Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Let's pretend for a moment shall we? I like to call this the technique of implantation of false truehoods.

Poster 1:

The Rome Supremes might want to get rid of the Perugia hot potato. For no other reason than expediency.

But the Rome Court would have to eat their words when they mentioned the little angels by name in the Guede ruling.

Poster 2:

I tend to agree with you. Just one thing, though - I thought the Guede ruling had stopped just short of actually naming the other two???

Poster Ominous:

There are numerous references to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and the evidence against them in Rudy Guede's sentencing report.

Poster 2:

Good.
I did think that was the case originally but read something recently that said they weren't mentioned.

Of course, in real life it doesn't happen this way.

 

[CDHost]

Some people at work started talking about the case the other day, all the usual woefully ignorant guilter memes (from the 3 or 4 news stories they've read about the case, and I explained that I'd followed the case in great detail, and tried to explain a little bit of why they were wrong, but got no indication that they thought it was even possible that they were wrong....
It makes me realise that 99% of people literally believe everything they read in the papers.

Bri. Yes people are idiots about most things. But you have to remember your coworkers don't really care. Amanda Knox to them is just another celebrity crime show where people take 1/2 baked opinions. They don't want to engage with someone who actually cares about the case, since that violates the cultural function of this case. They want to have a debate along the orders of "The Phillies are better than the Red Socks" and you are trying to have a debate long the orders of "I don't think that's the right equation for light traveling through a medium which refracts".

 

[CDHost]

Because we have to deal with logical aspects of the case, such as by coincidence how convenient it is, for a suspect, to have no memory or to have two "flexible" memories that could work in both ways. Observe how her memory about Patrick being innocent becomes progressively stronger over the days as the evidence of his alibi becomes stronger (you may compare newspaper article of the time). Note how her hand written note contains accustions against Raffaele which are purposely written: If she actually thought ha had only "fish blood" on his hands, she would not write about it into a paper to be given to the police who are investigating Raffaele for murder; if you are not sure about your memory and think it is nothing just fish blood, you don't create the danger of casting further suspicion on an innocent; while in the same Amanda's writings, several allusions are made to that Sollecito had placed some evidence against her. This kind of "memory problem" is, by coincidence, identical to the memory problems expressed in the blackmailing and threatening by a mobster of an associate suspect, in mafia investigations.

On the Patrick thing, that unfortunately is how weak memories do work. A good example of this is done regularly when you
a) poll people
b) ask people after an election whom they supported

There is a huge shift, often as high as 20% towards whomever won. This is even worse when it comes to issues. For example in the early 90s there was low levels of support for gay marriage among people 20-40. If you ask people ages 40-60 who are currently supporters what their attitudes were 2 decades ago though you find fairly high levels of support. They don't admit they changed their mind, rather they perceive reality as if they always had their current beliefs in gay marriage.

I don't find it at all implausible that Amanda's certainty about Patrick's innocence would change when she heard the alibi. Amanda thinks in pictures not chains of reasoning, so she is quite likely to not remember her reasoning for all sorts of conclusions.

_______

As for the blood and the fish. I agree we either have to assume '

1) Amanda has terrible common sense about how to handle a police investigation.
2) Amanda is lying and threatening Raffaele.

The problem with (2) is that it is inconsistent with how she got in trouble in the first place. A woman who understands how to use the fish blood as a threat, would also have understood to shut down during the discussion on November 5th and never have made those statements in the first place. In the mafia threat version you have to speculate an Amanda who shows far more foresight then would have been required to stay out of trouble. In other words she's be the sort of person to expect the police to lie to her to elicit a reaction. A person who knows to use that sort of 1/2 threat is the sort of person who would tell the police she will be happy to respond to pre-written questions, in writing, from her lawyer's office and nothing else.

Further, even if the fish blood, was a threat the context is important. If we assume the alibi is correct then the threat is still understandable one given she was really with Raffaele. Based just implicated her in a murder because he is tired of having to answer questions. Even if you prove the lie, the lie doesn't prove murder.

 

[smkovalinksy]

As I was just going over this ruling by the Supreme Court , Rudy Guede's final appeal, which was under discussion on PMF:

Of course, the C&V report has swept much of this away, and Hellman's full acquittal regarding the dna, the simulation, and the ennumerated crimes does as well. So it would appear that in citing this literature, they are hanging onto past facts which have been fully refuted.

