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

[Mary_H]

Not at all. Some forensic points are better than others, that's all. There are monster reasons why the knife is not the murder weapon and there are some not so good ones. What do you want, that someone makes a weak point and everyone else claps and cheers? Harsh reality intrudes on that idea.

Personally, I think the argument that the defendants would not have taken the knife home and used it for cooking is an extremely strong argument, particularly in light of the subjective nature of the prosecution's allegations. When they claim to have knowledge of human nature to the extent that they "know" women kill each other over jealousy and cover dead bodies with blankets, they are revealing that they think about the case and human behavior in very personal ways. Rather than show them the science, which obviously goes right over their heads, the defense would have done well to point out that nobody but a cannibal uses a murder weapon to cook with. It might have made an impact.

And yet that is how it has been treated in all the hearings so far, as a serious piece of evidence, and by both prosecution and defence. Don't get me wrong, I am on the extreme wing of the party in believing the knife is the product of corruption, but that's a hard and risky case to make and if there is a bunch of good points short of that that knock the knife out then great, just winnow out the lousy ones, like Hellman's about the improbability of them using the knife to cut bread or acbytesla's idea that no one was ever killed with two knives before.

Yes, I know that is how it has been treated, but that has been the problem all along -- people have been taking ridiculous things seriously. That the defense did not feel they could ridicule the ridiculous speaks to many possible deficiencies of the system, including incompetence, fear of authority, or expectations that first trials should end in convictions.

 

[acbytesla]

I wanted something contemporary.

LOL... Very...very funny.

So, I've been thinking of the Italian's motive on this case. Some people have been saying it's about getting even for the Cavalese cable car disaster when a US jet fighter screwed up and clipped a Gondola cable sending 20 Italians to their deaths.

Me, I think it is revenge for Sacco and Vanzetti.

 

[acbytesla]

Personally, I think the argument that the defendants would not have taken the knife home and used it for cooking is an extremely strong argument, particularly in light of the subjective nature of the prosecution's allegations. When they claim to have knowledge of human nature to the extent that they "know" women kill each other over jealousy and cover dead bodies with blankets, they are revealing that they think about the case and human behavior in very personal ways. Rather than show them the science, which obviously goes right over their heads, the defense would have done well to point out that nobody but a cannibal uses a murder weapon to cook with. It might have made an impact.



Yes, I know that is how it has been treated, but that has been the problem all along -- people have been taking ridiculous things seriously. That the defense did not feel they could ridicule the ridiculous speaks to many possible deficiencies of the system, including incompetence, fear of authority, or expectations that first trials should end in convictions.

On this I wholeheartedly agree.....at least I'd agree if this case was in the UK or the US. I've seen the way Gerry Spence would work the case. Down homespun humor pointing out the absurdities as they come up. Get the jury to like you while you totally humiliate your opposition. But I think the problem in Italy are the Professional judges. Would they resent this approach and derail it in the jury room?

 

[anglolawyer]

Personally, I think the argument that the defendants would not have taken the knife home and used it for cooking is an extremely strong argument, particularly in light of the subjective nature of the prosecution's allegations. When they claim to have knowledge of human nature to the extent that they "know" women kill each other over jealousy and cover dead bodies with blankets, they are revealing that they think about the case and human behavior in very personal ways. Rather than show them the science, which obviously goes right over their heads, the defense would have done well to point out that nobody but a cannibal uses a murder weapon to cook with. It might have made an impact.



Yes, I know that is how it has been treated, but that has been the problem all along -- people have been taking ridiculous things seriously. That the defense did not feel they could ridicule the ridiculous speaks to many possible deficiencies of the system, including incompetence, fear of authority, or expectations that first trials should end in convictions.

Amen to that.

 

[Mary_H]

Amen to that.

I know. There's not much new that can be said about this farce.

 

[anglolawyer]

I know. There's not much new that can be said about this farce.

