Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dougm]

My feeling is that they did record. But if they did, they would have destroyed the tapes as soon as they figured out that in the gift statement she says that they hit her. She obviously didn't make that charge up on the spot to hand it to the police. They really did hit her.

I believe they did hit her, because it follows logic. I think they do what they can get away with to get the result they want. If hitting someone in a way that will not be detectable later will result in putting additional pressure on them, then why not? Since, a good portion of the time, they are actually dealing with the correct suspect, then the ends justify the means, right?

But if the person is not really guilty ....

 

[AmyStrange]

Dave --

I agree, but it doesn't really matter. To believe that the police only called Raff in that night, and that means that Amanda was not suspected at that point is illogical. There are multiple versions of the story:

* The police only called Raff, and Amanda went along (this is the police version, PG version, and Amanda's version)
* The police only called Raff, but knew Amanda would come along, because they have been inseparable since the murder (logical version)
* The police only called Raff, and could have called Amanda as soon as he broke (also logical, although I tend to prefer bullet 2)
* The police called both (per Giobbi)

I don't find this point very relevent, and as I posted before, I think it is clear she was a suspect at this point, regardless of which of the above bullets one chooses to believe. It is very common for police to manipulate the designation of "suspect" vs "witness", and if I were the police, and thought I was dealing with catching a killer, I would do that as well. I would hope I would not have to lie to people to get them to crack, however, but I probably would have to do that too.

-

Doug,

I agree also that which version is true doesn't really matter. It was (like I said) just an interesting aside,

Dave

 

[Dougm]

-

Doug,

I agree also that which version is true doesn't really matter. It was (like I said) just an interesting aside,

Dave

Wasn't talking about you, but the larger discussion point when people try to say that, because the cops called Raff, they did not plan to talk to Amanda. But I know this has been discussed to death here in the past!

 

[RoseMontague]

It's amazing that so many pro-guilt commentators can't see the false corollary that they have set up, together with a classic case of circular reasoning: 1) only a guilty person would falsely accuse an innocent person and refuse to retract the accusation; 2) ergo, Knox is guilty; 3) ergo, she knew for a fact that Lumumba wasn't involved; 4) ergo, she should have told the police that Lumumba was innocent; 5) ergo, Knox is "double-guilty" etc etc

I see that Ganong has employed all her considerable intellect and reasoning skills to make the following observations about the Knox interrogation and "confession/accusation":

And here's an alternative version from me, which I believe is a whole lot closer to the truth of what happened that night:

Thanks LJ, your version makes more sense.

Here is a quote today from the ruler of the dot.net pmf

There certainly is an undercurrent of racism amongst both the Knox supporters and their supporters in the US media (sometimes it''s not so subtle either), both to Rudy as the black guy and to Italians.

Maybe I missed this part of the whole debate. Can somebody fill me in? Is this like an Ann Coultergeist thing as well?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Thanks LJ, your version makes more sense.

Here is a quote today from the ruler of the dot.net pmf



Maybe I missed this part of the whole debate. Can somebody fill me in? Is this like an Ann Coultergeist thing as well?

I always find the claims of racism so funny. They are always very happy to exploit Lumumba and Guede's color simply to make a cheap point.

 

[RoseMontague]

They can't be guilty because good science says that they can't be. But you know that some crummy prosecution lawyer will still go for it even if he knows that.

Thanks and welcome to the forum, Arthur Wilson.

So why do the cops and the crummy prosecutor go for it in the case against Raffaele? I have heard there was a police fiasco shortly before this case but do not have the details. Do you or anyone else recall this?

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks LJ, your version makes more sense.

Here is a quote today from the ruler of the dot.net pmf



Maybe I missed this part of the whole debate. Can somebody fill me in? Is this like an Ann Coulter thing as well?

It's simply lazy pigeonholing at best; at worst, it's a rather disgusting attempt to spear people arguing for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittal owing to the fact that a) Guede is black (and most pro-acquittal arguers believe that Guede most likely committed the murder alone) and b) the Italian criminal justice system has clearly made a serious mistake so far, in the eyes of pro-acquittal arguers.

I think it's true that a certain small section of people with jingoistic or racist attitudes have analysed the case from that perspective. It just so happens that they have reached the right conclusions for the wrong reasons. The majority of sensible people arguing for acquittal are doing so purely objectively based upon the evidence in front of them. It so happens that Guede is black, and that the offence was committed and tried in Italy. But the arguments would be essentially exactly the same if Guede had been a white, middle-class All-American, and/or if the whole thing had happened in Lincoln, Nebraska.

On top of that, it seems to me that the moderator of .net is slowly losing it. He is still clearly very bitter about the acrimonious split with Ganong, and I think it may be dawning on him that he is on completely the wrong side of the argument in this case. I think that's why he has increasingly started to lash out - often quite vehemently and abusively - against various people associated with Knox/Sollecito or the argument for their acquittals.

