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

[HotNostril]

Isn't that interesting Strozzi? It is typical guilter behavior. The simple fact is the argument never actually holds up to scrutiny. It's really embarrassing.

Most people Strozzi are not honest. Not that they are really trying to deceive people. Just that they are first lying to themselves. I think back to some of the great scientists in history that publicly rebutted some new discovery. Einstein for years said that quantum mechanics was bull. Remember his famous quote "that God doesn't play with dice"? this statement was to refute quantum mechanic's expression that you could tell where an a electron at a specific moment in time, but you could describe it in terms of probability.

But today we have an entire industry based on electrons.

Einstein held to his wrong headed belief for years. None of these guilters or prosecutors are any different. They made a declaration and everything is about proving that they were right instead a search for truth.

Hot Nostril refuses to think about it. She doesn't challenge her ideas and is offended if anyone else challenges them. Whereas, someone who is intellectually honest thinks about those challenges. Hot Nostril doesn't. This is all about being right. She argues to maintain her self esteem.

She will never open her mind.

I wouldn't be here if I didn't want my opinions challenged.
I've been honest and open about my shortcomings.
I could care less if I'm right or wrong. It has absolutely zero impact on my life.
I'm curious. I want to know the truth. I'm less concerned about what's admissible, what's legal, whose judicial system is better, who can be more insulting on a message board.
I have difficultly with the scenario laid out by the prosecution.
I don't believe murder is logical and therefore to argue what logically a murderer would do ...seems preposterous.
I don't have all the answers. I find it interesting quite a few here seem to believe they do with 100% certainty. That seems rather arrogant and pompous to me. Especially when John Douglass's name is invoked as if he was actually there.
With enough money or hope for making a name for themselves, I can find an expert to testify to damn near anything.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think a program should be designed to educate prosecutors.... In order to become a prosecutor.... And it seems prosecutors aim only to prosecute... Rather then justice.

It also does not help that in many cases they are elected positions especially in the south. When I voted for Commonwealth Attorney for my home city, I had to base my vote on a couple of factoids.

 

[acbytesla]

Tell that to Billy Ray Cope. His conviction for raping and murdering his daughter was recently upheld on appeal.

The issues in his case are strikingly similar to those in the Knox case. And he is no more likely to be guilty than Knox.

I know there's a certain agenda behind the assertion that the Knox case couldn't happen in the US. There just isn't a lot of truth behind it.
.
.

I'm not familiar with the Billy Ray Cope trial and conviction. I agree that it might be possible for something like Knox to happen in the US. Debra Milke for example was convicted on less and mostly on the say so of one man. And that guy should be in jail.

I'm convinced that Amanda's conviction would be reversed at appeal because the orignial court made mistakes in procedure that would make the appeal successful.

The Luminol evidence being used would be rejected because of the negative TMB tests.

The failure of the prosecution to disclose DNA evidence such as the EDF files.

The false statement would be enough to throw out the case. If for example, Amanda had said falsely said she was there with Rudy. She'd be toast. But the fact that the falsity was about someone that has been proven NOT to be at the scene of the crime would reverse the result.

I'm not naive, the US has plenty of wrongful prosecutions. We make lots of mistakes and there are definitely innocent people behind bars for crimes that they didn't convict.

I could be wrong, but I still don't see how a conviction of Amanda Knox in the US with the evidence and how it was presented in Italy would survive an appeals court.

 

[RoseMontague]

Tell that to Billy Ray Cope. His conviction for raping and murdering his daughter was recently upheld on appeal.

The issues in his case are strikingly similar to those in the Knox case. And he is no more likely to be guilty than Knox.

I know there's a certain agenda behind the assertion that the Knox case couldn't happen in the US. There just isn't a lot of truth behind it.
.
.

This one the cops arrested the dad, found out from DNA tests it was another guy and decided to prosecute both in a rather weird sort of conspiracy, so yes, it has some similarities. I lived in SC and followed some of this. There is a lot of mystery to this case and even the family is divided on guilt or innocence. I believe he is innocent.