Also, I expect Hellman's Motivational report to be a counter-measure and refutation of the reasoning and deductions here, and within the Massei report, and to support Guede as Lone Wolf killer as a real possibility or probability:

In the view of the appeal court, according to the more credible version of events, due to the presence of clear signs attributable to Knox and Sollecito inside the house, the two could have entered the house together with Guede, where an escalation of sexually motivated violence against poor Meredith took place, after which an attempt was made by Knox and Sollecito, the only ones interested in doing so, to simulate a theft, and an attempted or consummated rape, and then in feverish progression a murder by the “phantom” thief.

It would have been in the interest of Sollecito and Knox to remove possible traces of their presence. About their presence on the scene of crime, the appeal court, albeit by incidental deduction, seems to have no doubts. For Sollecito they give evidence: traces of DNA on the piece of fabric to which to the hooks of the bra are attached, the knife, which is compatible with the wounds inflicted on Meredith, found at his house with traces of Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher’s on the blade, a print of a bare foot which is compatible with Sollecito's, found on the mat in the bathroom. For Knox: the traces on the knife handle found at the home of Sollecito, statements by Guede, the footprints from Knox and Sollecito detected by luminol, traces of genetic material on the sink and bidet, the phrase "I was there" in a conversation intercepted in prison between Knox and her parents,... page 10.

"...Factual findings, among which traces of Raffaele Sollecito DNA in the victim's bra, the piece of bra cleanly cut seemingly with a knife, traces of Amanda Knox DNA on the handle of a knife found in the home of the former, expert results that because of the morphology of the injuries, attribute them to two different cutting weapons used by different individuals, and footprints not attributable to Guede on the floor of the room where Meredith’s body lay, convinced the appeal judges that several people acted together. Guede's contribution is situated in a context of escalating violence over some length of time, and certainly cannot be regarded as exceptional, improvised, or merely occasional so that he could not have foreseen, as a result of a violence so definitely concentrated on a sexual act following a number of bruises and injuries caused by the use of a knife, the possible fatal ending.

From these conclusions the reasoning of the lower court is fully safeguarded from assertive criticisms of its legitimacy,because such claims concern the merit, and are thus invalid." page 19

@Rose_M: Thank you for clarifying this on websleuths for me, and for this quote, doing so:

.. [O]ccorre da subito sfuggire al tentativo, perseguito dall'impostazione tutta della difesa, ma fuori luogo nel contesto della decisione, di coinvolgere il collegio nel'avallo della tesi di una responsibilità di altri, che sono Raffaele Sollecito ed Amanda Xnox [sic], per l'omicidio aggravato dalla violenza sessuale, di Meredith Kercher. La decisione a cui è chiamata questa Corte concerne, e solo, la responsabilità del Guede in ordine al fatto contestato e dell'eventuale partecipazione di altri al delitto si dovrà tener conto solo nella misura in cui una tale circostanza valga ad incidere sul tema che costituisce l'impegno esclusivo in punto di riforma o conferma della declaratoria di responsabilità dell'imputato, quest'ultima del tutto condivisa dai giudici di primo e secondo grado.

... [R]ight from the outset we must resist the attempt -- reflected in [literally "pursued by"] the entire structure of the defense case, but out of place in the context of this decision -- to involve the [Cassazione] panel in endorsing the hypothesis that others, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, were responsible for the murder, aggravated by sexual violence, of Meredith Kercher. The decision that this Court is called to make concerns only the responsibility of Guede with regard to the act under dispute; any participation of others in the crime will be taken into account only to the extent that this circumstance bears on the matter that is our only concern: the modification or confirmation of the judgement of responsibility of the defendant -- the latter being wholly agreed upon by the judges of the first and second level.

 

[Bob001]

...
But the second question is whether Knox and/or Sollecito are factually innocent of the murder....

This is an interesting phrasing. Has anyone ever contended that Knox or Sollecito could have acted separately, that one or the other could have sneaked away from Sollecito's house in the middle of the night (except it would have been early evening), committed a gruesome murder, and returned to the bed they shared without the other suspecting anything amiss? Isn't that another implausibility (stacked atop many)? And if anyone wanted to make that case, wouldn't it be easier to believe that two men, Sollecito and Guede, committed a sex attack rather than a man and a woman?

 

[Rolfe]

Do we actually know whether this is a paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 acquittal, or are we just drawing the obvious assumptions from what Hellmann said about "not having committed the crime"?

