Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

exactly, she's just a college girl but you act like the entire Italian justice system was out to get her for reasons other than she was the roommate the murdered victim, the murder took place in her house that she had a key to, she had no alibi, and her story didn't add up.

She had the same alibi as Filomena, except that they did not arrest Filomena's alibi like they did Knox's.

Both Knox and Filomena were key holders and both had the same story. All the police needed was one who would buckle and tell the cops what they knew already, so they chose the youngest and the one who did not speak the language.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo,

Please help me understand Dr. T's position on the break-in. Does he think the window is so high that Rudi could climb through? Does he think that Rudi should have gone through the balcony door? I just can't figure out his position because he doesn't state it clearly.

If it was and is impossible to climb that wall and get in that window why would the owner have put bars on it? if the balcony was used for multiple break-ins, why didn't the landlord make that point of entry secure with a barred outer door?

Also, is it the case that if Rudi picked the wrong window that makes someone else guilty?

Has Thoughtful done the math on the odds that the kids would use the same MO as Rudi?

ETA - What prints were found on the lamp? Naturally one would expect Amanda's but just curious.

My understanding of Tesla's position is there is no evidence Rudy broke in through that window: no scuff marks outside, no transfer as per Locard inside. I do declare he has been reading the Book of Grinder.

Thoughtful is too busy explaining why a second test on the knife might prove it was the murder weapon even if any DNA was from house dust.

Although no one has ever seen the results, I was assured by Michael at dot net, before being banned, that such tests had been conducted but it was against that forum's unwritten rules for me to keep on and on asking for a cite and I was deservedly banned for doing so. I think he himself has the test results and keeps them with the bleach receipts.

 

[Grinder]

My understanding of Tesla's position is there is no evidence Rudy broke in through that window: no scuff marks outside, no transfer as per Locard inside. I do declare he has been reading the Book of Grinder.

Very doubtful he has read it. The Book of Grinder leans towards Rudi breaking the window but not necessarily entering through it.

Thoughtful is too busy explaining why a second test on the knife might prove it was the murder weapon even if any DNA was from house dust.

Please ask her what the odds the kids would use Rudi's MO would be.

Although no one has ever seen the results, I was assured by Michael at dot net, before being banned, that such tests had been conducted but it was against that forum's unwritten rules for me to keep on and on asking for a cite and I was deservedly banned for doing so. I think he himself has the test results and keeps them with the bleach receipts.

Pity

 

[GWCarver]

Very doubtful he has read it. The Book of Grinder leans towards Rudi breaking the window but not necessarily entering through it.



Please ask her what the odds the kids would use Rudi's MO would be.



Pity

I just can't picture Guede going outside and throwing a rock through the window. It would make it look like he was the one who broke in based on his recent run-ins with the police. And I really can't picture him going outside and bringing a rock inside to fake a break-in, again making it look like he was the one who was there if it successfully fooled the police.

edited to add: If he was going to stage a break-in, I think a burglar would know it was too dangerous to make a loud noise inside, not knowing if anyone was near and might hear it. I think he would instinctively go outside if he were inclined to throw a rock though the window, so he could run if the noise drew attention.

 

[Grinder]

I just can't picture Guede going outside and throwing a rock through the window. It would make it look like he was the one who broke in based on his recent run-ins with the police. And I really can't picture him going outside and bringing a rock inside to fake a break-in, again making it look like he was the one who was there if it successfully fooled the police.

My highest probability is that he threw the rock from the outside and then waited to see if someone was inside. He may have already checked by knocking. In the meantime Meredith came home, didn't notice the window because the shutter was open obscuring the window pane and he entered with her or knocked a little later and she let him in.

It seems clear to me that people there don't call the police, except when a bomb hoax is called in, as neither of the women that allege they heard the scream ever contacted the police on their own. People here don't call in alarms for cars or houses and if one heard the sound of breaking glass I doubt they would do anything unless they saw it.

One wonders why there is no issue for the PGP in that the ear witnesses never reported hearing the sound of breaking glass. Nara heard footsteps but not the breaking glass.

People seem to ignore no matter what time the window was broken it would make noise even if the rock was only thrown a few feet. The PGP claim that the window was broken after 11:30 pm yet in the quiet of the night no one heard it.

OT - the PGP (at least one) are still yapping about the PP surprising them even though they had called Filomena and she arrived shortly after the PP.

 

[Rolfe]

It's my understanding that one of the first things that needs to be done at a crime scene is to take the temperature of the body and not having the temperature makes the range of TOD wider, is this correct?

Was a good explanation ever given as to why the temperature was never taken of Meredith's body?

As I understand it, two serious mistakes were made. First, the temperature wasn't taken until a ridiculously long time after the discovery of the body, apparently because of exaggerated concerns about disturbing the crime scene. The longer you wait, the less accurate the estimate, of course.

Second, I understand the body was not weighed. This is an absolutely fundamental error. The very first thing you do with any post mortem is weigh the body. It's a black mark on your audit sheet if you don't. On one or two absent-minded occasions I've had to fish a pile of bloody bits out of the bin and weight them piecemeal - and that's in cases where it actually didn't matter very much. It's something you simply don't omit. But they did. You can't get an accurate estimate of time since death from core body temperature unless you have the correct weight.

However, the alimentary tract contents fortuitously allow time of death to be estimated within a fairly narrow window. If only the lawyers had the foggiest idea what they were talking about. Which they don't, and that includes Hellmann in this respect.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

As I understand it, two serious mistakes were made. First, the temperature wasn't taken until a ridiculously long time after the discovery of the body, apparently because of exaggerated concerns about disturbing the crime scene. The longer you wait, the less accurate the estimate, of course.

Second, I understand the body was not weighed. This is an absolutely fundamental error. The very first thing you do with any post mortem is weigh the body. It's a black mark on your audit sheet if you don't. On one or two absent-minded occasions I've had to fish a pile of bloody bits out of the bin and weight them piecemeal - and that's in cases where it actually didn't matter very much. It's something you simply don't omit. But they did. You can't get an accurate estimate of time since death from core body temperature unless you have the correct weight.

However, the alimentary tract contents fortuitously allow time of death to be estimated within a fairly narrow window. If only the lawyers had the foggiest idea what they were talking about. Which they don't, and that includes Hellmann in this respect.

Rolfe.

Sheesh! I've got Leila beating the crap out of the lawyers over at IIP and now Rolfe doing the same here. LOL. And this from a vet whose work is so slovenly she has to go rifling through the bins like a shambling hobo to pile up offal on the scales

Did they weigh our victim? I had better go check that. I guess the greater the weight the slower the heat loss. But didn't the duvet (comforter) already screw everything up by retaining heat?

 

[Grinder]

Rolfe you should write a book TOD on Trial, featuring the Amanda Knox case and after publishing use the appeal trial to publicize the book.

I'm sure no PGP will accuse you of exploiting the death of Meredith as the precedent as been established.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Rolfe you should write a book TOD on Trial, featuring the Amanda Knox case and after publishing use the appeal trial to publicize the book.

I'm sure no PGP will accuse you of exploiting the death of Meredith as the precedent as been established.

Want to bet on that.

 

[bri1]

it wasn't a false confession. She didn't admit to the murder, only being at the cottage while the murder took place. It was a false accusation, of her boss, which she never retracted even as he sat in prison for 14 days.

DrTesla, if you think that you are 'slicing and dicing' arguments for innocence, I'm afraid you're wrong. You'll have to actually advance an argument to do that. This would be an excellent place to start. Why exactly is Saul Kassin's work (which I assume you've read, seeing as how you have such an emphatic position and all) on internalised false statements not reflected in Amanda's situation?
Semantics isn't going to help here. The phenomenon of 'false confession' just as often involves confession to some involvement plus false accusation, such as in the Central Park 5 case, which Saul Kassin definitely thinks is a case of a coerced false confession.
I think you also need to be aware of some of the conventions of intellectual debate, if you want to be able to 'slice and dice' our arguments.
Citations: if you make a statement of fact, you have to be able to back it up with a citation to a reliable source. If you can't then any argument premised on that statement of 'fact' automatically fails, or can only be stated as a hypothetical 'If it was the case that X, then Y follows'.
Argument, objection, response: If you make some argument, and someone objects, then it's your turn to respond to the objection. If your response does not address the issue identified in the objection, then the objection stands. You haven't won the argument.
Dismissing scientific and academic work: If you don't believe that Kassin's work has relevance to Amanda's situation, then you have to specify why not, as a great deal of people, including Kassin himself, think that it does, that there are enough points of similarity between the classic case of internalised false confession and Amanda's statements and situation to confirm the classification. Alternatively, you could critique Kassin's methodology or data. But otherwise, the classification of Amanda's statements as an internalised false confession stand. You can't just say it's not, providing no arguments.

