Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

informed or not is beside the point. Its an illustration that there's people out there who think she's guilty regardless of the courts decision.

There's people out there who believe that the Moon landings were faked. Plenty of them. There's people out there who believe that homeopathy has a physiologically beneficial effect on the human body. Plenty of them, and plenty who are readily prepared to spend a great deal of their money indulging this belief. And dare I add, there's people out there who believe there is a mysterious huge half-man half-gorilla beast called "Yeti" or "Bigfoot", which resides in mountainous wildernesses.

 

[yeti101]

Law and morality both demand that one considers Knox and Sollecito innocent if they are acquitted.

good luck convincing people who think she's guilty and demanding they change their minds. The world just doesn't work like that.

 

[davefoc]

just because there's not enough evidence to convince a jury doesn't mean they weren't involved in the murder.

That's exactly right and it might be better if this thread did a better job of separating the two issues.

I happen to believe that they are almost certainly innocent. But that belief is based on life experiences, some technical knowledge, knowledge of past cases, a general idea about the nature of humans and what kinds of things they will do and probably some miscellaneous biases. In short, I concede that my view on that point is not built on anything like mathematical rigor and I would not be surprised that an objective individual might form a view different than mine given a different set of experiences.

However, the view that there is not enough evidence to convict based on a beyond a reasonable doubt criteria seems to me to be supportable with almost mathematical precision.

1. The "confession" has been ruled inadmissible and thus can not play a role in the deliberation.
2. At least serious doubt has been cast on all the DNA evidence against RS/AK by the court appointed experts. Even if one was predisposed to judge the work of the original forensic scientist as reliable the existence of credible testimony critical of the original forensic work might be seen as a good enough basis to throw the DNA evidence out in a reasonable doubt case. However given the evidence of improper procedures by the original forensic team there is enough doubt about the DNA evidence that it can't be part of the basis to convict if a reasonable doubt criteria is met.
3. Substantial doubt about or outright disproof of all the eye witness evidence against RS/AK has been created. I see nothing left here that has any place in a reasonable doubt case.
4. All the information available about RS/AK suggests that it would be unlikely in the extreme that they would be involved in any such crime. Without compelling evidence to counter this reasonable doubt must exist. I have never heard of a case anything like this and I'm 62 years old and I've been listening and reading news reports for at least 50 years. In the US jurors are expected to use this kind of life experience to help with their judgment of the case. If that is so in Italy this is strong evidence that the prosecution's crime scenario just didn't happen.
5. The time of death arguments, if not compelling, are at least good evidence of innocence. Good evidence of innocence in a reasonable doubt case is compelling and would need to be balanced by stronger evidence that it is false. No such evidence has been provided.
6. A complete lack of evidence (excluding the discredited DNA evidence on the bra clip and the discredited foot print evidence) that links either AK or RS to the actual crime. This is huge and incontrovertible. The actual physical evidence is entirely consistent with a single individual and placing AK or RS in that room at the time of the crime is just a fantasy. One might argue that the lack of evidence at the crime scene doesn't rule out the possibility of AK/RS involvement and that is true but there is no actual evidence of AK/RS at the crime scene and that is what matters if one is judging this case base on a reasonable doubt criteria.

One piece of evidence remains of the prosecution's case that has not been discredited to the point that it is not of value in a beyond a reasonable doubt case This is the AK next day retraction of her claim that Lumumba was involved. And here reasonable minds might disagree. I see a confused statement that shows signs that AK is attempting to come to grips with fact that she had said things under a difficult police interrogation that did not represent her real memories. I didn't need to see a bunch of information about how police can get false confessions. I thought it was just accepted fact that this was possible. I don't have any problem with the technique when it is used as a tool to derive leads or pressure suspects. However when the technique is used to reinforce police suspicions it is going to lead to false convictions. The police believe A. They use a technique likely to produce a defendant's statement in support of A. They use the coerced defendant's statement to prove A. If allowed the police can use this technique to convict anybody that doesn't have an incontrovertible alibi and as in this case even a strong alibi might not be an impediment to prosecution.