I'm still behind with my speed-reading at PMF, but I see them getting into all sorts of rationalisations on account of Hellmann's interview, where he seems to have answered that question with a "wait and see". He was certainly pretty circumspect, saying things about it only requiring a small degree of reasonable doubt to acquit, and maybe Knox and Sollecito did know what happened that night.

At the risk of sounding as delusional as the PMFers, I think he's declining to upstage himself. I can't see other than that he's planning a complete exoneration in the motivations report, given the wording of the verdict and his general approach. However, I think there's a lot to be said for the report being a newsworthy splash in that respect when it comes.

At the moment we still have a lot of people and a lot of news outlets who haven't managed to accommodate the new reality. Many people can't change their approach that quickly and there's a lot of "Foxy Knoxy the convicted killer" rhetoric to live down. Right now, the reporting is going to be ambivalent, no matter what. But leave it a couple of months, leave it to sink in slowly that these two students are innocent, and it becomes a lot easier to adopt that line with some fresh reporting.

I suspect Hellmann realises this. If he gives interviews now about how there's nothing to tie K&S to the crime (and maybe even a near-alibi, if he does the rational thing and fixes the time of death at soon after 9pm), he's shot his fox as regards the motivations report. Everyone will know what to expect and the newsworthiness will be limited. On the other hand if he says "wait and see" on par 1 or 2, then follows that up with a bunch of standard legal platitudes about never being able to say for certain what the real truth is, he creates a void of anticipation for the motivations report.

Which I hope and expect will be a full exoneration with indications that Rudy Guede broke in that window, made himself at home, was surprised by Meredith when she returned, at which he attacked her with a knife, raped and murdered her. At a time when there is evidence of human activity on RS's computer.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

As I was just going over this ruling by the Supreme Court , Rudy Guede's final appeal, which was under discussion on PMF:

Of course, the C&V report has swept much of this away, and Hellman's full acquittal regarding the dna, the simulation, and the ennumerated crimes does as well. So it would appear that in citing this literature, they are hanging onto past facts which have been fully refuted.

Also, I expect Hellman's Motivational report to be a counter-measure and refutation of the reasoning and deductions here, and within the Massei report, and to support Guede as Lone Wolf killer as a real possibility or probability:


@Rose_M: Thank you for clarifying this on websleuths for me, and for this quote, doing so:

.. [O]ccorre da subito sfuggire al tentativo, perseguito dall'impostazione tutta della difesa, ma fuori luogo nel contesto della decisione, di coinvolgere il collegio nel'avallo della tesi di una responsibilità di altri, che sono Raffaele Sollecito ed Amanda Xnox [sic], per l'omicidio aggravato dalla violenza sessuale, di Meredith Kercher. La decisione a cui è chiamata questa Corte concerne, e solo, la responsabilità del Guede in ordine al fatto contestato e dell'eventuale partecipazione di altri al delitto si dovrà tener conto solo nella misura in cui una tale circostanza valga ad incidere sul tema che costituisce l'impegno esclusivo in punto di riforma o conferma della declaratoria di responsabilità dell'imputato, quest'ultima del tutto condivisa dai giudici di primo e secondo grado.

... [R]ight from the outset we must resist the attempt -- reflected in [literally "pursued by"] the entire structure of the defense case, but out of place in the context of this decision -- to involve the [Cassazione] panel in endorsing the hypothesis that others, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, were responsible for the murder, aggravated by sexual violence, of Meredith Kercher. The decision that this Court is called to make concerns only the responsibility of Guede with regard to the act under dispute; any participation of others in the crime will be taken into account only to the extent that this circumstance bears on the matter that is our only concern: the modification or confirmation of the judgement of responsibility of the defendant -- the latter being wholly agreed upon by the judges of the first and second level.

As I pointed out at the new webleuths thread, this is simply a recital of what the first two courts concluded and a reminder to Guede's defense team that the SC is not ruling on the merits of the case. The SC takes great pains to point out they are not ruling on RS and AK's involvement:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6939079&postcount=4623

ETA: LOL, we have double crossed on this one. Interesting that it relates directly to the Let's pretend post.

