Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Hmmmm. Interesting. I just got an email from amazon.co.uk to inform me that John Follain's book about the case, "Death in Perugia", which was previously listed for release in March 2012, is now due for delivery on 26th November 2011.

So I wouldn't mind betting that Follain can tell what the likely outcome of the case is going to be (acquittal), and has brought forward the release date of his book (complete with appeal and acquittal update) in order to try to benefit from the inevitable media firestorm that will follow the acquittals, release and return home of Knox (primarily) and Sollecito. I can't think there would be a good reason for Follain to bring forward the publication date so much if he felt that Hellmann's court would hand down guilty verdicts: if that were to happen, there would probably be around a week of media interest followed by a rapid falling away of coverage. And if that were the case, a March 2012 publication date would be little different from a November 2011 publication.

As I said before, I wouldn't mind betting that Follain now has an almost fully-formed new last chapter for his book, dealing with the acquittals of Knox and Sollecito. It's also likely that he may have changed other parts of the manuscript to present a more balanced view of Knox and Sollecito (I would imagine that his first drafts presented them as very unsympathetic individuals who were definitely guilty of participation in Meredith's murder). I smell a reverse-ferret situation afoot..........

 

[Rolfe]

So you think that an acquittal isn't going to be spun as "the evil bitch and her pup got away with it"?

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's almost unbelievable to me the extent to which some will go to portray every last single item of evidence in a light favorable to the defendants.

I assert that it was probably around 10ºC in the flat that morning, and this draws post upon post of argument - upon an item that I have already conceded should not be seen as a primary determinant of guilt. Dan O. - you seem to revel in this minutiae, so let me ask you: how do you know if this interior door was closed? Going beyond that, have you performed all the heat transfer equations to demonstrate to the rest of us that, indeed, the ambient temperature within the apartment at around 10AM on the morning of 2 November 2007 was not approximately 10ºC? What is your margin of error, and your α value? I'm sure you can tell us exactly how many BTUs the flat's heating system was putting out during this period, the R-values of the various building materials utilized, the conduction rate of heat from the flat below, the degree of solar insolation transmitted through non-opaque surfaces, the amount of heat transferred from the investigators' bodies to the flat during the afternoon and evening of 2 November, the amount of natural ventilation within the flat over the night of 1/2 November and the attendant heat loss given the ratio of closed vs. open surfaces, and any other factors which I may have overlooked, seeing as how I am not an engineer with training in the study of thermodynamics?

If so, I would like to see your work.

If not, I'm sticking with my estimation. I see no reasonable reason not to do so.

Woah!! Now hold on just a second! You were the one who was using this piece of evidence to argue that Knox was a liar! May I remind you of your original post on .org? Here it is, in all its glory (my bolding):

Leaving aside all other pertinent considerations (door open, blood in bathroom, unflushed stool, etc.), who the hell takes a shower in approximately 10ºC air, when with a few minutes' walk, they could shower at their boyfriend's apartment, where the air temperature would have presumably been around 20ºC? We already know from her own testimony that she'd showered there before. I spent a few years ago here having to share an unheated (i.e. open to the outside) bathroom through a long, cold winter. It was not a pleasant experience. It is not believable to me that she would choose to do so with a ready alternative at hand.

Just one more speck of (expletive deleted) off the mountain she has created...

So in fact the genesis of this whole series of posts was you trying to portray the shower issue in a way least favourable to Knox. What's more, your slanted view on this issue was arrant nonsense, and is demonstrably in no way indicative that Knox was lying about the shower in the cottage. I'm afraid your "argument" has been exposed as nothing more than a biased illogical attempt to discredit Knox. In fact, there's no reason whatsoever to suggest that Knox wasn't telling the truth when she said that she took a shower at the cottage some time around 11am on the 2nd November. There's definitely no reason whatsoever to conclude - as you did in the above post - that she was lying.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, I know. The kids were in there with swimming caps (whatever happened to that?) and totally naked. They cleaned with magic wipes and the selectomatic DNA vacuum. They then used disappearing powder from their Harry Houdini magic kit to get rid of the wipes and vacuum. Then they used the last of the powder to get rid of the magic kit and all their bloody clothes. But they forgot to use it on the knife so Amanda had a flashback from Eng 102 and remembered the "Purloined Letter" and just put in the drawer after threatening Koko with it.

For them it so sad that they forgot to clean the faucet, sink and the bath mat and only noticed it as they were showing the house to the police.

 

[JREF2010]

I see PMF is holding on to the Mixed Blood.

