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

[acbytesla]

The putative semen stain does not prove nor indicate a sexual assault after stbbing.

How would you know Machiavelli? I guess you are unfamiliar with how some serial killers have been known to masturbate over a murder.

I have never understood why the authorities wouldn't test the stain. If it came back as Raffaele's, it would go towards proving his guilt. If it is Rudy's it goes to prove either a consensual sexual encounter with Rudy or more evidence against Rudy. If it is Giacomo's, it doesn't provide any inculpatory evidence.

If it is totally unknown, I'm not sure if that proves or disproves anything.

If as the Italian Supreme Court suggested that this was the result of some kind of group sexual encounter, why wouldn't all evidence of sex be considered?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, a long time ago I had a pretty clear understand of what professional crime scene investigators said occurred in the victim's room. But I am no longer familiar with the details on this. I'll read what you and others have to say about the number of wounds, the order in which they were inflicted, where the victim and assailant were in the room, and what body position the victim was in as evidenced by blood splatters and other physical evidence.

You will please note from my long post, above, that when I first started following this case in the headlines I was predisposed to believe that the American girl was guilty. I assumed that the Perugian police did a proper investigation, must have irrefutable evidence, and that the court convicted on the basis of that. I trusted in that. But once I started reading about the poor investigation, questionable assumptions, exaggerated evidence, and suspect-centric maneuvers by the police and prosecutor the good guys in the PLE turned out to be the bad guys for me.

Yes I understand that you - as well as probably the great majority of American followers of the case - were ready to belive Knox and Sollecito were guilty.
One of the the problem is - and you give clue about that in your post - the sources where you got your information from.

Now, another further problem in your reasonin, to me, it is the apparent totally adversarial setting. You see two sides: one must be "the good guys", and the other is bad or wrong.
This is fundamentally false from my point of view.
The suspects are guilty not because the police are good or bad - they are neither good nor bad to me, I see them as rather neutral. They are guilty because the police nore anyone else could fabricate that set of evidence, nor it is reasonable to assume that anyone fabricated any part of it.
The most obvious piece of evidence to me was Knox and Sollecito's lies, the repeated false accusation including Knox's memoriales, the autopsy report, the luminol footprints, the bathmat print, the staged burglary. I can't see how any "bad" police officer could fabricate this kind of things.
I also consider Capezzali and Monacchia obviously credible, Filomena and Anna Donnino credible as well.
I consider also Stefanoni and Mignini obviously credible - I also see DNA findings as credible under any logical point of view - and as a polar opposite of the assessmnt of others, I do appreciate very much Mignini and Stefanoni's work on this case.
The "police" is not a unitary block, and while the set of individuals involved does allow a degree of chaos - too many diferent various police officers, overlapping task, fuzzy boundaries - to me this just appears to belong to the ordinary Italian "anarchic" chaos component on all aspects of everyday life (traffic, schedules, everything that is organized) and I see nothing strange in it.

 

[Machiavelli]

How would you know Machiavelli? I guess you are unfamiliar with how some serial killers have been known to masturbate over a murder.

Yes some serial killers.

I have never understood why the authorities wouldn't test the stain. If it came back as Raffaele's, it would go towards proving his guilt. If it is Rudy's it goes to prove either a consensual sexual encounter with Rudy or more evidence against Rudy. If it is Giacomo's, it doesn't provide any inculpatory evidence.

If it is totally unknown, I'm not sure if that proves or disproves anything.

If as the Italian Supreme Court suggested that this was the result of some kind of group sexual encounter, why wouldn't all evidence of sex be considered?

And why the evidence about contacts of Knox with drug dealers was not entered? For the same reason: too late.
The pillowcase was not sent to the biological laboratory. The pillowcase was instead sent to the fingerprint analysis section. As far as I recall the police report says nothing about a putative semen stain, as if they didn't notice it.
Nobody ordered the pillowcase to be sent to the biological analysis unit.
However some time later an anlalisys session was scheduled, on request of Vinci, together with Stefanoni. It was Stefanoni the one who asserted it was a probable semen stain.
At that point, either the prosecution or the defence could have requested to analyze it.
Now, the prosecution might have decided or delayed on several grounds, and their reasons - whatever they were - could be an object of criticism or could have been objected. But as well as the prosecution or police decisions, there is the Sollecito's defence decision not to test it. Something Sollecito himself admitted in his book. Sollecito's lawyers kept delaying any request, despite they knew since Vinci reported to them about the stain. They were maybe afraid about the possible test result. Their requested the test only at the end of the Massei trial - while those requests (richieste istruttorie) are to be done at the opening - they lodged the request when the evidence entering phase was over, and by that time Sollecito's position was desperate and a test of the stain would have been irrelevant.

