Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

This is just terrific and a point made I don't recall seeing before, why Patrick has not sued the guy that told the cops his bar was closed, busting his alibi and keeping him in jail. Is he not a liar, a great actor, the son of a demon?

Well worth reading, even as a Google translation:

http://albatros-volandocontrovento.blogspot.com/2011/09/amanda-knox-se-la-knox-ed-il-sollecito.html

 

[DarkStar2011]

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.

Just so we're all on the same page -- the spots I see as blood are the ones circled in green below. Is that correct? If not, can someone post the photo with the location of Knox's bloodstains circled or pointed out?

 

[Ammonitida]

Just so we're all on the same page -- the spots I see as blood are the ones circled in green below. Is that correct? If not, can someone post the photo with the location of Knox's bloodstains circled or pointed out?

[qimg]http://www.eskimo.com/~jwalley/MiscImages/KnoxFaucet.jpg[/qimg]

I'm not sure if the bottom circle is actually blood. Could be a reflection.

 

[DarkStar2011]

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.

More to the point, if someone were a great actress, don't you think she'd be able to put on an "act" of grief and shock effective enough to dissuade investigators from any initial suspicion of her? At the very least, I would think a great actress would know better than to joke or wiggle her hips while putting on crime-scene booties, turn cartwheels where she knew she could well be observed, go out with her boyfriend and buy skimpy panties while talking about how "now we can have wild sex," etc., etc.

In other words, this is yet another case where the prosecution and its allies are expecting people to believe that the defendants are criminal masterminds, yet commit the most simple and obvious errors. And, as I said before, assuming repeated cases of simultaneous genius and idiocy by the defendants as a condition of your theory of the crime usually means you need a new theory.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

Here's how perceptible they are under the same lighting without the close-up:

Under the normal lighting of the cottage it was more like this, which you can see at 3:00, 4:00 and 4:32 if you're willing to skip the thrilling guided tour of the toilet and bidet. Keep in mind those are the crime scene photos of the police and they were thus looking for blood to record.

 

[DarkStar2011]

I'm not sure if the bottom circle is actually blood. Could be a reflection.

Even so, the stains at the top are far larger and more noticeable than I was led to believe. They don't lead to any conclusion of guilt by themselves (after all, there's no mixed blood there, and no way to date when that blood was deposited), but it does leave a small, niggling question as to how Knox could claim the bathroom was "clean" with that on the faucet. (As others have pointed out, a college student's idea of a "clean bathroom" is not necessarily that of a Martha Stewart, but I think most people would have noticed that.)

Of course, it also leaves a larger question for the prosecution: if, as they imply, Knox and Sollecito had somehow thoroughly cleaned Kercher's room with "magic soap" that erased every trace of their presence while leaving all of Guede's, wouldn't they have done the same to the bathroom? At the very least, you'd think that Knox, after taking a shower the next morning, would have thought "oh, crap -- there's one spot we didn't get" and make sure it was cleaned up before calling the cops. Once again, it appears, to accept the prosecution's recreation of the crime, one has to swallow the notion that the defendants, over and over, acted with utter brilliance and utter stupidity at the same time.

 

[js202]

Even so, the stains at the top are far larger and more noticeable than I was led to believe. They don't lead to any conclusion of guilt by themselves (after all, there's no mixed blood there, and no way to date when that blood was deposited), but it does leave a small, niggling question as to how Knox could claim the bathroom was "clean" with that on the faucet. (As others have pointed out, a college student's idea of a "clean bathroom" is not necessarily that of a Martha Stewart, but I think most people would have noticed that.)

Of course, it also leaves a larger question for the prosecution: if, as they imply, Knox and Sollecito had somehow thoroughly cleaned Kercher's room with "magic soap" that erased every trace of their presence while leaving all of Guede's, wouldn't they have done the same to the bathroom? At the very least, you'd think that Knox, after taking a shower the next morning, would have thought "oh, crap -- there's one spot we didn't get" and make sure it was cleaned up before calling the cops. Once again, it appears, to accept the prosecution's recreation of the crime, one has to swallow the notion that the defendants, over and over, acted with utter brilliance and utter stupidity at the same time.

Interesting, but again this goes to the proposition of the bizarre genius/idiot schism proposed for Knox.

If she knew it was not clean because she and Sollecito were involved in a clean-up, and because they led the police to the bathmat stain, why would she say that it had been clean? More likely a confused statement on her part, or she had not noticed the faucet handle because of insufficient light or still being stoned.

 

[smkovalinksy]

This is just terrific and a point made I don't recall seeing before, why Patrick has not sued the guy that told the cops his bar was closed, busting his alibi and keeping him in jail. Is he not a liar, a great actor, the son of a demon?

Well worth reading, even as a Google translation:

http://albatros-volandocontrovento.blogspot.com/2011/09/amanda-knox-se-la-knox-ed-il-sollecito.html

Thanks for this link! Good point, and am making my way through the twisting, turning, Google tranlation...