I wonder will Hellman surprise us?
What if he tells C&V "go investigate the Mixed work".

This time will the samples be stored correctly ready for a retest, a confirmation?

Or will the samples be molded and have been kept in a open bag, in a junk drawer, with kitten urine on it?
and will it require 5 or 6 trips to the garage of files, to produce the critical raw data 3 yrs from now?

proving once again, the Perfect Squads Perfect work.

 

[Mary_H]

I accept that showering in cold conditions is nothing to be suspicious about absent any ready-at-hand alternatives. Big difference.

Do you have any thoughts on why Amanda would have taken the police officers into the bathroom and shown them the droplets of blood on the sink?

 

[Grinder]

Dear Dog why must this drivel continue?

If she were lying why not just say that she went to the cottage to pick up some clothes for the trip after showering at Raf's. Why not say she found the door ajar (or better yet why not have it locked?) and went to the bathroom to brush her teeth or pluck an eyebrow? Those that think they would want to control the investigation could still have the blood or even the break-in.

I really can't imagine with a trip already planned that they wouldn't have just gone and joined Raf's dad. Maybe even turn their phones off while with pops and then respond to the VMs and sms later. Dad would have insisted that they stay with him for safety and given the system I'm sure they would have had attorneys from day two.

ETA - Or they could have returned to the cottage in the morning on their way to visit dad and discovered the crime. Rushing in getting blood all over themselves and explaining their hairs and other droppings. But they knew that they had cleaned all evidence of themselves using their handy CSI Jr. DNA kit and luminol.

 

[Fuji]

So you think this crazed sex killer did the crazed sex killing and then didn't take a shower? But for some bizarre reason tried to pretend she did?

(I could sort of see the opposite - have an extremely thorough wash then pretend you hadn't - but the above is simply perverse.)

Rolfe.

No.

First off, I'd prefer if you didn't refer to the slaying of Ms. Kercher as a "crazed sex killing" and also didn't refer to her assailants in the singular form, when it has not been established (I don't care about Mignini's theories) that this a case of a true "crazed sex killing", and, in addition, Italy's Supreme Court has already confirmed that Guede was one of a number of attackers.

Second, I'm reasonably sure that the killers who had a reason to be at the flat (i.e. Knox and Sollecito) did in fact shower there on the night of November 1/2, but not, as Knox described, around 10-11AM on the morning of 2 November.

Third, can you not see a reason why, assuming the possibility that Knox may in fact be guilty (you do concede that, right?), she might in fact intentionally mislead the investigation to divert suspicion from her by concocting a story for that morning?

 

[LondonJohn]

So you think that an acquittal isn't going to be spun as "the evil bitch and her pup got away with it"?

Rolfe.

I doubt it. I think that spin will largely be confined to the more irrational and hate-filled among the pro-guilt commentator community, and possibly also to journalists who are hopelessly over-invested in the pro-guilt position and not very bright to boot (hi Andrea!!).

I think Follain probably realises that the mainstream media - particularly in the US, but also, I believe, in the UK - will all be promoting the correct point of view on this case: that Knox and Sollecito will have been correctly and justly acquitted, and that in fact the evidence (or lack of evidence) indicates that they likely had no role whatsoever in Meredith's murder. I'm pretty sure that this will be the long-term received wisdom on this sorry case, and I wouldn't be surprised if Follain can see it too: for all his poor previous reporting on this case, he's a career journalist with a national broadsheet newspaper, and I think he can clearly see which way the wind is blowing.

In addition to all that, the other thing to remember is that after Knox and Sollecito are acquitted, it may well be very unwise for people to be publishing books or articles which promote the idea that they are vicious murderers who managed to get away with it. I imagine that Knox's/Sollecito's legal teams will be somewhat keen to take quick and decisive action against that sort of defamation.

 

[LondonJohn]

No.

First off, I'd prefer if you didn't refer to the slaying of Ms. Kercher as a "crazed sex killing" and also didn't refer to her assailants in the singular form, when it has not been established (I don't care about Mignini's theories) that this a case of a true "crazed sex killing", and, in addition, Italy's Supreme Court has already confirmed that Guede was one of a number of attackers.

Second, I'm reasonably sure that the killers who had a reason to be at the flat (i.e. Knox and Sollecito) did in fact shower there on the night of November 1/2, but not, as Knox described, around 10-11AM on the morning of 2 November.