I see these aspects of events altogether. Some are significant. The defence behaviour is part of the game too, there is not just the investigators alone. I donl't look at "the police alone".

 

[Strozzi]

That's a totally different topic. Either we are discussiong about the dinamic of the sexual violence and stabbing, or we are discussiong about the dynamics of investigation, defence requests etc.

The pillow is evidence of three issues - 1) the dynamic of the sexual violence and stabbing, 2) the identify of the owner of the handprint in Kerscher's blood on the pillow (handprint shows it is Guede), and 3) the identify of the owner of the putative seamen stain.

There are males who had proper access to the house and consensual relations with females living therein. I have no interest in that or interest in the details. But any male who did not have proper access to the flat is by definition a) an intruder, and b) any male intruder who left seamen on the pillow engaged in some form of non-consensual sexual activity. That may be very relevant to the murder.

Are you concerned that the putative seaman stain might turn out to be a known acquaintenance of Guede's, such as Kokoman?

 

[Poppy1016]

Yes I understand that you - as well as probably the great majority of American followers of the case - were ready to belive Knox and Sollecito were guilty.
One of the the problem is - and you give clue about that in your post - the sources where you got your information from.

Now, another further problem in your reasonin, to me, it is the apparent totally adversarial setting. You see two sides: one must be "the good guys", and the other is bad or wrong.
This is fundamentally false from my point of view.
The suspects are guilty not because the police are good or bad - they are neither good nor bad to me, I see them as rather neutral. They are guilty because the police nore anyone else could fabricate that set of evidence, nor it is reasonable to assume that anyone fabricated any part of it.
The most obvious piece of evidence to me was Knox and Sollecito's lies, the repeated false accusation including Knox's memoriales, the autopsy report, the luminol footprints, the bathmat print, the staged burglary. I can't see how any "bad" police officer could fabricate this kind of things.
I also consider Capezzali and Monacchia obviously credible, Filomena and Anna Donnino credible as well.
I consider also Stefanoni and Mignini obviously credible - I also see DNA findings as credible under any logical point of view - and as a polar opposite of the assessmnt of others, I do appreciate very much Mignini and Stefanoni's work on this case.
The "police" is not a unitary block, and while the set of individuals involved does allow a degree of chaos - too many diferent various police officers, overlapping task, fuzzy boundaries - to me this just appears to belong to the ordinary Italian "anarchic" chaos component on all aspects of everyday life (traffic, schedules, everything that is organized) and I see nothing strange in it.

What do you think of the Carabinieri and their work?

 

[Bill Williams]

Hmmm. What about the semen stain on the pillow under her hips? Seems strange that was not tested. Actually it is stupid.

The putative semen stain does not prove nor indicate a sexual assault after stbbing.

.............. which is the reason why it was not tested, so that it would remain putative. Putative: "generally considered or reputed to be."

This is a silly argument, Machiavelli. The reason TO test it is so as to be in a position to test the "putative" nature of it, so that it can either be entered into, or discounted as reliable evidence.

But thank you for providing the rationale for not testing it - so that, it cannot "prove nor indicate a sexual assault after stbbing."

Ten points to the first guilter who sees the issue with Machiavelli's reasoning.

 

[Samson]

Yes I understand that you - as well as probably the great majority of American followers of the case - were ready to belive Knox and Sollecito were guilty.
One of the the problem is - and you give clue about that in your post - the sources where you got your information from.

Now, another further problem in your reasonin, to me, it is the apparent totally adversarial setting. You see two sides: one must be "the good guys", and the other is bad or wrong.
This is fundamentally false from my point of view.
The suspects are guilty not because the police are good or bad - they are neither good nor bad to me, I see them as rather neutral. They are guilty because the police nore anyone else could fabricate that set of evidence, nor it is reasonable to assume that anyone fabricated any part of it.
The most obvious piece of evidence to me was Knox and Sollecito's lies, the repeated false accusation including Knox's memoriales, the autopsy report, the luminol footprints, the bathmat print, the staged burglary. I can't see how any "bad" police officer could fabricate this kind of things.
I also consider Capezzali and Monacchia obviously credible, Filomena and Anna Donnino credible as well.
I consider also Stefanoni and Mignini obviously credible - I also see DNA findings as credible under any logical point of view - and as a polar opposite of the assessmnt of others, I do appreciate very much Mignini and Stefanoni's work on this case.
The "police" is not a unitary block, and while the set of individuals involved does allow a degree of chaos - too many diferent various police officers, overlapping task, fuzzy boundaries - to me this just appears to belong to the ordinary Italian "anarchic" chaos component on all aspects of everyday life (traffic, schedules, everything that is organized) and I see nothing strange in it.

The burglary was not staged. It was declared as fact early when it was fiction. It is far the easiest physical thing to prove that this was not so. An 8 year old can see this instantly from photographs that the burglary could not be staged. When discussing the case Mach please do not contend the burglary was staged. It is an infantile proposition that has no traction, never has, and never will. It has been covered ad infinitum, you need a narrative that includes the window being broken from the outside and so on, then you have an argument or a logical possibility.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes I understand that you - as well as probably the great majority of American followers of the case - were ready to belive Knox and Sollecito were guilty.
One of the the problem is - and you give clue about that in your post - the sources where you got your information from.

Now, another further problem in your reasonin, to me, it is the apparent totally adversarial setting. You see two sides: one must be "the good guys", and the other is bad or wrong.
This is fundamentally false from my point of view.
The suspects are guilty not because the police are good or bad - they are neither good nor bad to me, I see them as rather neutral. They are guilty because the police nore anyone else could fabricate that set of evidence, nor it is reasonable to assume that anyone fabricated any part of it.
The most obvious piece of evidence to me was Knox and Sollecito's lies, the repeated false accusation including Knox's memoriales, the autopsy report, the luminol footprints, the bathmat print, the staged burglary. I can't see how any "bad" police officer could fabricate this kind of things.
I also consider Capezzali and Monacchia obviously credible, Filomena and Anna Donnino credible as well. I consider also Stefanoni and Mignini obviously credible - I also see DNA findings as credible under any logical point of view - and as a polar opposite of the assessmnt of others, I do appreciate very much Mignini and Stefanoni's work on this case.

People can be credible and mistaken. I think that's what happened here, at least at the beginning. The problems occurred when they found themselves reluctant to admit they had been mistaken.

The "police" is not a unitary block, and while the set of individuals involved does allow a degree of chaos - too many diferent various police officers, overlapping task, fuzzy boundaries - to me this just appears to belong to the ordinary Italian "anarchic" chaos component on all aspects of everyday life (traffic, schedules, everything that is organized) and I see nothing strange in it.

This is probably a big part of why we can't see eye-to-eye. That kind of "anarchic chaos" is not acceptable in the everyday lives of United States citizens. Traffic and schedules are bound by strict rules -- rules that are not simply "suggestions," as they seem to be in Italy. That approach may sound authoritarian to some, but it actually levels the playing field, in that the rules apply to everyone, regardless of their level of power in society. There is an avoidance (ideally) of "survival of the fittest," in which fitness is embodied in being a bully, or being rich, or having the right to wiretap.

 

[Bill Williams]

The most obvious piece of evidence to me was Knox and Sollecito's lies, the repeated false accusation including Knox's memoriales, the autopsy report, the luminol footprints, the bathmat print, the staged burglary. I can't see how any "bad" police officer could fabricate this kind of things.

The burglary was not staged. It was declared as fact early when it was fiction. It is far the easiest physical thing to prove that this was not so. An 8 year old can see this instantly from photographs that the burglary could not be staged. When discussing the case Mach please do not contend the burglary was staged. It is an infantile proposition that has no traction, never has, and never will. It has been covered ad infinitum, you need a narrative that includes the window being broken from the outside and so on, then you have an argument or a logical possibility.

If that's the case against RS and AK acc. to Machiavelli, then they are more innocent than even I thought!

- Lies? All the lies? Harry Rag/The Machine used to cut and paste "Ten Lies" that he believes AK/RS told... 9 of them are things Raffaele said in response to "suggesitons" the police were telling him, wher ehe had no way of guaging whether or not THEY were lying to him, and the tenth is..... Ta Da, Knox's "lie" about Lumumba - which is going before the ECHR for adjudication as we speak.

- Repeated false accusation? You mean the one which exists in two disallowed memoranduyms during interrogation? Once again, these are now before the ECHR and Knox, in fact, started recanting as soon as she was free from cops.

- The autopsy report? You mean the one produced after Lalli had been fired? And the one that also does not rule out a single attacker in any event?

- The Luminol footprints? You mean the ones which are not in blood, and if they exist almost certainly prove that there'd been no clean-up?

- The Bathmat print? You mean the one Rudy stepped on?

- The staged burglary? As per Samosn, this is by far the most straight forward to be disproved as "staged"/ It was actually never proved to begin with, as virtually no evidence was collected, other than the assertions of some investigators who initally thought it must have been staged because none of Lumumba, Knox, nor Sollecito had the facility to break in. Once Guede was discovered with a known M.O. of break-in in... there is no need to even entertain a staging. Besides, Machiavelli, have you not read Massei's motivations report? One of the reasons Massei says that the break-in had to have been staged was because things had been disturbed, but not in a manner suggestive of theft. What this can also mean is that Rudy, in the dark, could have tried to look for things, but gave up quickly to go to the toilet. Or it could also mean that Filomena had just left her room that way - a messy room rarely looks like valuables had been sought after.

- "Bad police officers fabricating these things"? What about incompetent police dealing with a once-in-a-lifetime case? Or that they got locked into investigative myopia?​

If that's the case against RS and AK they are more innocent than even I thought!

 

[acbytesla]

Yes I understand that you - as well as probably the great majority of American followers of the case - were ready to belive Knox and Sollecito were guilty.
One of the the problem is - and you give clue about that in your post - the sources where you got your information from.

Such bull. All of the information on this case is available. What you are assuming is that people can't look at the evidence and and come to a conclusion on their own.

Now, another further problem in your reasonin, to me, it is the apparent totally adversarial setting. You see two sides: one must be "the good guys", and the other is bad or wrong.
This is fundamentally false from my point of view.

The suspects are guilty not because the police are good or bad - they are neither good nor bad to me, I see them as rather neutral. They are guilty because the police nore anyone else could fabricate that set of evidence, nor it is reasonable to assume that anyone fabricated any part of it.

The most obvious piece of evidence to me was Knox and Sollecito's lies,
the repeated false accusation including Knox's memoriales. the autopsy report, the luminol footprints, the bathmat print, the staged burglary. I can't see how any "bad" police officer could fabricate this kind of things.
I also consider Capezzali and Monacchia obviously credible, Filomena and Anna Donnino credible as well.
I consider also Stefanoni and Mignini obviously credible - I also see DNA findings as credible under any logical point of view - and as a polar opposite of the assessmnt of others, I do appreciate very much Mignini and Stefanoni's work on this case.
The "police" is not a unitary block, and while the set of individuals involved does allow a degree of chaos - too many diferent various police officers, overlapping task, fuzzy boundaries - to me this just appears to belong to the ordinary Italian "anarchic" chaos component on all aspects of everyday life (traffic, schedules, everything that is organized) and I see nothing strange in it.

I always laugh when I read your list of the evidence. I'm not sure if the Perugian authorities actually fabricated evidence, but that doesn't mean they were competent at collecting and analyzing it.

The Channel 5 documentary proved that Cappezali couldn't have heard what she said she did. They found it impossible. BTW, the Channel 5 documentary was a UK production, not an American one. The channel 5 documentary proved that climbing the wall would have been easy and the glass distribution in the room showed that the window was broken from the outside.

Your mention of the autopsy report is interesting in the sense that Lalli, said that it could have been a single attacker, and how that same autopsy showed the state of digestion in such a state to make a post 9:30PM Time of Death to be extremely unlikely.