 

[pilot padron]

Since this is a sink where people wash themselves

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

Would it be too 'confirmation biased' to assume that possibly a lot more than those still visible, drops are but a small fraction of the rest of the blood ...that went down the drain, and/or was cleaned up?

 

[DarkStar2011]

As if on cue, the woman pitched in: "There are no innocent people who are convicted."

Well, no less a legal expert than Edwin Meese was quoted as saying that "you don't often find a suspect who is innocent of the crime."

I've always held that the "presumption of innocence" is a legally-necessary preconception because it goes against instinctual human nature, which holds not only that accused people are "guilty until proven innocent," but often "guilty even after being proven innocent."

It's a matter of simple security -- by instinct, people want to be free from danger, and the easiest solution is to string up (or at least lock up) anyone who has even the slightest chance of being a danger to them or society. To counter the old saying, "better a thousand innocent persons be jailed than one guilty person be set free" (because, of course, there remains a possibility that a freed guilty party could strike again -- maybe even to you yourself).

The "presumption of innocence" is a mental construct designed specifically to go against instinct, so that reason rather than reactive fear may prevail. As such, it is a necessary construct for a system of justice rather than revenge...but that doesn't mean it's going to come naturally to people. In fact, just the opposite.

 

[LondonJohn]

Would it be too 'confirmation biased' to assume that possibly a lot more than those still visible, drops are but a small fraction of the rest of the blood ...that went down the drain, and/or was cleaned up?

No. But why is this small amount of Knox's blood on the tap (which has no trace of Meredith Kercher's DNA) any sort of evidence of Knox's participation in the murder of Meredith Kercher?

 

[Ammonitida]

Even so, the stains at the top are far larger and more noticeable than I was led to believe. They don't lead to any conclusion of guilt by themselves (after all, there's no mixed blood there, and no way to date when that blood was deposited), but it does leave a small, niggling question as to how Knox could claim the bathroom was "clean" with that on the faucet. (As others have pointed out, a college student's idea of a "clean bathroom" is not necessarily that of a Martha Stewart, but I think most people would have noticed that.)

Of course, it also leaves a larger question for the prosecution: if, as they imply, Knox and Sollecito had somehow thoroughly cleaned Kercher's room with "magic soap" that erased every trace of their presence while leaving all of Guede's, wouldn't they have done the same to the bathroom? At the very least, you'd think that Knox, after taking a shower the next morning, would have thought "oh, crap -- there's one spot we didn't get" and make sure it was cleaned up before calling the cops. Once again, it appears, to accept the prosecution's recreation of the crime, one has to swallow the notion that the defendants, over and over, acted with utter brilliance and utter stupidity at the same time.

I doubt it's that noticeable under normal lighting and from a greater distance. Who's really going get that close to a faucet anyway to see that? And due to the tiny amount of blood there and the reflective chrome background, I could easily see someone overlooking the blood as it may appear to blend in at certain angles and fool the eye into thinking it's part of a reflection.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Would it be too 'confirmation biased' to assume that possibly a lot more than those still visible, drops are but a small fraction of the rest of the blood ...that went down the drain, and/or was cleaned up?

Yes, it would.

Also, if it were from any wounds suffered in a hypothetical struggle with Kercher, why were there no wounds found on Knox? We know that Guede had a number of cuts on his hands consistent with being in a struggle over a knife -- so why did Sollecito and Knox have no similar wounds? And, if Knox had no wounds upon examination shortly after the murder, where did her blood come from? The most logical conclusion would be that the blood was deposited there well before Kercher's murder, from a wound that had long since healed.

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks for this link! Good point, and am making my way through the twisting, turning, Google tranlation...

At the end you'll find something very interesting:

But the issue of attorney Meo Ponte centers it with the last sentence of his article when he writes: "The various hearings have confirmed the shortcomings of the investigation and the defendants and their lawyers have begun to hope for an acquittal. And if Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted raises the issue of responsibility of those who held them for four years in jail without evidence. " And this is the real problem that will arise tomorrow if the two ever be acquitted. But the question is: "There will indeed be those who will be held responsible for what happened in these four years? The Italian Justice will be able to look inside without closing like a clam, to at least try to understand what, for decades, is not working? "

This might solve the problem of those still insistent after the acquittal that Amanda and Raffaele were still somehow 'involved.' Break some heads, do some squeezing, apply a little 'accountability.'

 

[js202]

Well, no less a legal expert than Edwin Meese was quoted as saying that "you don't often find a suspect who is innocent of the crime."

I've always held that the "presumption of innocence" is a legally-necessary preconception because it goes against instinctual human nature, which holds not only that accused people are "guilty until proven innocent," but often "guilty even after being proven innocent."

It's a matter of simple security -- by instinct, people want to be free from danger, and the easiest solution is to string up (or at least lock up) anyone who has even the slightest chance of being a danger to them or society. To counter the old saying, "better a thousand innocent persons be jailed than one guilty person be set free" (because, of course, there remains a possibility that a freed guilty party could strike again -- maybe even to you yourself).