Defence strategy is an important topic and there seems to have been a great deal of restraint in calling people out. In hindsight, that doesn't seem to have worked out too well but, for all we know, it could have been worse if they had come right out calling everybody liars. Even Hellman joins in saying Stefanoni had an 'understandable lapse of memory' about which equipment she used. As a consequence we have Mach prating about the supposedly key fact that no one called Quintavalle was a liar as if that shores him up (which, to a small extent, if does).

The cat's out of the bag now though, since Amanda does accuse police witnesses of flat out lying in her book. I am leaning towards Grinder's strategy of treating Florence as a prelude to extradition: flinging accusations of corruption and incompetence around (where appropriate) and making wide-ranging requests for discovery, daring the court to refuse. That's fine for Amanda, (relatively) safely ensconced in the US, but maybe not so good for Raffaele.

 

[Mary_H]

Defence strategy is an important topic and there seems to have been a great deal of restraint in calling people out. In hindsight, that doesn't seem to have worked out too well but, for all we know, it could have been worse if they had come right out calling everybody liars. Even Hellman joins in saying Stefanoni had an 'understandable lapse of memory' about which equipment she used. As a consequence we have Mach prating about the supposedly key fact that no one called Quintavalle was a liar as if that shores him up (which, to a small extent, if does).

Well, Mach also says Amanda is not innocent because she didn't say she was innocent at the first hearing.

I have always felt there was a certain amount of complicity among all parties in their acceptance of the three-trial system. In that sense, they are all playing roles in a three-act play, and none of them wants the play to end after the first or second acts. (In this case, they even get an encore, maybe two!)

The cat's out of the bag now though, since Amanda does accuse police witnesses of flat out lying in her book. I am leaning towards Grinder's strategy of treating Florence as a prelude to extradition: flinging accusations of corruption and incompetence around (where appropriate) and making wide-ranging requests for discovery, daring the court to refuse. That's fine for Amanda, (relatively) safely ensconced in the US, but maybe not so good for Raffaele.

If the Florence court wants to look intellectual and sophisticated, they will acquit. If they want everybody to keep on making as much money as they possibly can wring out of this thing, they will convict. Of course, regardless of what they decide, the loser will appeal again, so everybody "wins." Except for the families, who are being held hostage.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, Mach also says Amanda is not innocent because she didn't say she was innocent at the first hearing.

I have always felt there was a certain amount of complicity among all parties in their acceptance of the three-trial system. In that sense, they are all playing roles in a three-act play, and none of them wants the play to end after the first or second acts. (In this case, they even get an encore, maybe two!)



If the Florence court wants to look intellectual and sophisticated, they will acquit. If they want everybody to keep on making as much money as they possibly can wring out of this thing, they will convict. Of course, regardless of what they decide, the loser will appeal again, so everybody "wins." Except for the families, who are being held hostage.

Their system stinks. I've had it with the 'good points and bad points' argument. It's a lousy system in need of major overhaul, starting with 6 months in a re-education camp somewhere in the Cambodian jungle for all those who think 'osmosis' has anything to do with anything.

 

[GreyFox]

Personally, I think the argument that the defendants would not have taken the knife home and used it for cooking is an extremely strong argument, particularly in light of the subjective nature of the prosecution's allegations. When they claim to have knowledge of human nature to the extent that they "know" women kill each other over jealousy and cover dead bodies with blankets, they are revealing that they think about the case and human behavior in very personal ways. Rather than show them the science, which obviously goes right over their heads, the defense would have done well to point out that nobody but a cannibal uses a murder weapon to cook with. It might have made an impact.


Not to mention wth walks around with a meat cleaver in their purse . I just find that soooo odd. At best maybe a very small kitchen knife.
On second thought even that would seem odd to me. Kitchen knives belong in the kitchen ! At least I dont know of any women walking around with steak knives,fork's etc for protection. ...Mace,pocket knife, keys between fingers, whistle,small gun,etc yes...Steak knife....huh ? I just can't see how a jury didn't find this as odd ! Is it because she's from a different country and they are willing to believe American girls are that different (aggressive). Or maybe they (Italian girls)carry Silverware around and it seems normal to them?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Italy is a nice place to visit

Destroying their copy of the inventory would not stop the police checking the landlord's copy. Another weak PIP point, it seems to me, is the knife doesn't match all the wounds or fit the print on the bed. So what? Why can't there be two knives? A better point is Amanda's in WTBH p.336. She records Torre's evidence of the depth of the main wound at 3.149 inches and that the other two were the same depth to the nearest thousandth of an inch. Torre brought in to court a foam bust and a replica of the knife to demonstrate his point.

I have some difficulty with this level of precision but WTH if that's the evidence, what are the chances of one big knife being used to make a wound of exactly the same depth as two wounds made by a small one? Maybe Math on Trial should have a chapter on this in the 2nd edition.

Some of Torre's testimony, as well as his comments outside the courtroom, were covered at a blog to which we no longer have access. IIRC there were also comments about bruising left by the hilt.

 

[anglolawyer]

Personally, I think the argument that the defendants would not have taken the knife home and used it for cooking is an extremely strong argument, particularly in light of the subjective nature of the prosecution's allegations. When they claim to have knowledge of human nature to the extent that they "know" women kill each other over jealousy and cover dead bodies with blankets, they are revealing that they think about the case and human behavior in very personal ways. Rather than show them the science, which obviously goes right over their heads, the defense would have done well to point out that nobody but a cannibal uses a murder weapon to cook with. It might have made an impact.


Not to mention wth walks around with a meat cleaver in their purse . I just find that soooo odd. At best maybe a very small kitchen knife.
On second thought even that would seem odd to me. Kitchen knives belong in the kitchen ! At least I dont know of any women walking around with steak knives,fork's etc for protection. ...Mace,pocket knife, keys between fingers, whistle,small gun,etc yes...Steak knife....huh ? I just can't see how a jury didn't find this as odd ! Is it because she's from a different country and they are willing to believe American girls are that different (aggressive). Or maybe they (Italian girls)carry Silverware around and it seems normal to them?

Hopefully, Mach will show up and regale us with his 'fish dinner' theory. I have no idea why he seems to have stopped peddling that one. It solves the premeditation problem perfectly, if at the small cost of taking absurdity to new heights. He can explain it better than me but what happened was there was a leak from the sink which ruined their dinner plans so they headed over to her place planning a fish dinner for which that particular knife was essential so they took it along, stopping along the way for two to three hours in Piazza Grimana, then going on to the apartment and switching plans to commit murder. It's obvious when you think it through.

 

[GreyFox]

Could you imagine reaching in a purse for the door key and losing a finger because of the large unsheathed kitchen knife ? Does she wrap it in a towel or something ? If she took her own maybe... Why go to Rafs and then decide you need a (his) Kitchen knife in order to get home.
I would think (to make the story plausable ) Amanda would carry her own knife before borrowing one. Even if she asked Raf for a knife he would walk her home instead or at least give her a fold up knife.Not his house knife that he eats with. Rather something more disposable.

 

[GreyFox]

Hopefully, Mach will show up and regale us with his 'fish dinner' theory. I have no idea why he seems to have stopped peddling that one. It solves the premeditation problem perfectly, if at the small cost of taking absurdity to new heights. He can explain it better than me but what happened was there was a leak from the sink which ruined their dinner plans so they headed over to her place planning a fish dinner for which that particular knife was essential so they took it along, stopping along the way for two to three hours in Piazza Grimana, then going on to the apartment and switching plans to commit murder. It's obvious when you think it through.

Ewww. Now I understand. Missed that series of Mach post. Thanks
Havent really read many of his post since he suggested that Italy would open the back door to terrorism if we didn't give Knox back.

 

[Dan O.]

You seem to have trouble focusing on one point at a time. Yes, I agree, the whole knife thing is absurd and I agree it's not the murder weapon but some of the arguments are weaker than others. If they used it to kill (so take that as given, right?) the suggestion is it's not all that difficult to imagine them cleaning it and returning it to the drawer and being worried that it might be noticed to be missing, should any suspicion fall on them, could well be among the reasons.

As for the use of two (or more) knives, I cite David Rizzio, stabbed more than 50 times by multiple attackers back in 1566.