 

[RoseMontague]

It's simply lazy pigeonholing at best; at worst, it's a rather disgusting attempt to spear people arguing for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittal owing to the fact that a) Guede is black (and most pro-acquittal arguers believe that Guede most likely committed the murder alone) and b) the Italian criminal justice system has clearly made a serious mistake so far, in the eyes of pro-acquittal arguers.

I think it's true that a certain small section of people with jingoistic or racist attitudes have analysed the case from that perspective. It just so happens that they have reached the right conclusions for the wrong reasons. The majority of sensible people arguing for acquittal are doing so purely objectively based upon the evidence in front of them. It so happens that Guede is black, and that the offence was committed and tried in Italy. But the arguments would be essentially exactly the same if Guede had been a white, middle-class All-American, and/or if the whole thing had happened in Lincoln, Nebraska.

On top of that, it seems to me that the moderator of .net is slowly losing it. He is still clearly very bitter about the acrimonious split with Ganong, and I think it may be dawning on him that he is on completely the wrong side of the argument in this case. I think that's why he has increasingly started to lash out - often quite vehemently and abusively - against various people associated with Knox/Sollecito or the argument for their acquittals.

Don't they think as we do on these two black men? Guede is guilty and Patrick is innocent? What is the difference in the pro-guilt position and the pro-innocent position?

 

[LondonJohn]

Don't they think as we do on these two black men? Guede is guilty and Patrick is innocent? What is the difference in the pro-guilt position and the pro-innocent position?

Ah but they think that we think that Knox and Sollecito can't be guilty because they are white middle-class students from good backgrounds, whereas we don't question Guede's guilt in the same way because he's black and with a troubled youth.

In recent months, a different, more subtle version has emerged, in which the idiots allege that people arguing for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals are happy to condemn the faults in the DNA evidence against those two people, yet are happy to accept the reliability of the DNA evidence against Guede. This of course is also arrant nonsense: the most damning piece of evidence against Guede had nothing to do with DNA: his palm print in Meredith's blood found on the pillow underneath Meredith's body. It's abundantly clear that all the DNA evidence against Guede could be thrown out, yet he would still be convicted on the palm print alone (especially when you take into account the disparity between his "explanation" of his presence in the murder room and his behaviour/movements after the murder).

And that's why I've long argued that even if (when) the rulings in the Knox/Sollecito trials establish that grave errors were made in the collection, handling, storage and testing of DNA evidence in this case, Guede will not have adequate grounds for a post-conviction appeal. The palm print alone is incontrovertible evidence of Guede's presence at the murder scene, and his behaviour after the murder puts the lie to his claims of "trying to help Meredith".

ETA: I see that Yummi (aka Machiavelli) has just made my point for me on .org. Sad.

 

[RoseMontague]

Ah but they think that we think that Knox and Sollecito can't be guilty because they are white middle-class students from good backgrounds, whereas we don't question Guede's guilt in the same way because he's black and with a troubled youth.

In recent months, a different, more subtle version has emerged, in which the idiots allege that people arguing for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals are happy to condemn the faults in the DNA evidence against those two people, yet are happy to accept the reliability of the DNA evidence against Guede. This of course is also arrant nonsense: the most damning piece of evidence against Guede had nothing to do with DNA: his palm print in Meredith's blood found on the pillow underneath Meredith's body. It's abundantly clear that all the DNA evidence against Guede could be thrown out, yet he would still be convicted on the palm print alone (especially when you take into account the disparity between his "explanation" of his presence in the murder room and his behaviour/movements after the murder).

And that's why I've long argued that even if (when) the rulings in the Knox/Sollecito trials establish that grave errors were made in the collection, handling, storage and testing of DNA evidence in this case, Guede will not have adequate grounds for a post-conviction appeal. The palm print alone is incontrovertible evidence of Guede's presence at the murder scene, and his behaviour after the murder puts the lie to his claims of "trying to help Meredith".

ETA: I see that Yummi (aka Machiavelli) has just made my point for me on .org. Sad.

Here is the quote:

A little update: the default position of many posters as I recall them, was "she is young, pretty, honor student, white and American, and therfore exceptional evidence would be needed to prove any charge; on the contrary Rudy Guede is not American, is black, has petty records, is obviously involved in the murder, therefore no evidence is needed at all to pin all charges on him alone".
The reasoning is racist and prejudicial in a more subtle fashion.

I agree with halkides, Yummi has changed. Yummi knows this is a false statement. I have never seen anyone make this claim.

 

[AmyStrange]

It's simply lazy pigeonholing at best; at worst, it's a rather disgusting attempt to spear people arguing for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittal owing to the fact that a) Guede is black (and most pro-acquittal arguers believe that Guede most likely committed the murder alone) and b) the Italian criminal justice system has clearly made a serious mistake so far, in the eyes of pro-acquittal arguers.

-

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't many liberals black also?