 

[davefoc]

...
I don't see much point in discussing something I am certain about. That's why I have no interest in participating on the homeopathy or bigfoot threads: I have no interest in engaging with people whom I am certain are wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who still thinks that Knox and/or Sollecito should be convicted for the murder of Meredith Kercher are either ignorant, deluded through over-investment, or just plain stupid. Or a combination of the above. But then there are still people who believe that homeopathy has a positive physiological effect on humans, or that the US Government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, so there's just no accounting for people sometimes. I suspect that the majority of the more vehement pro-guilt commentators will never concede that they were absolutely wrong about the most central factor in this case: they quite clearly have far too much invested in their prior beliefs, and many of them are demonstrably maladjusted individuals with a bizarre need for group acceptance, power or a platform. Many of them, in addition, seemingly have an unhealthy desire to feel better about themselves by vindictively delighting in the suffering of others. I have no time or empathy for such sad, misguided, delusional individuals.

...

I think many of us that have participated in this thread have formed a similar opinion. However there are difficulties with deciding that the side you disagree with in a debate is driven by biases and not facts. How do you make the determination that you aren't the deluded one? When one is deluded part of the delusion is that they aren't deluded and other people are.

I'm sure most of us have thought about this issue to some degree, probably a bit more than most, or we wouldn't be posting in a skeptic forum. In publically debated issues, as LJ suggests, there will always be a contingent of people that will form non-falsifiable contrarian beliefs. A question is whether the RS/AK are guilty crowd have formed those kind of beliefs and as such can they be reasonably discounted as fringe or are there still facts to suggest the possibility that their arguments have some reason behind them. In other words, is it reasonable to group the RS/AK guilters* with the truthers, the birthers and the homeopathy promoters?

I lean to the idea that it is. The simple explanation for the story that has unfolded over the last four years is that people with a a vested interest in promoting a narrative that described a crime that would have been unique in history succeeded in implanting a fantasy in the public's mind and a percentage of the public was going to form an unfalsifiable belief that the fantasy was real regardless of what facts became known. At present there seems to not be a single argument or line of evidence that suggests anything else is going on here.

Machiavelli's post that responded to my question about whether he had changed his mind about any of the evidence in the case provides evidence that this kind of thing has happened. His response was essentially that he had not changed his mind about anything with regard to the case over the years since it became public. This seems like exactly the kind of reasoning that will always drive a portion of the population: "I was right at the beginning and nothing has changed my mind about anything, my intuition has been vindicated and reinforced, I am happy."

There is another difficulty here it seems to me. Even when one forms a view that one side of an argument is driven by biases is it appropriate to mention that in a discussion in this forum. The very existence of this kind of claim can be inflammatory and lead to animosity and thread disruption. Perhaps in the case of the RS/AK threads where there have been thousands of posts some form of discussion about the biases and motivation of the posters is appropriate. And if it isn't, I am sure the moderators will let me know.

*I use the term, guilter, here to refer specifically to people that have a significant interest and knowledge of the case. I mean to exclude people that might think that RS/AK are guilty based on only casually obtained knowledge and might be reasonably open to a change of view if they were more informed.

 

[Rolfe]

This is an interesting phrasing. Has anyone ever contended that Knox or Sollecito could have acted separately, that one or the other could have sneaked away from Sollecito's house in the middle of the night (except it would have been early evening), committed a gruesome murder, and returned to the bed they shared without the other suspecting anything amiss? Isn't that another implausibility (stacked atop many)? And if anyone wanted to make that case, wouldn't it be easier to believe that two men, Sollecito and Guede, committed a sex attack rather than a man and a woman?

Frankly, I think it gets a bit silly at this point. In order to believe that something might have happened, one needs a reason. Is it possible Conti and Vecchiotti committed the murder? If they can't prove alibis, then presumably it is. But in the absence of any reason for considering that possibility, it's preposterous.

It's about that silly with Knox and Sollecito. The original reasons for suspecting them were spurious, and there is now no evidence to implicate them. So why are we asking ourselves whether they might have been involved again? There's no reason to keep contemplating what is essentially an abstract proposition.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

OK, check this out. I have been watching this as I am posting this morning:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/brain-games/

 

[Rolfe]

I think many of us that have participated in this thread have formed a similar opinion. However there are difficulties with deciding that the side you disagree with in a debate is driven by biases and not facts. How do you make the determination that you aren't the deluded one? When one is deluded part of the delusion is that they aren't deluded and other people are.

I think it's worth looking at when people joined the debate, and/or when they changed their minds. I didn't even look at the evidence until six months ago. By that time I think it was fairly obvious which way it was all pointing. If most people who joined the debate recently have come down on the side of innocence, and people who change their mind are generally going from guilt to innocence, the chances are that it's those who cling to a belief in guilt who are more likely to be deluded.

Rolfe.

 

[Ammonitida]

This is an interesting phrasing. Has anyone ever contended that Knox or Sollecito could have acted separately, that one or the other could have sneaked away from Sollecito's house in the middle of the night (except it would have been early evening), committed a gruesome murder, and returned to the bed they shared without the other suspecting anything amiss? Isn't that another implausibility (stacked atop many)? And if anyone wanted to make that case, wouldn't it be easier to believe that two men, Sollecito and Guede, committed a sex attack rather than a man and a woman?

Of course. The idea that a woman enthusiastically participated in another woman's rape and murder is a big stretch especially considering the circumstances here. I have never come across a case where a woman participated in a sexually motivated homicide while not under the influence and control of a dominant male. In Amanda's case she was certainly free of such influence, having dated Raff for just a few days (hardly could be called "serious") and there being no evidence that he exorcized any control over her. Rudy Guede she barely knew. Amanda doesn't fit the profile of a "female sex killer". Her as a suspect defies belief.

 

[smkovalinksy]

The simple explanation for the story that has unfolded over the last four years is that people with a a vested interest in promoting a narrative that described a crime that would have been unique in history succeeded in implanting a fantasy in the public's mind and a percentage of the public was going to form an unfalsifiable belief that the fantasy was real regardless of what facts became known. At present there seems to not be a single argument or line of evidence that suggests anything else is going on here.
Machiavelli's post that responded to my question about whether he had changed his mind about any of the evidence in the case provides evidence that this kind of thing has happened. His response was essentially that he had not changed his mind about anything with regard to the case over the years since it became public. This seems like exactly the kind of reasoning that will always drive a portion of the population: "I was right at the beginning and nothing has changed my mind about anything, my intuition has been vindicated and reinforced, I am happy."

Your whole post is very well stated, very robust, and true. The only thing I would add is that it is unlikely that people simply refuse to allow new facts to change their opinions, and instead cling proudly to their original intuition, for no reason.

The fantasy had to resonate deeply with some prior wish or fantasy in the first place, for them to do so. Ergo, the 9-11 truthers : A distrust of government, and no desire to see the distrust as misplaced. Or a distrust of mainstream medicine, driven by fear, or envy.

"Guilters" - and your definition of them is on the mark - are invested because for them, the fantasy was irresistible. And there is always a reason for this type of passion. It does not arise spontaneously in the psyche for no reason at all.

 

[Grinder]

I do agree with Mach that convicting her of calunnia is not consistent with finding her innocent of murder and all the other charges. I just think the calunnia verdict is wrong.

I also appreciate that he doesn't go off the deep end on subjects such as whether Amanda is gay and whether she had interest in Meredith. Or whether someone said something about Meredith's grave and that Amanda and her family should comment on it and put a stop to it.

 

[Freddy]

The point is self-evident.
It rests on the very definition of cognitive function disturbs and memory. A memory problem, and a problem involving experience of reality on the other side, are two different kinds of issues.
The memory about an acquaitence murderer entering your house with you and raping and murdering someone in the other room, you being present and hearing a scream so loud that you need to cover your ears, this is defined as a bizarre experience. Extremely unusual experience and intrinsically unlikely.
The experience is contradictory itself with a normal personality that works on non-contradictory perceptions of reality: if someone rapes someone else in your house, you just don't remein in the kitchen with your ears covered to deny the event while you imagine what happens, you would run out and be in the Piazza after thirty seconds, call the police immediately, you would not "forget" about this experience and not mistake it for a night at your boyfriend's house. Both consistency of self perception and consistency of reality structure are severely damaged in this memory.

There is a lot of others issues actually in Amanda's memory recollection beyond this.

It is anyway absolutely self evident that if you take medical counsuel and you explain about this issue to the specialist (I had this memory by I think it is false; or I had this experience and then I forgot it) the doctor would not consider yours as a memory problem. It is a "bizarre hallucination". This symptom may belong to a pattern of paranoid schyzophrenia if cronical; otherwise would be related to an episode involving drugs or severe chemical alteration of brain, anyway even if epsodic would be always classified an acute disease, an acute cognitive symptom involving basic functions, not as a memory problem.