 

[BaileyBell]

Patrick Lumumba calling Knox " the worlds best actress" is quite comical to me. How can the worlds best actress get convicted of a crime based mainly on circumstantial evidence as well as behavior. It would be the opposite no? Patrick Lumumba is becoming less and less of a sympathetic figure.

 

[LondonJohn]

after the Rumsfeld quote I was waiting for hitler or the nazis. Do we have a win for godwins law or does it have to be hitler?

the argument there wasn't about innoncence or guilt. It was about peoples perceptions of knox.

Nah, It's just a funny - and appropriate - line from a fantastic comedy programme, which happened to make that analogy. If we were to follow "public opinion" in the UK, we'd have the return of public hangings, and people would have the right to shoot dead (or beat to death) anyone they found inside their house - regardless of whether that person was posing any physical threat to the householder. Fortunately, legislators, law enforcers and members of the judiciary tend, on the whole, to be more reasoned and considered than the "general public"....

 

[Malkmus]

There's people out there who believe that the Moon landings were faked. Plenty of them. There's people out there who believe that homeopathy has a physiologically beneficial effect on the human body. Plenty of them, and plenty who are readily prepared to spend a great deal of their money indulging this belief. And dare I add, there's people out there who believe there is a mysterious huge half-man half-gorilla beast called "Yeti" or "Bigfoot", which resides in mountainous wildernesses.

Yes, I would add Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy killing Meredith together over sex as much a "myth" as those. Maybe the next program to tackle this case should be "Mythbusters".

 

[js202]

That's exactly right and it might be better if this thread did a better job of separating the two issues.

I happen to believe that they are almost certainly innocent. But that belief is based on life experiences, some technical knowledge, knowledge of past cases, a general idea about the nature of humans and what kinds of things they will do and probably some miscellaneous biases. In short, I concede that my view on that point is not built on anything like mathematical rigor and I would not be surprised that an objective individual might form a view different than mine given a different set of experiences.

However, the view that there is not enough evidence to convict based on a beyond a reasonable doubt criteria seems to me to be supportable with almost mathematical precision.

1. The "confession" has been ruled inadmissible and thus can not play a role in the deliberation.
2. At least serious doubt has been cast on all the DNA evidence against RS/AK by the court appointed experts. Even if one was predisposed to judge the work of the original forensic scientist as reliable the existence of credible testimony critical of the original forensic work might be seen as a good enough basis to throw the DNA evidence out in a reasonable doubt case. However given the evidence of improper procedures by the original forensic team there is enough doubt about the DNA evidence that it can't be part of the basis to convict if a reasonable doubt criteria is met.
3. Substantial doubt about or outright disproof of all the eye witness evidence against RS/AK has been created. I see nothing left here that has any place in a reasonable doubt case.
4. All the information available about RS/AK suggests that it would be unlikely in the extreme that they would be involved in any such crime. Without compelling evidence to counter this reasonable doubt must exist. I have never heard of a case anything like this and I'm 62 years old and I've been listening and reading news reports for at least 50 years. In the US jurors are expected to use this kind of life experience to help with their judgment of the case. If that is so in Italy this is strong evidence that the prosecution's crime scenario just didn't happen.
5. The time of death arguments, if not compelling, are at least good evidence of innocence. Good evidence of innocence in a reasonable doubt case is compelling and would need to be balanced by stronger evidence that it is false. No such evidence has been provided.
6. A complete lack of evidence (excluding the discredited DNA evidence on the bra clip and the discredited foot print evidence) that links either AK or RS to the actual crime. This is huge and incontrovertible. The actual physical evidence is entirely consistent with a single individual and placing AK or RS in that room at the time of the crime is just a fantasy. One might argue that the lack of evidence at the crime scene doesn't rule out the possibility of AK/RS involvement and that is true but there is no actual evidence of AK/RS at the crime scene and that is what matters if one is judging this case base on a reasonable doubt criteria.

