• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dougm said:
There is an honesty here, but so what? This is also someone who said they read the Massei report and found it to make sense. Because their "gut" told them AK was guilty.

I hope to never be judged on such a basis. Speaking for myself, I read the Massei report, at a time when I expected to find some evidence that they were guilty, and there was nothing.
Click to expand...
Exact same thing happened here. Really thought I was going to be swept off my feet by Massei. Instead, I found the report shockingly without substance.
 
Last edited:
Dougm said:
There is an honesty here, but so what? This is also someone who said they read the Massei report and found it to make sense. Because their "gut" told them AK was guilty.

I hope to never be judged on such a basis. Speaking for myself, I read the Massei report, at a time when I expected to find some evidence that they were guilty, and there was nothing.
Click to expand...

smkovalinksy said:
Exact same thing happened here. Really thought I was going to be swept off my feet by Massei. Instead, it was shockingly without substance.
Click to expand...
I can handle open honesty.

I would not be able to handle being charged with a crime, found guilty, and find out that the jury had found so because of my astrological sign, or only on the fact (and it is a fact) that I am in person a very nasty person.

Massei's report "makes sense" if you come to it certain of guilt. It connects dots. You'd go "aha" at the connections.

Coming to it with a presumption of innocence is what's the problem.

To be fair, the conviction is judged by the standard of presumption of innocence, not the motivations report. I mean, if you've found someone guilty, you're not going to give them the benefit of reasonable doubt by the time of the motivations' report. Are you?

Still, the best way to believe the motivations' report is not to read it. I mean that. That's my gut feeling. Seriously.
 
Bill Williams said:
I can handle open honesty.

I would not be able to handle being charged with a crime, found guilty, and find out that the jury had found so because of my astrological sign, or only on the fact (and it is a fact) that I am in person a very nasty person.

Massei's report "makes sense" if you come to it certain of guilt. It connects dots. You'd go "aha" at the connections.

Coming to it with a presumption of innocence is what's the problem.

To be fair, the conviction is judged by the standard of presumption of innocence, not the motivations report. I mean, if you've found someone guilty, you're not going to give them the benefit of reasonable doubt by the time of the motivations' report. Are you?

Still, the best way to believe the motivations' report is not to read it. I mean that. That's my gut feeling. Seriously.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I don't understand your logic. Massei's report makes sense if you come to it certain of guilt? That is the same thing as saying someone writing a report that says the sky is yellow, and giving illogical proof points for this, that it makes sense if I already thought the sky was yellow.

If I came to the report assuming they were guilty, and I read that report, and Massei used the evidence points and subsequent conclusions that he used, I would change my mind. It would not "make sense" to me just because I had come to a conclusion beforehand.
 
Miscarriages of justice (and alleged miscarriages of justice) have been an intellectual interest of mine for some years. I have developed a rule of thumb which basically says that in a high profile case with no immediate suspects, the police can pretty much be relied upon to go after the wrong target first off. I followed this case from pretty much the beginning in the British media and got such a whiff of police skullduggery from the start, that I didn't just presume innocence (of Amanda & Raffaele), I assumed it.
 
Dougm said:
With all due respect, I don't understand your logic. Massei's report makes sense if you come to it certain of guilt? That is the same thing as saying someone writing a report that says the sky is yellow, and giving illogical proof points for this, that it makes sense if I already thought the sky was yellow.

If I came to the report assuming they were guilty, and I read that report, and Massei used the evidence points and subsequent conclusions that he used, I would change my mind. It would not "make sense" to me just because I had come to a conclusion beforehand.
Click to expand...

I agree. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool guilter should be able to see what's wrong with a judge saying something like this: "If there had not been such a scream, and Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it."
 
And that proves who screamed, or at what time she heard it (or even on what day) exactly how?

Rolfe.
 
Dougm said:
With all due respect, I don't understand your logic.
Click to expand...
I do. See, I told you I was a nasty person!


Dougm said:
Massei's report makes sense if you come to it certain of guilt? That is the same thing as saying someone writing a report that says the sky is yellow, and giving illogical proof points for this, that it makes sense if I already thought the sky was yellow.
Click to expand...
Yup. I'm not sure it's called "confirmation bias", but that sounds like a term which might be applied here.

Dougm said:
If I came to the report assuming they were guilty, and I read that report, and Massei used the evidence points and subsequent conclusions that he used, I would change my mind. It would not "make sense" to me just because I had come to a conclusion beforehand.
Click to expand...
I guess this is what is meant by "your mileage may vary."

If I'd read the Massei report befor the summer of 2011, I would have probably had my (then) guilter point of view confirmed. I may have come away wondering how AK could have done both a sloppy clean (one thing Massei says) as well as a professional, targeted-to-the-DNA-level masterful clean of the crime-scene. That would have been "thin reasoning" on his part, but there'd be the other stuff.