My opinion is in the vast majority of jurisdictions in the US, Amanda and Raffaele would not have been tried much less convicted.

 

[lane99]

Three of a kind

If it's as bad as that, why do you always, always mention the exact same case?

It was mentioned because a poster solicited the information. And because it's the case that more than any other indicates that John Douglas has no clothes.

But feel free to provide any objective, impartially obtained data that shows his hit rate is any better than your average astrologer or psychic.
.
.

 

[Desert Fox]

Overall, I'd say you were right. But if you look through the featured cases at the National Registry of Exonerations, you will find quite a few from Illinois and New York, even California.

True. . .I kind of meant more on average

I like this idea. Totally blind.

Well, with a high profile case, still not be totally blind.
That is impossible but at least help.

That clasp would get thrown out in a blink of an eye in the US. It violates standards for chain of evidence. And let's not get started about the fact that Stefanoni to this day has never presented the EDF files.

I would say probably but not certainly. You know that in some areas, the Coroner is an elected position?

 

[Matthew Best]

It was mentioned because a poster solicited the information. And because it's the case that more than any other indicates that John Douglas has no clothes.

I just thought you'd have several cases you could point to, but you always point to the same one, which suggests you don't have any more than that one. But I could be wrong.

 

[lane99]

It's a wash

...I could be wrong, but I still don't see how a conviction of Amanda Knox in the US with the evidence and how it was presented in Italy would survive an appeals court.

Ok. But it didn't survive an appeals court in Italy, either.
.
.

 

[RandyN]

I never claimed I had a theory.

I was asked about digestive times many, many pages ago... my answer was : "I have no idea".

I'm not a full time student of this case and I have a life that does not allow 30 plus posts a day 24/7 about a convicted felon.

I am not an expert on DNA. I'm not an expert about digestion. Etc.

I have not been in the court room and foll0wed the trial. I am not on the jury.

The video uses clever cuts, misrepresents the climber (he's an expert climber and teaches rock climbing here in Italy), the climber conducts the climb in bright daylight rather than at night, the video is not shot from a distance so we can follow the climbers moves ...etc.

And the truth is Massei never claims in his motivations report that it is impossible to climb up to that window.

It's a non issue."


So you are from Italy. Are you Italian? Are you an expat pretend reporter? A disgraced expat Brit documentary producer? Just guessing here but I tend to key on certain argument styles. For example Hot Nostril reminds me of Michael, the stealer of PMF 1 or was it 2 ? But that is just crazy speculation on my part, much like the argument you bring here. No facts, no evidence. Almost as if you took the pages from Migninis play book.

As for rude or ill treatment. I simply don't see it. I see some strong comment against your weak arguments. I see you being called out for failing to simply state your case for guilt that fits the known facts. A time line which should be so very simple if this case against AK or RS guilt is so clear.

You can pretend that this site is composed of PIP or FOA but that simply is more wrong thinking on your part. We argue facts here. Some consider your "facts" presented so far as long ago refuted opinion about character only but certainly nothing coming close to being factual evidence. Not trying to excuse RS or AK for anything. If you have something substantial I will hop or your band wagon in a heart beat. OTOH calling your arguments weak baseless nonsense and that includes not just you but Yummi, and Nostril et al is neither snippy nor rude.

You have been given fair response to your opinions. You have been asked follow up questions and frankly you have been treated with more patience by most here than your argument deserves IMHO. I can be rude and snippy. Every time I hear a BS argument and the arguer fails to address the members honest questions then I get "snippier and perhaps even ruder" but not against you...just your weak argument. So please try harder. You can do better.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't have all the answers. I find it interesting quite a few here seem to believe they do with 100% certainty. That seems rather arrogant and pompous to me. Especially when John Douglass's name is invoked as if he was actually there.
With enough money or hope for making a name for themselves, I can find an expert to testify to damn near anything.

Are you saying you think Douglas was paid off by somebody to support the case for innocence?

 

[GWCarver]

I googled this and it sounds like ya'll are talking about Billy Wayne Cope, not "Ray".

 

[andreajo]

I just thought you'd have several cases you could point to, but you always point to the same one, which suggests you don't have any more than that one. But I could be wrong.

From the executive summary of the Kaufman report on the Guy Paul Morin miscarriage of justice:

The Durham Police obtained FBI profiler John Douglas’ assistance in preparing a profile of the killer of Christine Jessop. Criminal profiling involves the analysis of the details of a crime and clues left behind, in conjunction with an understanding of similar cases, to prepare a psychological profile of the killer. The Commissioner found that the information investigators provided to Douglas may have been contaminated by their pre-conceived views. This highlights the wisdom of not conducting a profile once a suspect has been identified. Though features of the profile did parallel Guy Paul Morin, it could not reasonably be said that it matched or even closely resembled Morin. This caused no introspection on the part of the investigators. Inspector Shephard’s candid comment was that “if [the profile] said a female was responsible, probably we would have looked in the other direction.”

A modified profile was released to the public. Characteristics which corresponded to Morin were released to the press; those which did not were excluded or amended to conform. The Commissioner found that the use of a modified profile was problematic. It was intended to ‘spook’ Morin. However, by tailoring the profile to fit him, the police helped ensure that he could never get a fair trial in that region.

Not a damning indictment of John Douglas' work on the case.

 

[davefoc]

Tell that to Billy Ray Cope. His conviction for raping and murdering his daughter was recently upheld on appeal.

The issues in his case are strikingly similar to those in the Knox case. And he is no more likely to be guilty than Knox.

I know there's a certain agenda behind the assertion that the Knox case couldn't happen in the US. There just isn't a lot of truth behind it.
.
.

There has been a lot of examples put forth about wrongful death convictions in the US, so most people participating in this thread are well aware that wrongful convictions like the wrongful conviction of Knox and Sollecito happen in the US.

The normal contention is that US defendant protections would likely have prevented this case from being prosecuted in the US or at least made it more difficult. I think the people that have suggested this is more likely to be correct today than 20 years ago or so are right. I live in the US and I am not aware of a case in the last 20 years or so where it is more certain that innocent people have been convicted of a crime than this one.

Based on your post I read a couple of articles about the Cope case. It looks like there is a good chance he is innocent to me, but I don't know enough to make a judgment that it is as likely that Cope is innocent as it is that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

There is one big difference between the Billy Ray Cope case in the US and the AK/RS case in Italy. The prosecutor didn't get to run around charging everybody that publicly spoke against him of various crimes.

As an side, a number of wrongful conviction cases have been described in this thread. One that hasn't been mentioned is the wrongful conviction of Leo Frank. It is a horrible example of antisemitism, political manipulation of the trial process and mob rule. I first became aware of the case when I saw the musical, Parade. I walked out of the musical. It tried to treat the Frank respectfully, while singing about the horrible crimes committed against him. I don't think there is any way to treat somebody respectfully while you are singing about the crimes perpetrated against him.

 

[Desert Fox]

Based on your post I read a couple of articles about the Cope case. It looks like there is a good chance he is innocent to me, but I don't know enough to make a judgment that it is as likely that Cope is innocent as it is that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.

Well, James Sanders is a serial offender so kind of similar in that respect.

 

[acbytesla]

I wouldn't be here if I didn't want my opinions challenged.
I've been honest and open about my shortcomings.
I could care less if I'm right or wrong. It has absolutely zero impact on my life.
I'm curious. I want to know the truth. I'm less concerned about what's admissible, what's legal, whose judicial system is better, who can be more insulting on a message board.
[

I have respect for that. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm convinced that you aren't offering anything that would logically support your assertion that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Which you must believe strongly, because that is what you are posting.

My request to you is to evaluate the REASONS that you believe they are guilty and evaluate the exculpatory evidence that shows that they didn't actually commit the crime.

But you should concern yourself with why certain evidence shouldn't be admissible. There is a reason that coerced statements and confessions are not admissible. It's because they aren't reliable.

Take the DNA evidence in this trial. There are only two pieces of DNA evidence that is incriminating to Amanda and/or Raffaele.

1. The Cooking knife. Ignore the fact this knife is highly unlikely to have been at the cottage and returned to Raffaele's apartment. The DNA evidence in itself that is incriminating is sample 36B on the blade of the knife. Stefanoni NEVER presented the electronic data files to the court. This is no mere oversight. These are the raw machine files that accompany every test. Why has she to this day never submitted them? In the US, the UK and in most of the world, full disclosure of ALL the evidence is required to keep a trial fair. And yet she still hides it. Why?

Then you have to explain why Stefanoni dramatically changed her routine for this one and only sample. Why? She took hundreds of samples yet decided for this single sample to perform a DNA test far, far, far outside normal testing parameters. Virtually every DNA scientist that have looked at this particular test by Stefanoni is left shaking their head wondering why Stefanoni did it this weird way. Why would Stefanoni ignore 10 consecutive NEGATIVE results until she got a positive result?

And why didn't she perform multiple tests which even the RIS said was essential to ensure a result?

The other is the bra clasp which is the only piece of evidence incriminating either Amanda or Raffaele that has ever given me pause. It's a match to Raffaele. There is no getting around it. But again, Stefanoni has never provided the essential EDF files. Why would she hide these. BTW, she could provide these results in under 5 minutes...unless she has destroyed them from the database. There is a lot more that is wrong with the DNA evidence, but even I know that it is tedious and boring so I won't bother at the moment.

I have difficultly with the scenario laid out by the prosecution.

That's a good sign.

I don't believe murder is logical and therefore to argue what logically a murderer would do ...seems preposterous.

This I don't understand. Murder in fact is most often very logical. It might not be rational. But it is 99 percent logical. A crazy man kills because he's crazy. That's logical. A husband kills his wife because of very strong emotions. A husband, wife or offspring might kill for an inheritance. A drug dealer might kill to avoid being caught. A burglar might kill a homeowner upon being discovered. A robber might shoot someone in the commission of his crime. All LOGICAL. Maybe not rational, but definitely logical.
Rudy murdering Meredith in the commission of a burglary is very logical. Amanda and Raffaele quickly running over after being surprised that they had the night free and getting together with Rudy, pretty much a total stranger and killing Meredith is definitely NOT LOGICAL.

I don't have all the answers. I find it interesting quite a few here seem to believe they do with 100% certainty. That seems rather arrogant and pompous to me. Especially when John Douglass's name is invoked as if he was actually there.

Who among us does have all the answers? But you did remind me of one of my favorite sayings. "People who think they know all the answers are really annoying to those of us that do".

John Douglass isn't a god. He's made mistakes, he'll even tell you that he has.
But there is no getting around the fact that he is a preeminent expert when it comes to investigating violent crimes and criminals. His opinion while not infallible is certainly not to be taken lightly. He knows more about this kind of thing than you or I will ever know. Thank God, because the idea of actually viewing crime scene photos of murders gives me the heebie jeebies.

With enough money or hope for making a name for themselves, I can find an expert to testify to damn near anything.

That is true, but some experts value their reputation. That they won't simply say something for the money. And John Douglass has offered some very salient analysis. You can discard it...but I think you are doing it, not because you have actually thought in depth what John Douglass has said, but because his opinion conflicts with you own stated bias.

 

[acbytesla]

Ok. But it didn't survive an appeals court in Italy, either.
.
.

Granted, but Italy came back for another piece of the apple.

 

[Kaosium]

I wouldn't be here if I didn't want my opinions challenged.
I've been honest and open about my shortcomings.
I could care less if I'm right or wrong. It has absolutely zero impact on my life.
I'm curious. I want to know the truth. I'm less concerned about what's admissible, what's legal, whose judicial system is better, who can be more insulting on a message board.
I have difficultly with the scenario laid out by the prosecution.
I don't believe murder is logical and therefore to argue what logically a murderer would do ...seems preposterous.
I don't have all the answers. I find it interesting quite a few here seem to believe they do with 100% certainty. That seems rather arrogant and pompous to me. Especially when John Douglass's name is invoked as if he was actually there.
With enough money or hope for making a name for themselves, I can find an expert to testify to damn near anything.