I know these can be difficult to grasp if you haven't finished compulsory education or studied at University level or beyond, so I just thought I'd try and help out a bit.

 

[anglolawyer]

DrTesla, if you think that you are 'slicing and dicing' arguments for innocence, I'm afraid you're wrong. You'll have to actually advance an argument to do that. This would be an excellent place to start. Why exactly is Saul Kassin's work (which I assume you've read, seeing as how you have such an emphatic position and all) on internalised false statements not reflected in Amanda's situation?
Semantics isn't going to help here. The phenomenon of 'false confession' just as often involves confession to some involvement plus false accusation, such as in the Central Park 5 case, which Saul Kassin definitely thinks is a case of a coerced false confession.
I think you also need to be aware of some of the conventions of intellectual debate, if you want to be able to 'slice and dice' our arguments.
Citations: if you make a statement of fact, you have to be able to back it up with a citation to a reliable source. If you can't then any argument premised on that statement of 'fact' automatically fails, or can only be stated as a hypothetical 'If it was the case that X, then Y follows'.
Argument, objection, response: If you make some argument, and someone objects, then it's your turn to respond to the objection. If your response does not address the issue identified in the objection, then the objection stands. You haven't won the argument.
Dismissing scientific and academic work: If you don't believe that Kassin's work has relevance to Amanda's situation, then you have to specify why not, as a great deal of people, including Kassin himself, think that it does, that there are enough points of similarity between the classic case of internalised false confession and Amanda's statements and situation to confirm the classification. Alternatively, you could critique Kassin's methodology or data. But otherwise, the classification of Amanda's statements as an internalised false confession stand. You can't just say it's not, providing no arguments.

I know these can be difficult to grasp if you haven't finished compulsory education or studied at University level or beyond, so I just thought I'd try and help out a bit.

Another superior Brit. Welcome!

 

[Kestrel]

Sheesh! I've got Leila beating the crap out of the lawyers over at IIP and now Rolfe doing the same here. LOL. And this from a vet whose work is so slovenly she has to go rifling through the bins like a shambling hobo to pile up offal on the scales

Did they weigh our victim? I had better go check that. I guess the greater the weight the slower the heat loss. But didn't the duvet (comforter) already screw everything up by retaining heat?

For those that are interested, here is a Java applet for estimating time of death.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe you should write a book TOD on Trial, featuring the Amanda Knox case and after publishing use the appeal trial to publicize the book.

I'm sure no PGP will accuse you of exploiting the death of Meredith as the precedent as been established.

Sorry, I'm already spoken for. I'm writing a book called Adequately Explained by Stupidity?, currently at 28,500 words and counting. I have a pressing reason to want to see it published before 21st December 2013.

And sorry, but lawyers are not coming out well in that either.

Hey, why settle for exploiting one death when you can be accused of exploiting 270?

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

For those that are interested, here is a Java applet for estimating time of death.

Way too complicated. I'm a lawyer. I did read though (just now) that her weight was estimated at 50kg while in situ. I am guessing that method won't pass muster with Rolfe for some stupid technical reason.

 

[anglolawyer]

Sorry, I'm already spoken for. I'm writing a book called Adequately Explained by Stupidity?, currently at 28,500 words and counting. I have a pressing reason to want to see it published before 21st December 2013.

And sorry, but lawyers are not coming out well in that either.

Hey, why settle for exploiting one death when you can be accused of exploiting 270?

Rolfe.

25th anniversary? Let us know when it hits the bookstalls. What's your address for service just in case it turns out you've gone too far.

 

[Rolfe]

Way too complicated. I'm a lawyer. I did read though (just now) that her weight was estimated at 50kg while in situ. I am guessing that method won't pass muster with Rolfe for some stupid technical reason.