I may have spotted that at one time Massei claims a phone call to RS's phone which was on a tower close to the crime scene, then uses that same tower to confirm calls taken at RS's place. (That was posted elsewhere recently.)

I'd have put it down to sloppiness or some such thing. I'm not saying I'd be right, but once the Hellman stuff is out there in public, that's really the body of evidence that puts the kibosh on Massei.

But for me, it's only because of that later body of evidence can I appreicate how far Massei has to stretch to make his narrative sound plausible. And, for me, it is only then that it stretches to the point of absurdity on keys issues.

That's how my mileage varies.
 
Last edited:
I just came in when I read a post about the post mortem findings on the stomach and duodenal contents, in the context of Massei saying Meredith died at 11.40. Since that was obviously impossible, I got a bit interested.

Rolfe.
 
I'm with Bill here. Massei is quite cleverly written. It has serious flaws, but it's not too hard to be swept along by it. It's only when you go back and check things critically and carefully that you discover the improbabilities.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
And that proves who screamed, or at what time she heard it (or even on what day) exactly how?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Come on, Rolfe! Nara said it. Why would she have said it if it wasn't true? :D

I am now going to say that it is my birthright that everyone on JREF needs to send me $100 right now! I said it. Why would I say that if it were not true, right?
 
Bill Williams said:
I do. See, I told you I was a nasty person!
Click to expand...
I enjoyed reading how you understand your own logic! Funny! :)


But for me, it's only because of that later body of evidence can I appreicate how far Massei has to stretch to make his narrative sound plausible. And, for me, it is only then that it stretches to the point of absurdity on keys issues.

That's how my mileage varies.
Click to expand...

Of course, we all think in different ways. The way I approached the case (around the time after the Massei report and before the appeal started), I did not want to be influenced by people who had already made up their mind. I assumed guilt on a mild level, just because I feel it is rare that people are arrested for no reason -- they might not be guilty, but there is almost always reason to suspect them. So I was assuming there was some evidence against them, and wanted to see how convincing it was.

So I read Massei as one of the first things, because the websites and articles all had some point of view or spin. I thought a good place to start would be the reasoning that a real judge used to convict them. So I read Massei, not really assuming they were guilty for sure, but assuming there was, as you are saying, some logical narrative that they at least might be guilty.

Contrary to what you are saying, it was Massei that began to convince me they were not guilty. The judges consistent acceptance of each prosecution contention, and consistent dismissal of each defense contention, was illogical. I would read each point of evidence, and the farther I got, the more I was thinking "OK, where is the stuff that proves they are guilty?" And I was increasingly disturbed that each decision on each evidence point was more illogical than the last.

I didn't know these people, and if the judge had made an argument that made sense to me, I would have thought, "oh, I get it now". But Massei kept telling me that, if I looked at the sky through a dirty window while half asleep standing on my head at 6 a.m., the sky was indeed yellow. After reading the whole thing, not only was I not accepting the conclusion of the court, but I thought that the evidence they had used was completely inconclusive, and this was before reading any of the explanations on IIP or anywhere else advocating innocence. Massei just did not make sense to me.

I think that Hellmann had the same experience, and that is why the appeal went as it did. Although the case can be confusing if you only read periferal coverage, reading Massei was, to me, something that convinced me something was very wrong here.
 
geebee2 said:
I'm with Bill here. Massei is quite cleverly written. It has serious flaws, but it's not too hard to be swept along by it. It's only when you go back and check things critically and carefully that you discover the improbabilities.
Click to expand...

Which parts did you find to be cleverly written? I haven't read it in awhile, but I still remember some of the gems of logic from it:

* The aforementioned "why would Nara Capazellil have said she heard a scream if it didn't happen, so that proves it's true"
* "the police have no motive to lie or present a certain version of the story", so any contention that their points might be wrong should be dismissed
* "it is possible, therefore probable, that Raffaele wanted Amanda to be safe walking around Perugia, so he gave her the large kitchen knife and she carried it around in her handbag". There was zero evidence of any kind that this happened, Massei completely made it up.
* The "they smoked pot, so it is likely they took harder drugs, got violent, and had group, violent sex, with someone they barely knew, and killed Meredith"
* The, Rudy Guede would not have broken into the upstairs flat, because he had met Amanda and Meredith once, so he "had a good relationship of friendship and fun" with them. :jaw-dropp

These are just a few. When I finished that report, knowing little about the case, I thought, "REALLY???"

The above quotes are not exact, just paraphrases of the ideas that I remember.

I think anyone reading this report critically would not accept such contentions as the ones listed above, especially because Massei used these, and others equally as specious, to add up to the guilty verdict.
 
DougM said:
So I read Massei as one of the first things, because the websites and articles all had some point of view or spin. I thought a good place to start would be the reasoning that a real judge used to convict them. So I read Massei, not really assuming they were guilty for sure, but assuming there was, as you are saying, some logical narrative that they at least might be guilty.