The "presumption of innocence" is a mental construct designed specifically to go against instinct, so that reason rather than reactive fear may prevail. As such, it is a necessary construct for a system of justice rather than revenge...but that doesn't mean it's going to come naturally to people. In fact, just the opposite.

Another great post.

The only thing I'd add is that I essentially agree with Meese's statement. Of course, this is meaningfully different from what the Italian woman said to us the other night. To state that LE and/or the judicial system never gets it wrong is at best ridiculous, at worst fascist.

I think that, usually, criminals are stupid enough and leave sufficiently unambiguous traces of their crimes so that even cops are capable of correctly solving most cases. And this is exactly what Rudy Guede did, and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito did not do. It is not rocket surgery.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Tweets taken off PMF - reiterating deliberation to be later and take longer than we had hitherto thought:

SKY guy

Judge in #MeredithKercher murder appeal trial ordered dinner for the jury. Verdict now not expected before 2000 GMT

DanielePinto Daniele Pinto
Last hearing for the #MeredithKercher murder appeal trial to start at 0700 GMT in #Perugia. Jury start discussing by lunchtime.

 

[pilot padron]

a non applicable dichotomy

At the very least, you'd think that Knox, after taking a shower the next morning, would have thought "oh, crap -- there's one spot we didn't get" and make sure it was cleaned up before calling the cops. Once again, it appears, to accept the prosecution's recreation of the crime, one has to swallow the notion that the defendants, over and over, acted with utter brilliance and utter stupidity at the same time.

Doesn't Kaosium's full view picture above and You Tube reference show that in all probability Amanda would not see the small drops that we are examining under artificial light and close up.

Would't this probability make the utter brilliance/stupidity dichotomy non applicable in this instance ??

 

[smkovalinksy]

At the end you'll find something very interesting:



This might solve the problem of those still insistent after the acquittal that Amanda and Raffaele were still somehow 'involved.' Break some heads, do some squeezing, apply a little 'accountability.'

Ah hah! Yes, someone must be held accountable...interesting, indeed.

 

[katy_did]

Tweets taken off PMF - reiterating deliberation to be later and take longer than we had hitherto thought:

[...] DanielePinto Daniele Pinto
Last hearing for the #MeredithKercher murder appeal trial to start at 0700 GMT in #Perugia. Jury start discussing by lunchtime.

Ha. I read that last sentence as "Jury start by discussing lunchtime".

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, no less a legal expert than Edwin Meese was quoted as saying that "you don't often find a suspect who is innocent of the crime."

I've always held that the "presumption of innocence" is a legally-necessary preconception because it goes against instinctual human nature, which holds not only that accused people are "guilty until proven innocent," but often "guilty even after being proven innocent."

It's a matter of simple security -- by instinct, people want to be free from danger, and the easiest solution is to string up (or at least lock up) anyone who has even the slightest chance of being a danger to them or society. To counter the old saying, "better a thousand innocent persons be jailed than one guilty person be set free" (because, of course, there remains a possibility that a freed guilty party could strike again -- maybe even to you yourself).

The "presumption of innocence" is a mental construct designed specifically to go against instinct, so that reason rather than reactive fear may prevail. As such, it is a necessary construct for a system of justice rather than revenge...but that doesn't mean it's going to come naturally to people. In fact, just the opposite.

I agree. However, it actually is fair to say that in the vast majority of criminal trials in modern democracies, the defendants are guilty (both factually and legally) of the charges against them. And that's even before the verdict is announced. It's an even stronger bet that someone convicted of a crime in a modern democratic justice system is indeed legally and factually guilty of committing that crime.

The reason for the above is that there are plenty of checks and balances in modern justice systems which try to ensure that people are not even charged and brought to trial unless there is a strong (and provable) suspicion that they committed the crime(s) with which they are charged. And in the vast majority of criminal trials, people are not found guilty unless the case against them truly has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, no criminal justice system is perfect or infallible. Moreover, some are less perfect and more fallible than others. And the "black swan" effect applies very well here: the rarity of miscarriages of justice across the totality of criminal cases is not a logical argument against any one specific case being a miscarriage of justice.

As a footnote, it's interesting (perhaps) to point out that a true miscarriage of justice (by the strict definition of the term) has not even occurred yet in the case of Knox and Sollecito. That would only be the case if Knox/Sollecito are found guilty in the appeal trial and are ultimately convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court. When Knox and Sollecito are acquitted in Hellmann's court, it will actually illustrate the proper functioning of the Italian criminal justice system. The issue of just how long it has taken for justice to be properly applied is a separate issue: nobody should have to wait for four years (let alone in custody) to be acquitted of a crime, but that length of time does not in itself indicate any miscarriage of justice.

With any luck, Italian legislators and the judiciary itself will learn some lessons from the Knox/Sollecito trial. I think that Italy needs to confront the still-prevalent affiliations between judges and prosecutors, and to address the length of judicial proceedings and the length of pre-trial (and inter-trial) detention. But then again, every other system of criminal justice (including those in the US and UK) has systemic problems that are long overdue being tackled. Just my thoughts.....