Third, can you not see a reason why, assuming the possibility that Knox may in fact be guilty (you do concede that, right?), she might in fact intentionally mislead the investigation to divert suspicion from her by concocting a story for that morning?

You don't understand the role of the Italian Supreme Court in the appeals process of serious criminal trials. And you don't understand the relevance (or, more accurately, the total irrelevance) of the Supreme Court's acceptance of the lower courts' legal rulings/judgements in Guede's case to the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. It appears that virtually nobody in the pro-guilt commentator community understands this issue - or, if they do, they prefer to be mendacious about it. I am assuming that ignorance is your excuse.

 

[Rolfe]

Fuji, I'd prefer that you and your pals didn't use quite a lot of terms you do use, but hey, we don't always get what we want. "Crazed sex killer" is sort of a meme on the guilter forums, I merely pick up on it.

Now can you not see a reason why, assuming the possibility that Knox might be completely innocent (you do concede that, right?), that her memories and accounts of events might have been confused? Everyone is different, and I'm constantly surprised by how differently people react compared to how I would have imagined that a rational person might react. I don't immediately take this as proof that these people have taken part in a crazed sex killing, when there is no physical evidence to implicate them.

You say you're "reasonably sure" that Knox and Sollecito are killers. Just explain to me how they managed to kill Meredith Kercher in such a way that all her last meal was still semi-digested in her stomach and none had moved into the small intestine.

Rolfe.

 

[Grinder]

Italy's Supreme Court has already confirmed that Guede was one of a number of attackers.

They determined this from the limited fast track trial that had no defense experts IIRC. The people impacted my this decision, according to your statement, had no opportunity to contest this in Rudy's trial.

It is bizarre that these trials were held totally separately and yet according to the PGP one directly affects the other.

 

[Mary_H]

But those who rely on the "stank" media statement are assuming it wasnt the police mans upper lip he mistakenly mis directed to someone else.

At about the same time I was reading these posts, someone sent me this from Seattle craigslist. Too good not to share.

http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/spo/2597736393.html

 

[Grinder]

"Crazed sex murderer" is one of TM's favorite expressions and has been appearing everywhere a story or discussion on the subjects appears.

I think Rudy should be called Rudy or Rudi, not The Baron.

I think Amanda should be called Amanda not Foxy Knoxy or Anita.

Raffaele should be called Raffaele not Biff or Knife Boy.

 

[charlatan]

If not, I'm sticking with my estimation. I see no reasonable reason not to do so.

But your estimation defies common sense. Absent unusual conditions, a typical unheated flat in autumn is going to be a few degrees warmer than the outdoor temp, even with a window open. Residences in temperate climates are designed to retain heat when its cold out. This is so inherently obvious that it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

 

[Rolfe]

"Crazed sex murderer" is one of TM's favorite expressions and has been appearing everywhere a story or discussion on the subjects appears.

I think Rudy should be called Rudy or Rudi, not The Baron.

I think Amanda should be called Amanda not Foxy Knoxy or Anita.

Raffaele should be called Raffaele not Biff or Knife Boy.

Exactly, which was kind of my point. Which Fuji didn't seem to appreciate.

Why "Nita and Biff" anyway? I truly and honestly don't get that.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

They determined this from the limited fast track trial that had no defense experts IIRC. The people impacted my this decision, according to your statement, had no opportunity to contest this in Rudy's trial.

It is bizarre that these trials were held totally separately and yet according to the PGP one directly affects the other.

The rulings from Guede's trial process have absolutely no impact whatsoever upon the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. The only way in which the trial processes are linked are that evidence and testimony from Guede's trials can now be admitted into Knox's/Sollecito's trials, since Guede's trial process is now over and the trials concern the same offence.

Therefore, Hellmann's court has absolutely no obligation to pay heed to any judgement rendered in the Guede trial process. Hellmann's court has the specific job of determining whether Knox or Sollecito have been proven beyond all doubt based in reason of the murder of Meredith Kercher. And Hellmann's court must reach that judgement based purely upon the evidence/testimony and arguments heard in Hellmann's court. It is perfectly legally acceptable for two courts to reach diametrically different judgements related to the same case (although sometimes this may constitute grounds for appeal for one or more convicted parties).

As I and many others have grown weary of reminding people, Guede's trial process - as ratified by the Supreme Court, no less! - has determined that Meredith's time of death was some time before 10.30pm. "But what's that?!", I hear people cry. "Massei's court ruled that the ToD of the same person was around 11.45pm! There's a contradiction! Surely the Supreme Court trumps Massei's court!" But of course there's no contradiction. The courts in Guede's trials ruled that the ToD was a certain time, and the first court in Knox's/Sollecito's trial process ruled that the ToD was a significantly different time. And there's no problem in that disparity (other than that in this particular instance both courts are wrong and the ToD is almost certainly before 9.30pm!).