Mignini behavior in the Narducci case demonstrates that he is a moron of major proportions. He has probably been responsible for putting more innocent people behind bars than anyone in Umbria and probably all of Italy.

The bathmat print? You mean the one that looks as much or more like Rudy's footprint as it does Raffaele's?

The Luminol footprints that tested negative for blood and haven't been attributed to anyone?

That's the problem with the guilter evidence, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
It really doesn't require actual fabrication of evidence, even though there is significant evidence of that. All it takes is reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

The interrogation statements were set aside by the Italian Supreme Court. There is a reason these statements were set aside and it has to do with the process practiced in Perugia. There is a reason the RIS, Conti and Vechiotti and most DNA scientists don't think very highly of Stefanoni and how she practices her trade. It's because she fails to adhere to testing procedures that lead to "credible" and reliable results.

 

[Antony]

The putative semen stain does not prove nor indicate a sexual assault after stbbing.

True - but only because it wasn't tested to find out what it was and who it belonged to. What it does prove (or at least indicate strongly) is an investigation that was not aimed at establishing the truth.

ETA: Actually, the investigators have shown themselves to be quite capable of testing the stain and withholding the results because they didn't support their case. Stain not tested? Interrogations not recorded? Yeah, right.

 

[davefoc]

True. What it does prove (or at least indicate strongly) is an investigation that was not aimed at establishing the truth.

That's certainly what it looks like from the outside. The prosecution theory of this crime is that there were multiple perpetrators, so why didn't they try to find out who they were?

As has been noted many times in these threads, the stain was probably tested and it was found to be Guede's. The prosecution just decided that releasing that little tid bit didn't help their case so they didn't. Does anybody here think that the stain wouldn't have been tested if the prosecutor had the tiniest inkling that it was that of RS? Either the prosecutor knows that the stain was not that of RS because he knows RS had nothing to do with this crime or the prosecutor had it tested it and found out it wasn't that of RS so he buried the results. I don't see another significantly likely possibility

Alternatively there is Machiavelli's theory, which for some reason was not resurrected this time, that it wasn't tested because it would have disrupted the cloth folds and Machiavelli thought it was more important for evidentiary purposes not to disturb the fold pattern than test the stain for DNA? ETA: And of course dabbing cloth with a Q tip is very disruptive of cloth folds at least that seems to be Machiavelli's view here.

 

[Samson]

That's certainly what it looks like from the outside. The prosecution theory of this crime is that there were multiple perpetrators, so why didn't they try to find out who they were?

As has been noted many times in these threads, the stain was probably tested and it was found to be Guede's. The prosecution just decided that releasing that little tid bit didn't help their case so they didn't. Does anybody here think that the stain wouldn't have been tested if the prosecutor had the tiniest inkling that it was that of RS? Either the prosecutor knows that the stain was not that of RS because he knows RS had nothing to do with this crime or the prosecutor had it tested it and found out it wasn't that of RS so he buried the results. I don't see another significantly likely possibility

Alternatively there is Machiavelli's theory, which for some reason was not resurrected this time, that it wasn't tested because it would have disrupted the cloth folds and Machiavelli thought it was more important for evidentiary purposes not to disturb the fold pattern than test the stain for DNA? ETA: And of course dabbing cloth with a Q tip is very disruptive of cloth folds at least that seems to be Machiavelli's view here.

Now this is quintessential critical thinking, and it requires an answer from those allied with the prosecution. Not holding breath though.

 

[Antony]

Does anybody here think that the stain wouldn't have been tested if the prosecutor had the tiniest inkling that it was that of RS? Either the prosecutor knows that the stain was not that of RS because he knows RS had nothing to do with this crime or the prosecutor had it tested it and found out it wasn't that of RS so he buried the results. I don't see another significantly likely possibility

"OK lads and lassies, we've screwed up here because we've forgotten something very important in the murder room. That stain on the pillowcase? No, no, no ... there's a little piece of Meredith's bra that's been torn off, so we've got to go back and find it, and film ourselves doing it so everybody knows about it. Who knows? It just might be what we need to show that that student guy poked his fingers into the fastening so that he could force it open without touching the rest of the bra. Cunning, eh?