You mean the stupid technical reason that no actual weighing device was used? Yes, that's the one.

25th anniversary? Let us know when it hits the bookstalls. What's your address for service just in case it turns out you've gone too far.

1. Wrong jurisdiction.
2. I've already got 3 QCs on my side.

Rolfe.

 

[DrTesla]

Your impression is wrong in my opinion. I think most people here formed an opinion of guilt and that changed as they looked at the evidence. Even if the lone wolf theory were wrong (I don't believe it is) that wouldn't constitute evidence against Knox or Sollecito.

Any luck with the many important points on which you have been shown to be wrong? Like the time of her arrival home? I don't mean to laugh but it's not surprising you reject an early TOD when you still have her some way from home when a proper view of the evidence shows she was already dead. And I'm sorry to be a superior Brit but if you take that chip off your shoulder, whatever you do, don't bet it on the lamp.

I love how you admit the lamp is compelling evidence (to show you are reasonable) but then you just pretend like it doesn't exist and continue to say Knox is innocent. You don't even try to reconcile the lamp being there. You are so haughty but you don't back it up with any logic. you ignore all my points about the illogicality of rudy accessing the cottage via that high window and the fact there was ZERO evidence of him outside the cottage or inside that room. You'd think he would have left some trace of himself if he made the climb not just once but twice.

you also haven't make a plausible counter to my argument that it must have been more than 1 attacker.

 

[DrTesla]

DrTesla, if you think that you are 'slicing and dicing' arguments for innocence, I'm afraid you're wrong. You'll have to actually advance an argument to do that. This would be an excellent place to start. Why exactly is Saul Kassin's work (which I assume you've read, seeing as how you have such an emphatic position and all) on internalised false statements not reflected in Amanda's situation?
Semantics isn't going to help here. The phenomenon of 'false confession' just as often involves confession to some involvement plus false accusation, such as in the Central Park 5 case, which Saul Kassin definitely thinks is a case of a coerced false confession.
I think you also need to be aware of some of the conventions of intellectual debate, if you want to be able to 'slice and dice' our arguments.
Citations: if you make a statement of fact, you have to be able to back it up with a citation to a reliable source. If you can't then any argument premised on that statement of 'fact' automatically fails, or can only be stated as a hypothetical 'If it was the case that X, then Y follows'.
Argument, objection, response: If you make some argument, and someone objects, then it's your turn to respond to the objection. If your response does not address the issue identified in the objection, then the objection stands. You haven't won the argument.
Dismissing scientific and academic work: If you don't believe that Kassin's work has relevance to Amanda's situation, then you have to specify why not, as a great deal of people, including Kassin himself, think that it does, that there are enough points of similarity between the classic case of internalised false confession and Amanda's statements and situation to confirm the classification. Alternatively, you could critique Kassin's methodology or data. But otherwise, the classification of Amanda's statements as an internalised false confession stand. You can't just say it's not, providing no arguments.

I know these can be difficult to grasp if you haven't finished compulsory education or studied at University level or beyond, so I just thought I'd try and help out a bit.

Saul Kassin is a bubble gum psychologist. there is no evidence of a false confession in this case. there is no reason why the police would want to frame some bimbo college girl or want to accuse Patrick, who they didn't even know. you keep talking about logic while being very illogical and believing everything Knox says no matter how nutty.

 

[bri1]

Another superior Brit. Welcome!

Thanks Anglo! I have a superiority complex, and an inferiority complex about my superiority complex
I can't stand it when people think they win an argument or debate simply because they don't understand the rules. But it's almost impossible to know where to begin sometimes!

 

[anglolawyer]

I love how you admit the lamp is compelling evidence (to show you are reasonable) but then you just pretend like it doesn't exist and continue to say Knox is innocent. You don't even try to reconcile the lamp being there. You are so haughty but you don't back it up with any logic. you ignore all my points about the illogicality of rudy accessing the cottage via that high window and the fact there was ZERO evidence of him outside the cottage or inside that room. You'd think he would have left some trace of himself if he made the climb not just once but twice.

you also haven't make a plausible counter to my argument that it must have been more than 1 attacker.

I found this article about the lamp by another superior English dude. Tell me what you make of it.

I don't remember your argument about there being more than one attacker.