One piece of evidence remains of the prosecution's case that has not been discredited to the point that it is not of value in a beyond a reasonable doubt case This is the AK next day retraction of her claim that Lumumba was involved. And here reasonable minds might disagree. I see a confused statement that shows signs that AK is attempting to come to grips with fact that she had said things under a difficult police interrogation that did not represent her real memories. I didn't need to see a bunch of information about how police can get false confessions. I thought it was just accepted fact that this was possible. I don't have any problem with the technique when it is used as a tool to derive leads or pressure suspects. However when the technique is used to reinforce police suspicions it is going to lead to false convictions. The police believe A. They use a technique likely to produce a defendant's statement in support of A. They use the coerced defendant's statement to prove A. If allowed the police can use this technique to convict anybody that doesn't have an incontrovertible alibi and as in this case even a strong alibi might not be an impediment to prosecution.

Exceptionally well reasoned post. Kudos, and thanks.

 

[charlatan]

Patrick Lumumba calling Knox " the worlds best actress" is quite comical to me. How can the worlds best actress get convicted of a crime based mainly on circumstantial evidence as well as behavior. It would be the opposite no? Patrick Lumumba is becoming less and less of a sympathetic figure.

In much the same way that the "world's best PR campaign" resulted in Amanda spending four years of her life in jail.

 

[LondonJohn]

good luck convincing people who think she's guilty and demanding they change their minds. The world just doesn't work like that.

What makes you think I have any interest in convincing such people? Or "demanding that they change their minds"? Fortunately there are suitable tools (defamation law and criminal law) that should be adequate to deal with any idiots who pose any verbal/written or physical threat to Knox or Sollecito after their acquittals. Outside of that, I don't care one iota how many people continue to hold the misguided belief that they should be considered guilty. Just as I don't give a damn about the misguided fools who consider homeopathy to be valid, or those who think 9/11 was a vast Government conspiracy.

I will feel sorry for Knox and Sollecito that a certain section of the population will continue to feel vindictive towards them. But that's a problem for Knox/Sollecito and their families - not for me. And, as I said, they have plenty of protection under the law for dealing with any such idiots who make their feelings public. I do have to say, however, that I harbour slight concerns that some of the most rabid pro-guilt commentators might be so unbalanced as to inflict some sort of criminal action on Knox in particular (whether that takes the form of harassment or something even more sinister). I hope that these sorts of people have already been identified, and that suitable precautions have already been taken.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Law and morality both demand that one considers Knox and Sollecito innocent if they are acquitted.

good luck convincing people who think she's guilty and demanding they change their minds. The world just doesn't work like that.

For once, I'm going to have to agree with yeti101 -- there will be lots of people who will remain convinced that "the b*tch got away with it because she's so good-looking."

And, while I don't agree with that sentiment, I also wonder if the original quote would work if turned around. For those who are convinced of Knox and Sollecito's innocence, would you accept that "law and morality both demand that one considers Knox and Sollecito guilty if they are convicted?" I certainly wouldn't (barring any extraordinary new evidence coming to light that would establish their guilt for me).

 

[davefoc]

Exceptionally well reasoned post. Kudos, and thanks.

Thanks, I wish I'd added that there is no evidence whatsoever of any significant contact between the alleged conspirators to my list. This alone boggles the mind. How many young lovers pick a guy at random to have four way sex with? And then form such a tight bond immediately that they conspire with the guy to cover up his murder.

Even if one thinks that is not a completely bonkers scenario where is the evidence of this spur of the moment conspiracy? No phone calls, No documented meetings. No joint membership in a sex club or any club of any kind. So even if your particular life experiences cause you to see this as plausible the lack of evidence for it would be a compelling cause to find not guilty if the case is to be decided on reasonable doubt.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Think this is the one you refer to.

I've never seen that image before. That certainly looks like a whole lot more blood than what I understood was a small, almost imperceptible dot. I notice that it appears to not only cover a large amount of the faucet itself, but pretty much the entire gripping portion of the handle as well. Is that all Knox's blood, or is some of that a chemical testing agent (as in the infamous "bathroom covered with blood" photo from several days later)?

 

[Ammonitida]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=23592&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1317566761[/qimg]

I've never seen that image before. That certainly looks like a whole lot more blood than what I understood was a small, almost imperceptible dot. I notice that it appears to not only cover a large amount of the faucet itself, but pretty much the entire gripping portion of the handle as well. Is that all Knox's blood, or is some of that a chemical testing agent (as in the infamous "bathroom covered with blood" photo from several days later)?

It's Amanda's blood. But I see none on the handle. It's either dirt or a reflection you're looking at. The little bright red dots are the blood.

 

[LondonJohn]

For once, I'm going to have to agree with yeti101 -- there will be lots of people who will remain convinced that "the b*tch got away with it because she's so good-looking."

And, while I don't agree with that sentiment, I also wonder if the original quote would work if turned around. For those who are convinced of Knox and Sollecito's innocence, would you accept that "law and morality both demand that one considers Knox and Sollecito guilty if they are convicted?" I certainly wouldn't (barring any extraordinary new evidence coming to light that would establish their guilt for me).

Oh don't get me wrong: I don't disagree that there will probably be plenty of people who hold the view that "Knox and Sollecito got away with murder" (or similar): I just argue that anyone holding that view is ignorant and wrong. Just as anyone holding the view that Uri Geller bends spoons using mind power is ignorant and wrong.

And regarding your point about "what if the situation was reversed?", I'd point again to the asymmetry that is justifiably inherent in criminal trials. Part of this asymmetry dictates that if a person is ultimately acquitted of a crime, they cannot be re-charged with that crime (unless there are very specific circumstances). However, if someone is ultimately convicted of a crime, then they have the unlimited right to appeal that conviction if they can show either that a) their original conviction was unjust, or b) there is new evidence that points to their innocence.

I would therefore say that if someone is ultimately convicted of a crime, the reasonable default position is to assume that the person is indeed guilty of the crime. But that is not absolute or unconditional, and it is entirely reasonable to argue that a convicted person is either not-guilty or innocent - if there exist reasonable grounds to hold that belief. The Barry George conviction or B'ham 6 / Guildford 4 convictions fall into that bracket. With hindsight, it would be ludicrous to suggest that all argument about non-guilt or innocence in those cases should have automatically and necessarily ceased as soon as they were convicted.

So the short answer to your question in this area is that law and morality do not demand that one considers Knox and Sollecito guilty if they are convicted.

 

[Fine]

It's Amanda's blood. But I see none on the handle.

_________________________

Here's a much better photograph. Very little "blood." Blood is the red stuff, not the orange reflection.

///

 

[RoseMontague]

It's Amanda's blood. But I see none on the handle. It's either dirt or a reflection you're looking at. The little bright red dots are the blood.

I see some water spots both places and just a small amount of blood.

 

[js202]

Thanks, I wish I'd added that there is no evidence whatsoever of any significant contact between the alleged conspirators to my list. This alone boggles the mind. How many young lovers pick a guy at random to have four way sex with? And then form such a tight bond immediately that they conspire with the guy to cover up his murder.

Even if one thinks that is not a completely bonkers scenario where is the evidence of this spur of the moment conspiracy? No phone calls, No documented meetings. No joint membership in a sex club or any club of any kind. So even if your particular life experiences cause you to see this as plausible the lack of evidence for it would be a compelling cause to find not guilty if the case is to be decided on reasonable doubt.

Yes, of course this is nothing more than a fantasy, cooked up by Mignini, and egged on by his supporters on the pro-guilt sites.

Such irrational individuals expect us to buy that Amanda Knox happened to run into Rudy Guede on the local basketball courts on the day of the murder, came up with the idea of running a "prank" on Meredith on the spot, and presumably used Raffaele Sollecito as the Italian-speaking intermediary to convince Guede to become involved. Thus a pact was sealed, and there was no electronic communication before or afterwards.

Put simply, these people don't like the way Amanda Knox looks -- and very likely don't like the fact that she is an American, and all the intangibles this represents -- and fitted up a preposterous scenario to buttress and justify their animus. I have literally never encountered such a bizarre and corrosive group dynamic, in my life or in my reading of sociology, history or fiction.