"And let's not touch the stain on the pillow ... it would spoil the rest of the pillowcase that's bound to be central to the case."

 

[NancyS]

For what it's worth, I happen to agree with your statement . She doesnt present herself the way I think she should either (she's not me). When I see her I realize she's just an ordinary person trying to be on camera what she's not. (comfortable)That's a lawyer, a rebel, Erin Brockavich (sure thats spelled wrong) type .
Ive had a camera in my face with a reporter asking questions and can testify that my brain turned to Jello. It would be even more difficult if my freedom depended on it and I knew people would twist every thing I said around. I'm in favor of the you tube video but with lawyers to anwer the tough questions. Edda seems like a good candidate too. JMO

She's definitely not the superficially charming and confident "psychopath" that many people want to believe she is. Amanda mostly seems quite awkward, although always thinking very carefully how to say things, which is completely normal as whatever she says will be analysed and criticised. She's going to be damned by some, whatever she does or says. If you look at all the horrendous names she has been called, she's doing amazingly well to be saying anything in public, I'm not sure that I could cope with the very public shaming and humiliation she has gone through

 

[acbytesla]

She's definitely not the superficially charming and confident "psychopath" that many people want to believe she is. Amanda mostly seems quite awkward, although always thinking very carefully how to say things, which is completely normal as whatever she says will be analysed and criticised. She's going to be damned by some, whatever she does or says. If you look at all the horrendous names she has been called, she's doing amazingly well to be saying anything in public, I'm not sure that I could cope with the very public shaming and humiliation she has gone through

You've just hit upon something that I have had a continuing argument with Grinder about. Amanda doesn't come off "polished" on tv. But that doesn't mean bad. I was on the debate and speech team in high school, took drama, been a Rotarian as well as spent 30 years in sales. I work on being polished in speaking situations. It's always been a part of my job.

But most people lose something being polished, and that is an appearance of sincerity. Amanda being a suspect in a murder trial will always be viewed "suspiciously" by many. There is no way of getting around that. So she can come off as polished and "slick" or not so polished and appear uncomfortable, which some ...don't mean to name names...(Grinder) as possibly covering something up.

It's a classic no win PR situation.

That is why although I think maybe she should be more practiced and polished, I'm not so confident that others view her through my perspective. So just maybe, developing polish in these circumstances might not aid Amanda in her present circumstance.

 

[bri1]

Now, another further problem in your reasonin, to me, it is the apparent totally adversarial setting. You see two sides: one must be "the good guys", and the other is bad or wrong.
This is fundamentally false from my point of view.
The suspects are guilty not because the police are good or bad - they are neither good nor bad to me, I see them as rather neutral. They are guilty because the police nore anyone else could fabricate that set of evidence, nor it is reasonable to assume that anyone fabricated any part of it.

I don't think most PIP think this way.
I, for one, think that the police and prosecution were, for a while at least, acting in good faith. I think that they genuinely believed that Amanda and Raff were guilty. I think there might have been some occasions where they broke a couple of rules (or guidelines as to best practice) because they believed that it was for the greater good (convicting the guilty for a heinous crime). I think that they were all ill-prepared for investigating a crime like this - and I think that most police forces are, as these kinds of crimes are relatively rare outside of big, violent metropolitan areas. I think that they acted on ignorance- how were they to know about false confessions and the science behind them?

There's plenty of shades of grey here, and in fact the kinds of narratives that would describe the ILE as heroes are all around us in the movies / books / tv shows. I mean, how familiar is this: renegade cop / prosecutor breaks the rules and generally does whatever it takes to solve a crime and catch a bad guy. I think it's an extremely damaging narrative (often, in TV shows, we the audience usually actually get to see the murder, so we have knowledge over and above that which the renegade cop has, which allows us to know he definitely has the right suspect. People then 'forget' that they do not have such knowledge in real life). But people are predisposed to have sympathy with it.

I think that at some point they stopped acting in good faith, and went into damage limitation / cover up mode. However, the existence of PGP such as you, Mach, who still genuinely believe in their guilt, based on this evidence, causes me to doubt this. It shows at least that it's possible to genuinely believe it.
6 years on, with all that time to look at the psychological phenomenon of false confessions, familiarise oneself with the guidelines relating to LCN DNA and forensic handling and collection, familiarise oneself with the shortcomings of witness evidence and behavioural evidence, by this point we have to conclude that what we're looking for might not be purposeful framing, but is at least WILLFUL ignorance.