Another aspect to point out is how Knox happens to "know" later on, that her memory was false. There is a severe inconsistency also on this, both on a logical line and for what concerns coroboration by clinical literature.
Knox's acknowledgement "the truth is I don't know what is the truth" makes all her subswequent statements unreliable, including a possible alibi. And it is not clear how "I don't know what is the truth" - if that is a true statement - becomes she "knows" and realizes what is the truth and becomes able to distinguish it. How it happens the lack of information "I don't know what is the truth" changes into "I know what is the truth": starting from the logical basis of a failure about her basic functions and doubt on basic perceptions, how it happens that her own memory turnes into a certainity about her perceptions as time passes. This is just against logic and against clinical observations.

Sorry, but this is nonsense on stilts. The only thing that is "self evident" here is your ignorance both of psychology and of cognitive neuroscience.

And still, the issues in her statements go beyond this. Because we have to deal with logical aspects of the case, such as by coincidence how convenient it is, for a suspect, to have no memory or to have two "flexible" memories that could work in both ways. Observe how her memory about Patrick being innocent becomes progressively stronger over the days as the evidence of his alibi becomes stronger (you may compare newspaper article of the time). Note how her hand written note contains accustions against Raffaele which are purposely written: If she actually thought ha had only "fish blood" on his hands, she would not write about it into a paper to be given to the police who are investigating Raffaele for murder; if you are not sure about your memory and think it is nothing just fish blood, you don't create the danger of casting further suspicion on an innocent; while in the same Amanda's writings, several allusions are made to that Sollecito had placed some evidence against her. This kind of "memory problem" is, by coincidence, identical to the memory problems expressed in the blackmailing and threatening by a mobster of an associate suspect, in mafia investigations.
Note also that her court testimony about the moment in which she first recalled "memories" of Patrick, is flatly contradictory to previous recollections: she recalls the episode of the sms message and rising of false memory in two different stories, two incompatible narratives (actually three if you count all testimonies before judges and magistrates).
And the list may go on. And besides this, there is also the problem that we don't have only one lie by Amanda: we have a previous account of facts as a witness, which is false. And we don't have a false witness report by only one person, we also have the other suspect who is lying, has completely changed his alibi and recollection of facts; we have thus other false testimonies and a huge number of inconsistencies and falsehoods from both suspects before and after this episodes of "false memory".

And this is the same thing you've been repeating for at least eight pages now. Have you convinced anyone yet?

 

[Machiavelli]

Yup.

Quick "yes or no" question for Machiavelli:

Is it your current belief that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher, and that they were unjustly acquitted by the Hellmann appeal court on those charges?

My current position is that Knox and Sollecito are implicated in the murder of Meredith and that there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt about it.

I am almost certain that Hellmann's court acquittal is unjust, but in order to express a judgment in terms of certainty on whether the acquittal is "unjust", or to know what exactly is unjust in it, I have to read the motivations.

I don't know if there can be a glimmer of difference between judgement of "unjust" verdict and convincement of guilt, but I am used to wait for reading before understanding what a verdict really is saying, so in order to focus the points I need to read the motivations.

 

[Grinder]

Mach,

Over at P** there was a short conversation about FOA people talking crazy things such as Kokomani's possible involvement.

Do you think it is crazy to speculate that a man who was there at the time of the murder, knew Rudi, left shortly after the murder for Albania, and was later convicted of drug dealing might have been involved?

The other idea that Curatolo was al ookout doesn't fly with me because he wouldn't have been able to see much and how would he have communicated with Koko or Rudi?

Being that Hellman's court ruled there was no staged break-in, and if you exclude the calunnia as proof of anything related to the murder, what is it that makes you sure they were involved?

 

[LondonJohn]

I think many of us that have participated in this thread have formed a similar opinion. However there are difficulties with deciding that the side you disagree with in a debate is driven by biases and not facts. How do you make the determination that you aren't the deluded one? When one is deluded part of the delusion is that they aren't deluded and other people are.

I'm sure most of us have thought about this issue to some degree, probably a bit more than most, or we wouldn't be posting in a skeptic forum. In publically debated issues, as LJ suggests, there will always be a contingent of people that will form non-falsifiable contrarian beliefs. A question is whether the RS/AK are guilty crowd have formed those kind of beliefs and as such can they be reasonably discounted as fringe or are there still facts to suggest the possibility that their arguments have some reason behind them. In other words, is it reasonable to group the RS/AK guilters* with the truthers, the birthers and the homeopathy promoters?