 

[Fuji]

Woah!! Now hold on just a second! You were the one who was using this piece of evidence to argue that Knox was a liar! May I remind you of your original post on .org? Here it is, in all its glory (my bolding):

So? I don't have a lengthy track record of defending each and every last piece of evidence in the most favorable light to the defendants (or, from the "guilter" perspective, unfavorable to the defendants). I disagree with many of the conclusions presented in the Massei Report; however, I still agree with its ultimate determinations. This is a pathetic attempt at finding false equivalence where none is to be found.

So in fact the genesis of this whole series of posts was you trying to portray the shower issue in a way least favourable to Knox. What's more, your slanted view on this issue was arrant nonsense, and is demonstrably in no way indicative that Knox was lying about the shower in the cottage. I'm afraid your "argument" has been exposed as nothing more than a biased illogical attempt to discredit Knox. In fact, there's no reason whatsoever to suggest that Knox wasn't telling the truth when she said that she took a shower at the cottage some time around 11am on the 2nd November. There's definitely no reason whatsoever to conclude - as you did in the above post - that she was lying.

Arrant nonsense? I asserted precisely two things: 1) that the ambient temperature in the flat that morning when Knox supposedly took a shower would have been around 10ºC, and 2) I don't believe, given that my first deduction is correct, and also given other elements of the defendants' own testimonies, that she took a shower there at that time. That is all.

For the first assertion, I have explicitly shown the basis for my deduction, with reference to external data. For the second assertion, there is no work to be shown - it is an opinion.

"Arrant nonsense", indeed. Let's see your work. Go ahead and prove that your opinion (and that's all it is) isn't also "arrant nonsense".

 

[Fuji]

You don't understand the role of the Italian Supreme Court in the appeals process of serious criminal trials. And you don't understand the relevance (or, more accurately, the total irrelevance) of the Supreme Court's acceptance of the lower courts' legal rulings/judgements in Guede's case to the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. It appears that virtually nobody in the pro-guilt commentator community understands this issue - or, if they do, they prefer to be mendacious about it. I am assuming that ignorance is your excuse.

We have debated this before, as you are well aware. You appear to be ignorant of how the real world works. There is no way that the Supreme Court of a G-8 nation, in a world famous case, will simultaneously hold that a crime was committed by one/more-than-one attackers.

If you have any possible examples to illustrate the contrary, please do share.

 

[LondonJohn]

So? I don't have a lengthy track record of defending each and every last piece of evidence in the most favorable light to the defendants (or, from the "guilter" perspective, unfavorable to the defendants). I disagree with many of the conclusions presented in the Massei Report; however, I still agree with its ultimate determinations. This is a pathetic attempt at finding false equivalence where none is to be found.



Arrant nonsense? I asserted precisely two things: 1) that the ambient temperature in the flat that morning when Knox supposedly took a shower would have been around 10ºC, and 2) I don't believe, given that my first deduction is correct, and also given other elements of the defendants' own testimonies, that she took a shower there at that time. That is all.

For the first assertion, I have explicitly shown the basis for my deduction, with reference to external data. For the second assertion, there is no work to be shown - it is an opinion.

"Arrant nonsense", indeed. Let's see your work. Go ahead and prove that your opinion (and that's all it is) isn't also "arrant nonsense".

Ermmmmm. You are the one who made the assertion that Knox was lying when she alleged she took a shower in the cottage that morning. You based that opinion on your estimation of the temperature inside the cottage that morning coupled with your opinion that "it was not believable to you" that Knox would take a shower in your estimated temperature when Sollecito's apartment was nearby.

So forgive me if I strip things back to basics, but it was you who originally argued that Knox was a liar on this issue, and it's therefore you who has to back up this assertion or accept that your argument has little (or no) merit. I don't need to "show my work" or "prove my opinion" on this issue. I've stated that your conclusion is wrong and unsupportable, and I've stated why I think it's wrong and unsupportable.

Your position on this is equivalent to the famous Bertrand Russell "celestial teapot" analogy. You are the one proposing the existence of the proverbial teapot. Having made that assertion, it's your job to prove it. It's not my job (or that of anyone else) to disprove it in order to dismiss it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot