Rudy Guede’s immediate next-door neighbor on via Canerino, Mara Madu Diaz, was at a friend’s farm in Gualdo Tadino, about an hour’s drive from Perugia, participating in the vendemmia—the annual grape harvest. She knew Rudy, as she often saw him in front of her house on his phone—he had to stand outside his own house to get cell service. She saw him almost daily, when she walked her dog in the morning and evening. He always said hello and often leaned down and petted her dog. That day, police interrupted her grape harvesting with bad news. Her little medieval house in Perugia—narrow, three floors high, with a single room on each floor—had been badly damaged in a fire.
She raced home to find her cat dead and her house nearly destroyed. Firemen and police told her a thief or thieves had entered through a lower window and that the fire had started on the third floor, in her bedroom, where someone had thrown a scarf over a lamp.
.......(snip)..........
Her cat strangled on the smoke, because whoever had feasted in the kitchen had left the pantry door open, blocking the animal’s escape route. When Mrs. Madu Diaz finally assessed the damage, she found that the thief had cleaned out her jewel box, including a gold watch of her mother’s.
She didn’t see Rudy again after the fire. When she learned he had been arrested and had a habit of breaking into homes, she wondered if he’d had something to do with her disaster. But the police never charged anyone. Her insurance paid for repairs, and the little house became habitable again after three years of work.

And from the timeline:

October 27. A Saturday. Rudy is arrested inside the Milan nursery school owned by Mrs. Del Prato. Police find Paolo Brocchi’s laptop and cell phone, a woman’s gold watch, and a sixteen-inch knife belonging to the nursery school kitchen in his backpack.

How much evidence do you need to prosecute Rudy for burglary? I just don't get it.

Greetings Rose Montague,
Wow, what an interesting find!

I bet that Mrs. Madu Diaz would luv to have her Mother's gold watch back.
Especially if her Mother had passed away. I wonder what became of it?

I'm sure at least a few folks who participate here at JREF have had things stolen from themselves. It sucks and it always makes me very angry. I myself have had plenty of personal possesions stolen over the years. 1 evening many, many years ago a few bro's and I were gonna head down the road about 100 miles to camp out overnight so we could score some good waves the next morning at 1 of California's best summertime surfspots, a place called Trestles. After loading up my old green '72 Plymouth Valiant with our gear and 4 surfboards, we went back inside and, usin' my bong, smoked out 1 more time before before hittin' the road. When we went back outside to split, we noticed all of our surfboards had been stolen! Argh!!! And it turned out to not be a joke! Argh!!! A few months later, 1 of the Venice boyz say a young kid with my surfboard on Santa Monica beach, and let me know. I was then able to get my surfboard back, the only 1 of us 4 guys whose boards had been stolen. I was stoked, to say the least.

In the last year or so, I recall reading a story of a spearfisherman finding a class ring from UCLA, I believe it was, and then he tracked the original owner down and gave him back his college ring.

I wonder if there is any way to track down that gold watch? Or at least let Mrs. Madu Diaz know of the strange coincedence, heck maybe she can have someone initiate an investigation to find out what happened to that watch that Rudy Guede was found to be in possesion of when he was busted a few days later during another burglary.

If it was hers, and she got it back,
well that would be pretty cool, in my humble opinion!
RW

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Handsome avatar, Skwinty.

Very good point about telling the truth, but I think Amanda has parents of the other sort.

Your comment is typical of the group you prefer to socialize with and is completely baseless. You have built your opinion on false information. By hey, we are all entitled to our opinion.

 

[bucketoftea]

Cite or withdraw the claim.

No way. I'm not withdrawing what I said.

 

[komponisto]

Just quickly fill me in on why Rolf Nelson disputes the 81min median? He seems to be suggesting that there are other comparable studies that indicate "25, 10 or 40 minutes" for T(lag). What are these studies?? Are they for a moderate-sized mixed-food-group solid meal, eaten by healthy adults? Because I've seen three or four studies based on these criteria, and they all show similar results with a bell curve centred on an 80-90min median.

the answer to all this might be obvious in the Less Wrong discussion, which I have yet to read back through. I'll scan through it now to check.

The studies he cites are these:

• 10 minutes: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/32/7/1349.full.pdf.
  
• 25 minutes: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/32/7/1349.full.pdf.
  
• 23 minutes: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/37/10/1639.full.pdf.

They appear to be for smaller, non-mixed meals. Also, there are some differences in the definition of T_lag (2% vs 10% of contents emptied). Nonetheless, this level of variation is somewhat larger than I would have expected (though it's all on the short end rather than the long end).

Also, if you have any links for other 80-90 minute studies besides the one I've been citing, I would be interested.

 

[Skwinty]

Your comment is typical of the group you prefer to socialize with and is completely baseless. You have built your opinion on false information. By hey, we are all entitled to our opinion.

What a bunch of cobblers.

This has been my first encounter with bucketoftea.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Davefoc

He did not claim they killed her other than they were there, so that is who HE thinks killed her. He never said he witnessed it.

Hi BoT,
Forgive me for buttin' in, but when Amanda and Raffaele were already arrested and in prison, and while Rudy Guede was on the run, didn't he tell his pal Giacomo Beneditti, in a taped, 3 hour long Skype call, that Amanda was not there during Meredith's brutal murder. What about Raffale Sollecito, wasn't he not even mentioned?

Now why would Rudy do that?

Surely he would have known that Amanda would spill the beans on his involvement to help save her own skin, I would think. So why didn't Rudy mention that Amanda was there that night? Wasn't it only until many months had passed that Rudy changed his tune, so to say,and said Amanda was involved?
Hmmmm...
RW

ETA:
I've read that this 3 hour long Skype call,
1 that was actually recorded by the Perugian Police, was audio posted on the Web.
I would luv to read a correct English translation of this, so if anyone knows of it's wherabouts, please pass that info along! Much thanks...

 

[bucketoftea]

Your comment is typical of the group you prefer to socialize with and is completely baseless. You have built your opinion on false information. By hey, we are all entitled to our opinion.

Thank you, Bruce.

I've not formed my view on anything other than their conduct since November, 2007.

 

[bucketoftea]

Hi BoT,
Forgive me for buttin' in, but when Amanda and Raffaele were already arrested and in prison, and while Rudy Guede was on the run, didn't he tell his pal Giacomo Beneditti, in a taped, 3 hour long Skype call, that Amanda was not there during Meredith's brutal murder. What about Raffale Sollecito, wasn't he not even mentioned?

Now why would Rudy do that?

Surely he would have known that Amanda would spill the beans on his involvement to help save her own skin, I would think. So why didn't Rudy mention that Amanda was there that night? Wasn't it only until many months had passed that Rudy changed his tune, so to say,and said Amanda was involved?

Not at all. It is clear they had their omerta of 3. They began by taking pains not to implicate one another.

 

[Justinian2]

Yes. but Steff just dragged a statement from some old guy in the Rome office into court, that said 'our staff get trained right, and noone's ever complained before.'

He's neglecting the obvious fact that while unlikely to be a one off, Steff is being proved to have exhibited a level of dishonesty that far exceeds other DNA technicians work in previous trials. (and from statements I've read on other cases from ex-cops about the routine manipulation of evidence there's no chance she's the only one, but Hellman's much-needed independent review of her work is getting her in serious trouble)

It's not shoddy work by her lab either in spite of what we see on her dopey video.

She's being caught. She commits serious frauds to suit the purposes of those around her. It's obvious. That's it.

She films herself and brags about her work.
DSM describes many such personality disorders. But that she thinks she's going to get away with it! Wow!

Perhaps she could have gotten away with one more of her crimes if all the involved had been Italians as they would all be in jail now. Or if the Americans she attacked had been cowards.

Remember the book "Profiles in Courage"? You will never find Steff there.