Contrary to what you are saying, it was Massei that began to convince me they were not guilty. The judges consistent acceptance of each prosecution contention, and consistent dismissal of each defense contention, was illogical. I would read each point of evidence, and the farther I got, the more I was thinking "OK, where is the stuff that proves they are guilty?" And I was increasingly disturbed that each decision on each evidence point was more illogical than the last.
Click to expand...
I wish I could say that I came to Massei's motivation report BEFORE assuming innocence. By that I mean, that by the time I got to Massei it was not just a matter of a reasonable doubt, I read Massei through the eyes of someone completely convinced of innocence. (A guilter would have a field day with that admission! Sue me.)

But by the time I got there, I was already noticing a pattern in the logic of guilt. Mostly it was in the TJMK site, but also by reading Nadeau and some of the pro-guilt people on the IIP site.

Mainly the line or reasoning went like this. Suppose A is true. And suppose B is true. Then that would mean that C is true.

Then they'd waltz off convinced that they'd proven C. No reference at all that A + B were suppositions to begin with. Then C would be cited as a fact somewhere, and AK and RS were saddled with the most uncharitable of character traits as a result.

I went to Massei out of desperation - most certainly Massei would not do this, Suppose A + Suppose B = The Certainty of C logic.

But he did. The issue of the clean up is an example. Even Massei admits there is no evidence either of a clean-up, or even evidence that a clean-itself was purposely masked. Yet he basically says, "A clean-up of forensicly important envidence MUST have taken place, or else there'd be bloody footprints belonging to Guede between MK's room and the bathroom where the bloody-footprint-bathmat is."

He then says he has to choose between AK doing a sloppy clean-up and AK doing a masterful clean-up. Why he puts it that way, I'll never know. Then he basically says that he's forced to choose a masterful clean, because he'd otherwise be at a loss to explain the overall scene.

It would have been better to simply admit to being at a loss to understand things. Except that he's writing a motivations report to explain why they came to the guilty conclusion!, so he has to at least make a go of connecting disparate dots.

DougM said:
After reading the whole thing, not only was I not accepting the conclusion of the court, but I thought that the evidence they had used was completely inconclusive, and this was before reading any of the explanations on IIP or anywhere else advocating innocence. Massei just did not make sense to me.

I think that Hellmann had the same experience, and that is why the appeal went as it did. Although the case can be confusing if you only read periferal coverage, reading Massei was, to me, something that convinced me something was very wrong here.
Click to expand...
Me too, after reading Massei I thought he gave a completely inconclusive account of the evidence supporting guilt. I didn't think of this on my own, but I am a little convinced that Massei PURPOSELY wrote the report the way he did, so that it would be overturned. I have no way of proving that, and it is a little wacky to suggest it, it's just one of those gut feelings we love to criticize others for having! Again, sue me.

I admit to personal confusion in comparing the TJMK site to the IIP site. There's too much attempt at oneupmanship both ways.

Massei is a good document in the sense that at best it establishes that there's not much there. Geez-Louise, RS going to jail because of one bit of DNA on a bra-clasp when this murder was a war-zone? And that bra-clasp was collected six weeks after the murder!?!?!?!?!

Did Massei sleep through the class the day they taught law at law school?
 
Last edited:
Dougm said:
I continue to be amazed that there are a set of people (dwindling in number) who think that although Knox is evil incarnate for what she said about Lumumba, he is allowed to say whatever slanderous things he wants about her, repeatedly. He is charging her with a murder that she did not commit, sound familiar? :eek:
Click to expand...

This is true. In fact, I've come up with a fun new way to build a case that shows that Patrick is the one who committed calunnia against Amanda, not vice versa.

Premises

1. It is doubtful Amanda Knox wrote the statements she signed during the interrogations. Without recordings, we will never know whether she actually did accuse Patrick Lumumba at all; there is no solid proof.