Makes me think that this just reveals how the Coulteresque criticism embraced by pro-guilters is really a flawed reasoning principle especially when the color of Guede and Lumumba are used to bolster and justify a claim of racism amongst the pro-Amanda supporters.

Such beliefs are an example of illogical double-standard hypno-criticism at best or simply a result of personal (pro-guilt) racist projections onto pro-Amanda supporters at worse.

But admittedly, my suggesting this makes me just as guilty of the same behavior of which I am criticizing pro-guilters, but this (again) is merely my opinion and in no way should be used as proof of the innocence or guilt of Amanda or Raffaele,

Dave

 

[Dougm]

Here is the quote:



I agree with halkides, Yummi has changed. Yummi knows this is a false statement. I have never seen anyone make this claim.

I agree with both of you -- that statement is blatently false. I have seen many pro-innocence posters say that Guede is a more likely suspect than Knox and Sollecito because he had a criminal history, but I have never seen anyone say it is because he is black. Nor have I seen people say Amanda and Raff must be innocent because they are white. As far as I am concerned the guilters are transferring their own views to others.

 

[Rolfe]

You know, I only just realised that the eye-destroying black PMF and the relatively readable pale blue PMF aren't the same thing. I thought the pale blue was just a different skin to accommodate those who find the white-on-black unreadable.

You mean, there's double?



Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

-

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't many liberals black also?

Makes me think that this just reveals how the Coulteresque criticism embraced by pro-guilters is really a flawed reasoning principle especially when the color of Guede and Lumumba are used to bolster and justify a claim of racism amongst the pro-Amanda supporters.

Such beliefs are an example of illogical double-standard hypno-criticism at best or simply a result of personal (pro-guilt) racist projections onto pro-Amanda supporters at worse.

But admittedly, my suggesting this makes me just as guilty of the same behavior of which I am criticizing pro-guilters, but this (again) is merely my opinion and in no way should be used as proof of the innocence or guilt of Amanda or Raffaele,

Dave

Raffaele is not American, they seem to forget him in these American arguments, but I have not forgotten him. I am not requiring exceptional evidence, just simple stuff that might even show reasonable proof that they were even present at the cottage the night of the murder.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Steve brothers

Don't they think as we do on these two black men? Guede is guilty and Patrick is innocent? What is the difference in the pro-guilt position and the pro-innocent position?

RoseMontague,

Good questions. Steve Moore has a reply to Ann Coulter. Steve Graham has a new post that considers what things might be like, post-acquittal.

 

[komponisto]

You know, I only just realised that the eye-destroying black PMF and the relatively readable pale blue PMF aren't the same thing. I thought the pale blue was just a different skin to accommodate those who find the white-on-black unreadable.

You mean, there's double?



Rolfe.

Actually, they're both "eye-destroying black" by default, but able to be switched to "relatively readable pale blue". It's just that, on both of them, the link to the "readable pale blue" version only points to "Channel 2" (.org); you have to manually enter the right URL to get the light version of "Channel 1" (.net).

 

[Rolfe]

How extraordinary!

How do they keep it up, anyway?

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

Actually, they're both "eye-destroying black" by default, but able to be switched to "relatively readable pale blue". It's just that, on both of them, the link to the "readable pale blue" version only points to "Channel 2" (.org); you have to manually enter the right URL to get the light version of "Channel 1" (.net).

When this case is over, it will be interesting if we get to hear the back story on this split.

It appears to me that the original website was hijacked to a new server and a second website created from a backup copy. I have always wondered how this was explained to the membership and why some posters went one place others another and a few to both.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

Good questions. Steve Moore has a reply to Ann Coulter. Steve Graham has a new post that considers what things might be like, post-acquittal.

Is this the Graham that you and me had some posts on a long time ago?

 

[RoseMontague]

Michael at PMF blog has a new post up basically saying that the independent experts didn't test the DNA that they found, and I have seen this claim repeated elsewhere quite often recently. The problem I see is that I don't see anything in their report that they even found DNA to test.

Here is the quote from the C&V report:

- The tests that we conducted to determine the presence of blood on item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps) yielded a negative result.- The cytomorphological tests on the items did not reveal the presence of cellular material. Some samples of item 36 (knife), in particular sample “H”, present granules with a circular/hexagonal characteristic morphology with a central radial structure. A more detailed microscopic study, together with the consultation of data in the literature, allowed us to ascertain that the structures in question are attributable to granules of starch, thus matter of a vegetable nature.- The quantification of the extracts obtained from the samples obtained from item 36 (knife) and item 165B (bra clasps), conducted via Real Time PCR, did not reveal the presence of DNA.- In view of the absence of DNA in the extracts that we obtained, with the agreement of the consultants for the parties, we did not proceed to the subsequent amplification step.

So I am not understanding what exactly it is they are asking the experts to test. It seems to me they want to retest for the presence of DNA not to test for any DNA found, because there was none. Is the prosecution just hopin anda prayin that a more sensitive test would reveal somethin. A little help please?