I was in Perugia over the summer, and spoke in depth with someone who's followed the case closely, and written articles for the local media about the case. Although this man has a scientific background, when I asked him if he had read Saul Kassin's work on false confessions, he indicated that he had not. He therefore remained convinced that Amanda is a liar. When you are aware that there are scientific facts that have a bearing on your beliefs, and you choose to ignore it completely, you are not acting rationally. This is clearly a state of willful ignorance. When PGPs read the psychological evidence but dismiss it for no good reason, or argue that it is not descriptive of Amanda's interrogation for no good reason, this is also not good enough either. It amounts to a refusal to engage with the reasoning process.

Whether one precludes the reasoning process altogether by purposefully remaining ignorant of the facts, or refuses to follow evidence through to it's natural conclusions, this is enough for bad faith, and shows a failing which is at once intellectual and moral.

 

[Paninaro]

Now, another further problem in your reasoning, to me, it is the apparent totally adversarial setting. You see two sides: one must be "the good guys", and the other is bad or wrong.
This is fundamentally false from my point of view.

But don't you yourself have a very black- and white view of the different opinions of this case? In the Amanda Knox threads here you have clearly expressed your opinion that almost everyone who doubts the guilt of Knox and Sollecito or believe in their innocence are either lying, stupid or close to or loyal to the family of Knox for monetary reasons.

Those who find at least reasonable doubt must be wrong, because the truth that Knox and Sollecito are guilty is obvious. Hellmann and Zanetti are for example therefore corrupt and bought. What about the lay judges? Where they bought off too?

I suppose that the people you have discussed with here must fall into some of the above categories? You have discussed with them extensively and got to measure their intelligence to some extent.

It is really a rational view that you happen to be the only intelligent and honest participant in this discussion? That everyone opposed to you is stupid and evil, while you and the other PGP are the ones who've seen the light here?

Couldn't the truth be that this is a very complicated case with at not very clear set of evidence and that many honest and intelligent people for that reason doubt the guilt of Knox and Sollecito?

 

[RoseMontague]

The glass broken from the inside or out was not proven because they failed to run a very simple test. The scream heard or not was not proven because they refused an audiometric test. The semen stain not proven or not to be semen and Guede's because they failed to test it. The computer activity at the prosecution TOD was not proven or not because they refused additional testing. These are signs that the justice system is more interested in keeping the truth hidden than uncovering the truth.

 

[Dan O.]

Also, the bra clasp was cut but let's leave that for later.

Machiavelli, you are truly blind.

But you'll get no pity for you bring this blindness and it's associated ignorance upon yourself. I have shown through detailed photographic evidence and descriptions that the strap and clasp were torn from the back band. You have shown nothing but your sad devotion to the Italian authorities.

The bra clasp, its shoulder strap above all (but also in the inside of cups) was also soaked with blood on the right side. Whereas the major injury was on the left side.
But the left side of the bra was not soaked with blood.

Oh Machiavelli, your false beliefs have forced you so low that now you are lying about what is clearly visible in the photographic evidence. Bra's are apparently very important to Italian men so there are lots of pictures of this bra in the crime scene photos. The bra where found is twisted in the center so the right hand cup is face down and we see the entire inside surface. The inside of this cup is not saturated with blood. There is hardly even any blood inside. Just a little smearing.

I invite you to take a close look at the photo dsc_0137. The left cup is face up and on the top edge we do see some saturation comming onto the front. But what is more interesting is the droplets from sprayed blood. There is a fine spray or smearing across the top half of the left cup and then there is the uniform distribution of larger droplets over the entire cup and even part of the left band. We can see from the buckling of this cup that Meredith was not flat chested. And these larger droplets are even on parts of the cup that would be facing down if Meredith were standing up. These droplets coughed out after the deeper wound penetrated her throat and pulled down by gravity cannot then turn around and fly upward to reach this overhanging surface. The logical conclusion is that Meredith is lying down on her back or right side after the fatal wound was inflicted and before the bra came off.