  • November 6, 2007, 1:45 AM: Amanda signs a statement that implicates Patrick in the crime. The statement is written in Italian and uses expressions an American would not use, such as, "One of these people is Patrik, a colored citizen who is about 1,70-1,75 cm tall, with braids, owner of the pub “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi." The statement also shows confusion and a lack of commitment, "I vaguely remember that he killed her."
  • 5:45 AM: Amanda signs an additional statement, using a suspiciously uncharacteristic phrase, "I wish to relate spontaneously what happened," and going on to say, "because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi where I work periodically..." The statement is self-contradictory, because she also mentions having spoken to Patrick without fear in town the day of the interrogation.
2. Patrick Lumumba was arrested approximately six hours before Amanda Knox was arrested. After his release, Lumumba claimed to have been beaten and coerced by the police during the intervening six hours. Without recordings, we will never know what he said to the police to protect himself.
  • Approximately 6:30 AM: Perugian police arrest Patrick Lumumba
  • Approximately 12-1:00 PM: Perugian police arrest Amanda
3. In his interview with the Daily Mail, Patrick expressed a lot of hard feelings against Amanda.
  • November 25, 2007: The Daily Mail features an interview with Patrick Lumumba, in which he describes Amanda Knox as a person without a soul, dead inside, an actress, a liar, jealous, flirtatious, troublesome, cold, two-timing, lazy, hyperactive and flighty, among many other negative characterizations. Lumumba claims to have fired Amanda Knox shortly before the murder took place because of her poor job performance.
  • Lumumba also claims that when he was arrested by police the morning of November 6, 2007, the police brutalized him and tried to force him to confess to a crime he didn't commit, one that Amanda Knox had reportedly accused him of.
4. Amanda testified that she liked Patrick and had no hard feelings against him.
  • June 12-13, 2009: During Amanda's trial testimony, Patrick Lumumba's lawyer, Carlo Pacelli asks Amanda, "What were your relations with Mr. Patrick?" Amanda responds, "I like Patrick a lot."
  • She further testifies that Patrick treated her with respect, that she got along well with him and she was not afraid of him.
5. Patrick Lumumba was released after two weeks. Amanda Knox was ordered to trial, and to wait for it in prison for over a year.

Conclusion

It is entirely possible that after his arrest, Patrick Lumumba accused Amanda Knox of being the killer, resulting in her arrest and imprisonment. He had motivation to accuse her; she had no motivation to accuse him. The idea that he was released because of his alibi is open to question, because they held him for several days after the alibi was validated. Maybe Patrick made a deal. That would explain why he was hanging around with around with the prosecutors during the appeal.

I mean, Mignini must have gotten the idea that Amanda was the killer from somewhere or SOMEONE, right? :p
 
Dougm said:
Which parts did you find to be cleverly written? I haven't read it in awhile, but I still remember some of the gems of logic from it:

* The aforementioned "why would Nara Capazellil have said she heard a scream if it didn't happen, so that proves it's true"
* "the police have no motive to lie or present a certain version of the story", so any contention that their points might be wrong should be dismissed
* "it is possible, therefore probable, that Raffaele wanted Amanda to be safe walking around Perugia, so he gave her the large kitchen knife and she carried it around in her handbag". There was zero evidence of any kind that this happened, Massei completely made it up.
* The "they smoked pot, so it is likely they took harder drugs, got violent, and had group, violent sex, with someone they barely knew, and killed Meredith"
* The, Rudy Guede would not have broken into the upstairs flat, because he had met Amanda and Meredith once, so he "had a good relationship of friendship and fun" with them. :jaw-dropp

These are just a few. When I finished that report, knowing little about the case, I thought, "REALLY???"

The above quotes are not exact, just paraphrases of the ideas that I remember.

I think anyone reading this report critically would not accept such contentions as the ones listed above, especially because Massei used these, and others equally as specious, to add up to the guilty verdict.
Click to expand...
What nailed it for me, I mean, really, really killed any respect I had for Massei or for the prosecution, was the end part of the Motivation, where he said that ;

Raffaele and Amanda, hearing Guede begin to rape Meredith in the next room, simply "could not resist" joining in, "this new experience had to be tried." Yeah, right. All of us would be tempted if we heard our room mate being raped. I mean, it is just soooo tempting......:boggled:
 
Last edited:
smkovalinksy said:
What nailed it for me, I mean, really, really killed any respect I had for Massei or for the prosecution, was the end part of the Motivation, where he said that ;

Raffaele and Amanda, hearing Guede begin to rape Meredith in the next room, simply "could not resist" joining in, "this new experience had to be tried." Yeah, right. All of us would be tempted if we heard our room mate being raped. I mean, it is just soooo tempting......:boggled:
Click to expand...
This is a remarkable statement.... it actually speaks to motive. Massei is saying he has a motive here, ie. bizarre, sick sado-sexual thrills.

Yes, AK wrote about something sordid in an on-line source. But, really, is this to be believed as a motive? Even in Massei's scenario?

Against someone who'd they had known a short time, and AK had known each other a week, and if Massei is to be believed, the two of them had known RG a couple of hours if that?

Really?
 
pilot padron said:
ETA:
Please address all outcries of dissent and the inevitable, endless, mindless atta boys about the dissent, directly either to Mr Lumumba and/or Dr Covington.
Messengers who do little more than to transmit what you prefer not to hear should not be shot. (again)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be eager to defend the people you cite either, but if you make an argument using them to bolster your point, you are not just a messenger. You have to defend them or come up with something better.

But for you, let me address this directly to them, instead of you. Patrick, you are a money grubbing lying liar. Dr. Covington, you are an arrogant, unprofessional, unethical quack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom