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

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie I thought the duodenum evidence was conclusive scientifically. I agree Cornwell's contribution on this is unconsidered, I am sure she made a simple declaration around general criminal profiling, and then introduced some erroneous detail to support her conclusion, so a complicated sequence, Cornwell, McCall etc. However I am most interested in the notion that the duodenum evidence is inconclusive, I simply don't understand. Yet I am persuaded by the continuation of the case that this must be indeed so. How is it inconclusive?

It's conclusive in terms of overwhelming probability, given this particular set of facts. She ate pizza at 6:30 and had dessert an hour or so later. This meal had not even begun to pass into her small intestine at the time of her death.

The normal variables, arising when the pathologist has to assess TOD at a more advanced stage of digestion, or from uncertainty about when the victim last ate, do not pertain to this case. From everything I have ever read, she had to have died within 2 hours of when she ate dessert.

But it's inconclusive as defined by what may be possible in rare cases, like the turret gunner who survived a fall from 20,000 feet.

Same with the cell tower data.

So, no one can prove - absolutely - that Meredith was not toying with her phone, with an undigested meal curdling in her stomach, when her phone inexplicably connected with a tower two miles away instead of the one that was 200 yards away.

And that is enough for Massei and the cultists on PMF.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>No, Bill, your imaginary 1/2 of students do not give their numbers to drug dealers.<snip>

I think Bill was suggesting that half of the students could qualify as drug dealers, not that they gave their numbers to drug dealers.

And we also know she would pick up guys randomly and bring them home

How do we know that? Just because someone with questionable credibility may have said so? As far as I know, Amanda knew the two guys she had sex with in Italy before Raffaele. So how is that random?

to have sex without any romance attached,

Isn't this the lifestyle of like 95% of Italian men (probably including you)?

that she was sexually attracted to a black man she met in Via Garibaldi of whom she did not reveal the name,

So without any evidence you make the leap that it must have been Guede, even though it could have been one of hundreds of black men in Perugia, and even though several posters here have pointed out repeatedly that Guede just ain't that good-lookin'.

"that she reportedly only lived for pleasure,"

How convenient for your argument that you choose to believe these words of Raffaele but not his words denying any involvement in the crime.

"that she attended Piazza Grimana every day,

To walk through it to get to school?

that she knew Guede since a month before she met Sollecito,

That she MET Guede before she met Sollecito

that she would gave her phone number to a cocaine dealer in the neighborhood and that they phoned each other,

Still no proof of that.

that Guede was sexually attracted to her.

So are like ten million other men around the world, including you and Mignini.

This is not the profile of just any college girl student in Perugia. It's Knox's profile. So why is it strange to consider normal that she would pick up Guede and bring him at home for sex that night?

Because not one of the three defendants have said that's what happened. Amanda is so famous now, and considered so attractive by so many -- don't you think Guede would be trying to make the most of their affair if they had actually had one?

 

[davefoc]

...
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!

I have a new favorite poem. Thank you Mary_H

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_a_Louse

I always thought it would be nice to go to one of those Robert Burns dinners, perhaps you have?

 

[Mary_H]

I have a new favorite poem. Thank you Mary_H

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_a_Louse

I always thought it would be nice to go to one of those Robert Burns dinners, perhaps you have?

I have not, but I have a friend (American) who likes to recite Robert Burns poetry at dinners -- he even did it when he was living in Edinburgh, and they loved it.

 

[codyjuneau]

Actually, given that we're holding Machiavelli to factuality, it's "her".

Don't tell Grinder. He'll hound me until I explain why God spirits people across border frontiers. Get it? God! Spirits? Ha ha ha ha ha!

Machiavelli will accuse me of being full of myself. But what can you do.....

Ergon will be jealous.

.
Smite him!
.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yep, I think you nailed it. I wouldn't have a problem with Machiavelli saying that he had a problem with Amanda's life choices. He has a right to that opinion, not that I agree with his opinion.

What bothers me is that he expresses this opinion with so little integrity. As you so eloquently said, it is unrelated to Meredith's murder.

Machiavelli is basically saying that casual sex and marijuana smoking are "gateway drugs" to committing murder. This kind of logic is of course rhetorical nonsense. If that was true there would one hell of a lot of murder taking place in Perugia and other places.

Personally, I have never heard that promiscuity leads to violence. But I challenge Machiavelli or anyone in the PGP to cite the studies that it does. My bet is he will come up empty.

In fact, I'd suggest that studies actually tend to suggest that it's repressed/rejected sexuality that more often results in sexual violence.

Studies of the most serious sexual offences (violent rape and sexually-aggravated murder) suggest that in many cases, the perpetrator has unfulfilled sexual desires and/or a feeling of sexual embarrassment or humiliation. Such people use their offending behaviour as a means of regaining "power" and "control" in a sexual context (it's about a lot more than simply satisfying sexual urges).

In that respect, therefore, it's arguable that a young person with an active, varied sex life is far less likely to commit serious sexual violence. Amanda Knox - who was apparently embarking on her first adventure of sexual liberation - most certainly does not seem a likely candidate for a sexually-violent criminal. Sollecito - given what might be conceivably construed as a sexually-repressed prior history - might be seen as a slightly more "suitable candidate". But given that he had just hooked up with Knox and was pushing his sexual boundaries into entirely new territories (for him), I'd say that this in itself makes it unlikely that he'd commit a sexually-violent crime at that point either.

Rudy Guede, on the other hand, appears to be a far more "suitable candidate". By all accounts, he was unsuccessful with women, and has an unsavoury reputation as a botherer of young women in bars and clubs. I suggest that a psychiatrist or criminal psychologist might view Guede's history of repression and rejection as a fairly strong indicator of potential for sexual violence.

Of course, all of this needs to be prefaced with the fact that this is purely conjecture and "soft" evidence, and that there are always exceptions to these sorts of rules. None of the above should be of any direct relevance in assessing the guilt/non-guilt/innocence of anyone in regard to the murder of Meredith Kercher. However, it is clearly of indirect relevance, and tends to further support the theory that neither Knox nor Sollecito was involved in the murder, but that rather it was the work of Guede acting alone.

 

[Antony]

In fact, I'd suggest that studies actually tend to suggest that it's repressed/rejected sexuality that more often results in sexual violence.

Studies of the most serious sexual offences (violent rape and sexually-aggravated murder) suggest that in many cases, the perpetrator has unfulfilled sexual desires and/or a feeling of sexual embarrassment or humiliation. Such people use their offending behaviour as a means of regaining "power" and "control" in a sexual context (it's about a lot more than simply satisfying sexual urges).

In that respect, therefore, it's arguable that a young person with an active, varied sex life is far less likely to commit serious sexual violence. Amanda Knox - who was apparently embarking on her first adventure of sexual liberation - most certainly does not seem a likely candidate for a sexually-violent criminal. Sollecito - given what might be conceivably construed as a sexually-repressed prior history - might be seen as a slightly more "suitable candidate". But given that he had just hooked up with Knox and was pushing his sexual boundaries into entirely new territories (for him), I'd say that this in itself makes it unlikely that he'd commit a sexually-violent crime at that point either.

Rudy Guede, on the other hand, appears to be a far more "suitable candidate". By all accounts, he was unsuccessful with women, and has an unsavoury reputation as a botherer of young women in bars and clubs. I suggest that a psychiatrist or criminal psychologist might view Guede's history of repression and rejection as a fairly strong indicator of potential for sexual violence.

Of course, all of this needs to be prefaced with the fact that this is purely conjecture and "soft" evidence, and that there are always exceptions to these sorts of rules. None of the above should be of any direct relevance in assessing the guilt/non-guilt/innocence of anyone in regard to the murder of Meredith Kercher. However, it is clearly of indirect relevance, and tends to further support the theory that neither Knox nor Sollecito was involved in the murder, but that rather it was the work of Guede acting alone.

That's my reaction. It's just laughable to assert that, after 6 whole days and nights together, Amanda and Raff's relationship had become so jaded that they were impelled to initiate something of the nature of a 4-way sex game with an unwilling female participant.

I have to say my convincement (if that's a word) that Amanda and Raff are innocent began with the implausibility of the accusations against them, rather than the same deep knowledge of the facts of the case shown here by people better-informed than me. Having said that, it's obvious to me that the "evidence" claimed by PGP is completely bogus.

 

[Rolfe]

It is perfectly conclusive....well 99.99%conclusive anyway. Its just that the main points which we covered quite extensively here at JREF were never covered in court in the same manner.

The pathologist properly prepared the digestive system so that no slippage could occur. Upon exam the stomach still contained all the meal consumed by MK which started about 6 PM. What got lost in the trial was a confusing word game (think Yummi/Mac) where prosecution experts wanted everyone to believe that the issue was stomach complete emptying...when the only important fact was that transition from stomach to duodenum had not even begun in MK at all. And so following along that would mean according to the prosecution who contends a TOD 11:30 PM or later that some sort of digestive anomaly was a fact. Rather than accept the conclusion of all the corresponding circumstantial data (including the transition time norms of 1 1/2 to 4 hours) that proves beyond all doubt that MK was dead before 9:30 PM!

It is sophistry and a prosecutions lies that allow the court to be "fooled" about any thing about TOD that seems inconclusive. MK was murdered between 9:05 and 10 PM although I am quite certain that can be narrowed to 9:10 to 9:30 and is likely when Rudy tells us it happened....9:20PM! This is the only time that fits all facts...but we must discard the whack jobs like Nara et al...not hard considering the idiocy of their statements.

Quoted for truth, as they say.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It's conclusive in terms of overwhelming probability, given this particular set of facts. She ate pizza at 6:30 and had dessert an hour or so later. This meal had not even begun to pass into her small intestine at the time of her death.

The normal variables, arising when the pathologist has to assess TOD at a more advanced stage of digestion, or from uncertainty about when the victim last ate, do not pertain to this case. From everything I have ever read, she had to have died within 2 hours of when she ate dessert.

But it's inconclusive as defined by what may be possible in rare cases, like the turret gunner who survived a fall from 20,000 feet.

Same with the cell tower data.

So, no one can prove - absolutely - that Meredith was not toying with her phone, with an undigested meal curdling in her stomach, when her phone inexplicably connected with a tower two miles away instead of the one that was 200 yards away.

And that is enough for Massei and the cultists on PMF.

You're into the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable doubt here. This is "unreasonable doubt".

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

You're into the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable doubt here. This is "unreasonable doubt".

Rolfe.

Exactly.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that Meredith's stomach, duodenum and jejunum contents would not have been in the condition discovered at autopsy, if she had been killed at 11.30pm-plus (as per the Massei court's "reasoning").

It is beyond reasonable doubt that this also applies to any ToD later than 10.30pm.

The overwhelming balance of probabilities is that this also applies to any ToD later than 10pm.

It's highly probable, in relation to this evidence, that Meredith died at some time between 9pm and 9.30pm.

 

[Rolfe]

Indeed. If we had a definite sighting of Meredith still alive at 11.00, or if she had phoned her mother and actually spoken to her at 10.30, we're be racking our brains to figure out how on earth it was possible that her digestion hadn't moved on. We'd have to conclude something extremely improbable had happened.

But since there was no such sighting, and no phone call, we are under no obligation to dream up vanishingly improbable scenarios. That is the very definition of "unreasonable doubt".

I am in a similar situation with the Lockerbie evidence. It is possible to dream up an extremely unlikely scenario under which the suitcase seen in the Heathrow interline shed wasn't the bomb. However, it redefines tenuous. The only reason for advancing it is that the men in the dock were not at Heathrow airport at that time. It is unreasonable doubt. (And in that case, it is notable that the prosecution didn't put that scenario forward, but performed a rather intriguing sleight-of-hand trick to avoid it.) It is pure sophistry to advance such an explanation and say, but that might have happened so the case isn't proved.

There's a Dorothy L. Sayers story (Strong Poison) in which the judge gives a speech to the jury explaining to them what is meant by unreasonable doubt. THis is what he says.

You may perhaps wish to hear from me exactly what is meant by those words 'reasonable doubt'. They mean, just so much doubt as you might have in every-day life about an ordinary matter of business. This is a case of murder, and it might be natural for you to think that, in such a case, the words mean more than this. But that is not so. They do not mean that you must cast about for fantastical solutions of what seems to you plain and simple. They do not mean those nightmare doubts which sometimes torment us at four o'clock in the morning when we have not slept very well. They only mean that the proof must be such as you would accept about a plain matter of buying and selling, or some such commonplace transaction. You must not strain your belief in favour of the prisoner any more, of course, than you must accept proof of her guilt without the most careful scrutiny.

I think that very much needs to be borne in mind.

Rolfe.

 

[acbytesla]

That's my reaction. It's just laughable to assert that, after 6 whole days and nights together, Amanda and Raff's relationship had become so jaded that they were impelled to initiate something of the nature of a 4-way sex game with an unwilling female participant.

I have to say my convincement (if that's a word) that Amanda and Raff are innocent began with the implausibility of the accusations against them, rather than the same deep knowledge of the facts of the case shown here by people better-informed than me. Having said that, it's obvious to me that the "evidence" claimed by PGP is completely bogus.

It is laughable, isn't it Tony? Hey, I can understand a little sexual experimentation among friends. And although group sex isn't really that common, it happens.

What I can't understand is the knife play? You don't go from 4 college age kids playing a little truth or dare to forcible rape at knife point. But there is no evidence at all that Amanda, or Raffaele had ever experimented with group sex even,

So you have to ask yourself what made the Italian morons make that kind of leap?

Their theory that Amanda manipulated these two young men to rape her friend and then kill her is really absurd. (Now here is where Grinder will jump in and say it doesn't matter.) The statistics of this kind of crime are virtually unheard of and the extremely rare occasion that something even remotely close to this having happened is the equivalent of winning the Powerball lottery....TWICE.

But that didn't stop them even though the guy who obviously murdered Meredith said that Amanda and Raffaele weren't there, Said the murder happened around 9:30, Precisely about the latest time possible given the state of Meredith's digestion. And barely a half an hour after Amanda was talking to Raffaele's neighbor at his apartment and barely an hour after Amanda found out she didn't have to go to work. There is also DVR evidence of the them being at his apartment at 9:30. Although that is somewhat debatable.

And we know that Rudy didn't go to the cottage with Meredith as she was seen going to the cottage alone at 8:55 alone. So that leaves about 15 minutes for Amanda and Raffaele rendezvousing with Rudy, (without calling or texting him) collecting the big cooking knife from Raff's flat and walking the ten blocks and killing Meredith.

It's ridiculous.....no, it's beyond ridiculous.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's a Dorothy L. Sayers story (Strong Poison) in which the judge gives a speech to the jury explaining to them what is meant by unreasonable doubt. THis is what he says.

I think that very much needs to be borne in mind.

Rolfe.

In my opinion, much of the confusion around the term "beyond (a) reasonable doubt" is due to the modern tweaked definition of the word "reasonable" (and, to a lesser extent, an element of ambiguity around the word "beyond").

In most modern colloquial conversation in English, the word "reasonable" is synonymous with "a small - but definitely present - amount of". For example, one might say "The house was a reasonable size, but not as large as I had hoped". This type of usage is even more common where the adverb form is employed: "The car was reasonably cheap, but still too expensive for me to buy".

That's categorically NOT how the word "reasonable" is employed in the judicial expression. Rather, it's used in its original meaning of "rooted in reason". A suitable synonym might be something like "logically feasible" or "within the range of real-life imagination".

So "beyond (a) reasonable doubt means "beyond all doubt that is based on reasoned judgement". And "beyond" means "to the exclusion of".

So, in fact, the standard of proof can be more "user-friendly" defined as something like the following:

"In order to find the defendant guilty, you must come to the conclusion that the evidence proves that the defendant committed the crime, and you must harbour no doubts whatsoever about his guilt that are based in reason."

 

[acbytesla]

"In order to find the defendant guilty, you must come to the conclusion that the evidence proves that the defendant committed the crime, and you must harbour no doubts whatsoever about his guilt that are based in reason."

I really like that definition LJ.

 

[Supernaut]

Exactly.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that Meredith's stomach, duodenum and jejunum contents would not have been in the condition discovered at autopsy, if she had been killed at 11.30pm-plus (as per the Massei court's "reasoning").

It is beyond reasonable doubt that this also applies to any ToD later than 10.30pm.

The overwhelming balance of probabilities is that this also applies to any ToD later than 10pm.

It's highly probable, in relation to this evidence, that Meredith died at some time between 9pm and 9.30pm.

Were it not for the absolute certainty that Meredith was alive until c. 21.00, the state of her digestion would have allowed a time of death as early as c. 20.00.

And, of course, a rapidly diminishing probability for any time after c. 21.30

In any US or UK court a judge, without a moment's hesitation, would have allowed the defence to produce an expert pathologist to absolutely hammer this home to the jury.

I don't think it's overstating to say that it would, and should have been central to the entire case.

But in Italy ............

 

[Supernaut]

Funny, my sig. almost continues that last post and seems to describe Italy!

 

[Supernaut]

And, yet again, a reminder;

Mignini dismissed Lalli, the pathologist who actually conducted the autopsy, because the latter wouldn't declare in court that he might have bungled it.

This was barely weeks into the first trial, and the matter was never raised again, AFAIK.

 

[Supernaut]

........................ that she was sexually attracted to a black man she met in Via Garibaldi of whom she did not reveal the name, .........

Machiavelli, viewing everything through his bottle-glass lenses, sees Amanda's use of the phrase "most beautiful [black man]" to mean sexiest.

I've described men, women, animals, plants - well, almost anything in creation as "beautiful", and hardly ever intended it to mean "sexy".


Once again; who's psyche is being revealed here? Amanda's or Machiavelli's?

 

[Rolfe]

In my opinion, much of the confusion around the term "beyond (a) reasonable doubt" is due to the modern tweaked definition of the word "reasonable" (and, to a lesser extent, an element of ambiguity around the word "beyond").

In most modern colloquial conversation in English, the word "reasonable" is synonymous with "a small - but definitely present - amount of". For example, one might say "The house was a reasonable size, but not as large as I had hoped". This type of usage is even more common where the adverb form is employed: "The car was reasonably cheap, but still too expensive for me to buy".

That's categorically NOT how the word "reasonable" is employed in the judicial expression. Rather, it's used in its original meaning of "rooted in reason". A suitable synonym might be something like "logically feasible" or "within the range of real-life imagination".

So "beyond (a) reasonable doubt means "beyond all doubt that is based on reasoned judgement". And "beyond" means "to the exclusion of".

So, in fact, the standard of proof can be more "user-friendly" defined as something like the following:

"In order to find the defendant guilty, you must come to the conclusion that the evidence proves that the defendant committed the crime, and you must harbour no doubts whatsoever about his guilt that are based in reason."

I'm not at all sure that helps. It could imply that any wild fantasy that didn't actually involve supernatural intervention might be classed as reasonable doubt. I believe the point really is one of probability and plausibility.

A jury is required to consider reasonably possible and reasonable plausible explanations. It is not required to consider wild improbabilities that have no evidence to support them. Wild improbabilities may be based in reason, but they should not be allowed to distract from an otherwise straightforward narrative.

Of course that leaves it up to the jury to decide what's "reasonably possible" and "reasonably plausible", but that's what their job is. A prosecutor can assert that a healthy young woman relaxing at home might retain the entirety of her early evening meal in her stomach for five hours, but any competent medical witness should be able to explain that this is such a wild improbability that it is not worthy of consideration.

Rolfe.

 

[Strozzi]

And, yet again, a reminder;

Mignini dismissed Lalli, the pathologist who actually conducted the autopsy, because the latter wouldn't declare in court that he might have bungled it.

This was barely weeks into the first trial, and the matter was never raised again, AFAIK.

I wish the defense would contact Lalli to review with him his autopsy observations and also to see what he may say at this point in time about his dismissal. He may be willing to say more about it now than he would have said five years ago.