I lean to the idea that it is. The simple explanation for the story that has unfolded over the last four years is that people with a a vested interest in promoting a narrative that described a crime that would have been unique in history succeeded in implanting a fantasy in the public's mind and a percentage of the public was going to form an unfalsifiable belief that the fantasy was real regardless of what facts became known. At present there seems to not be a single argument or line of evidence that suggests anything else is going on here.

Machiavelli's post that responded to my question about whether he had changed his mind about any of the evidence in the case provides evidence that this kind of thing has happened. His response was essentially that he had not changed his mind about anything with regard to the case over the years since it became public. This seems like exactly the kind of reasoning that will always drive a portion of the population: "I was right at the beginning and nothing has changed my mind about anything, my intuition has been vindicated and reinforced, I am happy."

There is another difficulty here it seems to me. Even when one forms a view that one side of an argument is driven by biases is it appropriate to mention that in a discussion in this forum. The very existence of this kind of claim can be inflammatory and lead to animosity and thread disruption. Perhaps in the case of the RS/AK threads where there have been thousands of posts some form of discussion about the biases and motivation of the posters is appropriate. And if it isn't, I am sure the moderators will let me know.

*I use the term, guilter, here to refer specifically to people that have a significant interest and knowledge of the case. I mean to exclude people that might think that RS/AK are guilty based on only casually obtained knowledge and might be reasonably open to a change of view if they were more informed.

Thanks for this excellent post - I wanted to respond to it since it was addressing my previous post. Again, I think that the question being addressed is important. In my view, it is totally beyond doubt that Knox and Sollecito should never be (and should never have been) found guilty beyond all doubt (based in human reason) of the murder of Meredith Kercher. We have all the evidence (or lack of evidence) at our disposal, and I believe that any rational thinker can only come to one possible conclusion, based on an analysis of all the evidence and a basic knowledge of criminal law: there is no possible way that Knox or Sollecito should be found guilty of murder in a criminal court.

I think there is more latitude to be given to the second question: are Knox and/or Sollecito factually innocent of the crime. In this instance, I still believe that the evidence points strongly towards the conclusion that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything to do with the murder, but (as Hellmann himself correctly pointed out) that is something that's impossible to prove. I therefore think that it's a vaguely-defensible position to argue that Knox and Sollecito might have participated in Meredith's murder, but that there is insufficient evidence of their participation to warrant convictions.

However, that's a fundamentally flawed argument at a philosophical level of course, since one could theoretically also hold the same belief in the culpability of anyone who had the capability to have been in Perugia on the night of the murder, and who didn't have an unimpeachable alibi. Therefore, an equally valid (or invalid) argument would be that - for example - police interpreter Anna Donnino participated in the murder (provided, of course, that she didn't have a cast-iron alibi for that night).

And this second question forms the basis of the non-falsifiable contrarian beliefs that you allude to in your post. While it's evidently possible to "prove the negative" of the first question (should Knox and/or Sollecito be found guilty of the murder beyond a reasonable doubt?), it's potentially impossible to disprove the second question (are Knox and Sollecito factually culpable of the murder). But, as Bertrand Russell eloquently pointed out in his analogy of the "celestial teapot": at both a philosophical and legal/judicial level, the burden of proof for those making unfalsifiable claims lies wholly upon those making the claims.

In conclusion, my opinion tallies with yours. I think that anyone who is conversant with all the available information who believes that Knox and Sollecito should be convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher is provably wrong, in the same way that proponents of homeopathy or various 9/11 conspiracy theories are provably wrong. Conversely, for anyone who wants to argue that Knox and/or Sollecito were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher, it's wholly incumbent upon those people to prove their hypothesis. It's impossible to disprove it (in the absence of an alibi). Fortunately, the same rules apply in a courtroom.

 

[snook1]

My current position is that Knox and Sollecito are implicated in the murder of Meredith and that there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt about it.

I am almost certain that Hellmann's court acquittal is unjust, but in order to express a judgment in terms of certainty on whether the acquittal is "unjust", or to know what exactly is unjust in it, I have to read the motivations.

I don't know if there can be a glimmer of difference between judgement of "unjust" verdict and convincement of guilt, but I am used to wait for reading before understanding what a verdict really is saying, so in order to focus the points I need to read the motivations.