But can you site a comperable case where the murder weapon was returned to it's proper place by someone that would be a natural suspect? I know this is a meme often played out in the movies, taunting the authorities/audience with the murder weapon hidden in plane sight. But does it happen in real life. What prior probability can be assigned to this event in a Bayesian analysis.

 

[anglolawyer]

But can you site a comperable case where the murder weapon was returned to it's proper place by someone that would be a natural suspect? I know this is a meme often played out in the movies, taunting the authorities/audience with the murder weapon hidden in plane sight. But does it happen in real life. What prior probability can be assigned to this event in a Bayesian analysis.

Well, first of all, I completely reject the idea that Bayesian analysis has anything useful to say about this. I cannot cite a comparable case, but I do not accept my inability to do so as meaningful. I have not devoted myself to the required kind of study. Nor would it mean much if there were no such case. Taking their participation as a given, there is certainly nothing impossible or offensive to reason in them deciding to hide the weapon in plain sight.

Anyway, didn't Jack the Ripper put his surgeon's knife back in his medical bag? There you go.

ETA I did some surfing (not my strong suit) and found bundles of cases where knives had been recovered after being ditched. This supports Grinder's point that it's not so easy to lose a murder weapon. What really is amazing is that we are supposed to believe the cops went straight to the kitchen drawer and plucked out that one knife, homing in on the murder weapon unerringly. Right. What does Bayes say the chances of that are?

 

[Dan O.]

Even if she asked Raf for a knife he would walk her home instead or at least give her a fold up knife.Not his house knife that he eats with. Rather something more disposable.

Since Raffaele had a second folding knife, it is a great stupidity to think he would give Amanda the house knife. The point about Raffaele eating with the house knife doesn't hold though since in his only cooking story where a knife is present he is using his flick knife even though there is a drawer full of knives available.

 

[Dan O.]

Anyway, didn't Jack the Ripper put his surgeon's knife back in his medical bag? There you go.

Not a comparable case. Jack wasn't a natural suspect so there was no expectation that his knives might be tested. (not to mention that there was no test yet)

 

[Grinder]

Destroying their copy of the inventory would not stop the police checking the landlord's copy. Another weak PIP point, it seems to me, is the knife doesn't match all the wounds or fit the print on the bed. So what? Why can't there be two knives? A better point is Amanda's in WTBH p.336. She records Torre's evidence of the depth of the main wound at 3.149 inches and that the other two were the same depth to the nearest thousandth of an inch. Torre brought in to court a foam bust and a replica of the knife to demonstrate his point.

I have some difficulty with this level of precision but WTH if that's the evidence, what are the chances of one big knife being used to make a wound of exactly the same depth as two wounds made by a small one? Maybe Math on Trial should have a chapter on this in the 2nd edition.

Torre or one of the other defense experts pointed out that there was a bruise that was caused by the hilt of a knife and clearly Raf's knife was too big to do that.

 

[Grinder]

Bull crap...it equates them not to Mansons...more like Dahmer who ate his victims. If you think your hyperbole is sound then produce some evidence that AK and RS are Dahmer like.

Now your being funny, right?

Yes I think it is impossible to have been the murder weapon. And there is abundant evidence against it being any such thing. Not least of which is the fact that the stabs were stopped short of penetrating the whole neck for one, next the bruise marks from what would be called the hilt or handle transition proves it impossible to be this knife, next it DOES NOT MATCH the imprint the real murder weapon made on the bed sheet in the victims blood BTW. Plus its just the damn stupidest police theory out of a thousand other stupid Perugia police theories. But people like you give it traction rather than laughing it off or better yet going with the known evidence and facts that say it is BS police speculation and in fact quite illogical and even insane to contort the thought process in order to make this knife work.

I don't think it was the murder weapon as stated here many many times. If it is impossible, I'm sure the new court will rule that way as Hellmann did, or did he?

 

[anglolawyer]

Not a comparable case. Jack wasn't a natural suspect so there was no expectation that his knives might be tested. (not to mention that there was no test yet)

Oh yeah, I meant to pick you up on that. Why would think they would be natural suspects? Their behaviour (if guilty) suggests they believed themselves to be in the clear.