 

[DarkStar2011]

And intelligent judges like Hellman and Zanetti who have previously judged many burglary trials will realize that cat burglar Rudy Guede's signature is all over the break in. And after the break in all the real evidence points directly to Rudy Guede the opportunist raping and murdering Meredith when she arrived home early and surprised him.

Hellmann and Zanetti are nothing like Massei ... fortunately .... in my opinion.

Once again, since none of us is really privy to the deliberations of an Italian court, we can't really be sure about the judges/jury interaction in this one.

So far, most tea-leaf-reading has been based on what people conclude about the reactions of Hellmann (and, I would suppose, Zanetti, although I've never heard anything definite in that regard). But, what happens in Italian courts, if a vote is taken and the two judges are on one side, and five of the six jurors on the other? Is that then the verdict? Or do they discuss it for longer and re-vote? Can the presiding judge, if he or she is on the losing side of an initial vote, essentially keep the jury in deliberations as long as he or she wants in an attempt to talk the others into voting their way?

So far, there seems to be an assumption that "as Hellmann goes, so goes the jury." But, although that seems to be the case most of the time in Italian trials, I see no reason to assume that it has to be the case this time around. Indeed, I would argue that the prosecution's resorting to emotion-driven rhetoric in their summation would suggest that they realize that Hellmann and Zanetti are "lost," and are instead seeking to sway the "civil judges" in their direction, hoping for a 5-1 split that would give them the victory anyway.

 

[LondonJohn]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=23592&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1317566761[/qimg]

I've never seen that image before. That certainly looks like a whole lot more blood than what I understood was a small, almost imperceptible dot. I notice that it appears to not only cover a large amount of the faucet itself, but pretty much the entire gripping portion of the handle as well. Is that all Knox's blood, or is some of that a chemical testing agent (as in the infamous "bathroom covered with blood" photo from several days later)?

I don't know what you think you're seeing in that photo. But the blood on the tap (faucet) is only on the tap itself (not the handle), just inward of the bend in the tap. And this photo was taken using strong crime scene lighting. The normal lighting in the bathroom was far dimmer.

Seeing that photo reminds me once again of another ignorant pro-guilt talking point. Certain commentators (hello, Paddy!) have got it into their heads that since Knox's lawyers readily admit that this is Knox's blood on the tap, this somehow proves that there was mixed blood in the bathroom (and by extension that Knox and Meredith were bleeding at the same time). But this dried spot/smear of blood on the tap is not mixed at all. It is purely Knox's blood, and only tested positive for Knox's DNA. Furthermore, it is entirely different in coagulation/dilution and appearance from the dilute smears of blood in the bowl of the sink. We therefore have two totally separate (and almost certainly unconnected) elements: 1) Knox's blood (containing her DNA) on the tap, which very likely was deposited there prior to the murder when Knox attempted to pierce her ears; 2) Meredith Kercher's blood in the bowl of the sink, which was deposited by her killer (Guede), and which the "crack" forensics goons swabbed up together with some of Knox's non-blood DNA (which was very likely the product of cheek/gum cells deposited by Knox when brushing her teeth in the sink in the normal course of events).

There remains absolutely zero evidence that Knox's blood and Meredith's blood were mixed together. And the mixed-DNA "evidence" is very likely to be Meredith's blood mixed with Knox's non-blood DNA from her prior normal use of the bathroom sink. It only takes a cursory viewing of the dreadfully improper smearing technique used to collect the samples from the bowl of the sink to realise just how compromised the mixed-DNA evidence is.

 

[DarkStar2011]

_________________________

Here's a much better photograph. Very little "blood." Blood is the red stuff, not the orange reflection.
[qimg]http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=219[/qimg]

///

Thanks. I was seeing everything orange in the original photo as "blood."

From your photo, it appears to me that there are about three actual spots of blood, about a third of the way up the faucet slightly right of center. Those still aren't as imperceptible as I was led to believe was the case -- actually, they're pretty visible -- but certainly don't make it look as if the entire faucet was smeared with Knox's blood.