That's what really bothers me. To say they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt is something that I always thought is impossible. People speculated they may have been involved, the weird behaviour of Amanda Knox (as described my Maresca) was often mentioned as one of the clear signs of their guilt.

I'm not gonna ask what evidence you have in mind only beacuse this topic, as you may say, was discussed many times. However, I find it difficult not to laugh when someone say there is evidence against Knox and Sollecito that implicates them in the murder of Meredith.

We can establish few facts even before Hellmann's motivations are published:

1. There's no DNA evidence placing Knox and Sollecito at the murder room. It was covered hundreds of times, so I'll just say(once again) that there's actually no sign at all of their presence in that particular room (incl all kinds of traces, not only DNA).

2. There's no confession (even though some say there is), there's no motive, there's no murder weapon, there's no witnesses, there was no staged break in -according to Hellmann - so we can carefully assume he will write that the killer didn't enter through the main door using a key which means it wasn't Knox, unless she decided to enter via a window in Filomena's room.

3.There's alot of confusion about the alleged clean up and about the bathmat footprint - meaning there's no agreement whatsoever on both issues. As I can recall both sides presented their experts opinion's on that matters, which were of course completely opposite to each other and it was Massei who believed in the prosecution's experts.

Now, let's move on to the Massei report. In short :
1. Knox and Sollecito's conviction was based on
a) DNA evidence - the knife and the bra clasp(no need to remind that they're out), but also highly disputed mixed traces all over the cottage, I would say controversial even

b) witnesses - Curatolo - where do I start, well, he's out; Nara - she heard some footsteps, but what she actually saw that night? Nothing? Quintavalle - highly unreliable due to several well known reasons; Kokomani - who knows what he actually did that night...;

c) the staged break in, the clean up, the lamp, footprint on the bathmat, the authopsy of Meredith - that's no evidence, all of these were highly disputed during the first trial, there were neverending arguments between the experts about how, why, when and where, no conclusion was ever made beyond reasonable doubt, despite what Massei thinks

And if all of the above isn't enough for a reasonable doubt as to their guilt, then I don't know what is. I get it, you may find it difficult to think they're actually innocent and there's no evidence but to say that there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt is the overestimation of the year.

There's nothing in the prosecution's case, I repeat nothing, that can't be refuted or at least heavily criticized/discussed. There's no smoking gun, there's nothing that proves beyond reasonable doubt their guilt. It's not a matter of an opinion, it's a matter of common sense.

I can understand why Massei found them guilty, they still had the DNA evidence against them. His motivations were terrible, but the knife and the bra clasp made the case stronger. Now, that the Hellmann's court reviewed the two items and found them absolutely unreliable (that's what I think at least) the case lost its strenght and there was nothing the prosecution could do about it, since all the other so called evidence, were not real evidence that could prove beyond reasonable doubt Knox's and Sollecito's involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[el buscador]

mach said: "And still, the issues in her statements go beyond this. Because we have to deal with logical aspects of the case, such as by coincidence how convenient it is, for a suspect, to have no memory or to have two "flexible" memories that could work in both ways. Observe how her memory about Patrick being innocent becomes progressively stronger over the days as the evidence of his alibi becomes stronger (you may compare newspaper article of the time). Note how her hand written note contains accustions against Raffaele which are purposely written: If she actually thought ha had only "fish blood" on his hands, she would not write about it into a paper to be given to the police who are investigating Raffaele for murder; if you are not sure about your memory and think it is nothing just fish blood, you don't create the danger of casting further suspicion on an innocent; while in the same Amanda's writings, several allusions are made to that Sollecito had placed some evidence against her. This kind of "memory problem" is, by coincidence, identical to the memory problems expressed in the blackmailing and threatening by a mobster of an associate suspect, in mafia investigations. "

I get it now. Mach believes that 20 year old Italian girls would act this way, like the mafia blackmailer, if in the same position Amanda found herself in. He believes that Amanda, an American girl, would act the same way, actually understand all this crude coming her way and figure it all out, understand the convoluted Italian mind and just know that mentioning fish blood would what? Incriminate Raffaele? Know that trying to tell them that her memories seemed not true to her would just put her in deeper trouble?

What is it called, that story behind the story that Italians seem so fond of? Well, I think mach is a very good example of this concept.