Fair enough, I called one of your arguments 'pig ignorant' as I recall, but when I did that I also knew you weren't the one who came up with it. It's not difficult to discern where some information comes from, especially when it has been posted in these threads for years and the source is known.

 

[Dan O.]

I read every post an evaluate it based on my limited understanding of the material.
I have more doubts now than I did previously..so my participation isn't just to stand stubbornly in defense of my opinion.
The personal insults take away from otherwise interesting & thought provoking points being made.
I've found it's not a great idea to insult those you're trying to educate or change their opinion.

Then I have missed the evidence that you are learning from the efforts we put forth to answer so many questions. Have any of your posts shown acceptance of the answers you were given or have you countered any of the answers with the limited material you do have an understanding of? Or, have you just been dodging from one guilter talking point to the next like so many have in the past where their mind is already made up and there is no way the facts are going to get in their way?

I've posted challenges for the newbies that should at least spark questions. For instance, when I posted the reversed bathmat picture, did you know that it was reversed? Do you understand how it could have legitimately been reversed? Perhaps that's a poor example since it would tend to leave the newbies so totally blown away that they would be afraid to ask the followup questions.

What about the open door on November 14? That is a huge deal but nobody asks how this is supported.

I've asked specific questions about how a specific print on the floor at marker #2 in the hall could be cleaned up. Nobody answers that but the "there was a cleanup" meme comes right back.

And while we're on the cleaning meme, why did I get no response to this claim?

I have shown proof that there was a case for bleach used in the hall at the cottage.

Wouldn't you like to know if there was something that supported your position?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Billy Wayne Cope and false confessions

Tell that to Billy Ray Cope. His conviction for raping and murdering his daughter was recently upheld on appeal

lane99,

You might mean Billy Wayne Cope. I brought his case up in a previous thread, and Charlie Wilkes knows the case better than I do. I grant that the cases are similar in that there is a false confession and that the prosecution alleged an absurd conspiracy in response to new data.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

For starters, the murder of Christine Jessop. Where John Douglas appears to have tailored his "profile" to help build a case against a suspect the police already had in mind.

It's one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in Canadian history. And when Douglas was asked to participate in an inquiry into how it occurred, he turtled.

And you're the one that invoked Douglas' supposedly unchallengeable reputation. Well, in fact, his track record is about as good as Sylvia Browne's.
.
.

It's true: Douglas is not a psychic and he can't guess who the guilty person is.

Here's some information about Douglas's profile and the role it played:

The FBI profile listed a number of personal characteristics, propensities and interpersonal difficulties which were associated with the person responsible for the murder of Christine Jessop. [...]

A number of these points could not relate to Guy Paul Morin in any way. By way of example only, he had no history of criminality, he was not lazy, did not have a poor self-image, physical ailment, disability or disfigurement. There was no evidence that he was a ‘cruiser.’ There was no evidence that his vehicle was cleaned after the offence was committed; to the contrary. He was not rigid, stiff, pre-occupied or nervous with the police; to the contrary. He did not demonstrate an overly cooperative attitude by participating in the search (ironically, despite this aspect of the profile, his failure to search was later used to demonstrate consciousness of guilt). There was no evidence he had experienced a number of ‘failings’ in his life, that his parents were after him to find a job, that he was experiencing difficulties with a girlfriend at the time of the offence or that his parents were experiencing marital difficulties. There was no evidence that he dated girls younger than himself whom he could easily dominate. In summary, it could not reasonably be said that the profile matched or even closely resembled Guy Paul Morin.

Insp Shephard admitted that he and Fitzpatrick probably focused on the features of the profile which fit Morin and ignored those which did not: “Obviously, if they didn’t fit him, then it was of no value to us, but it was .. only a guide that we used anyway.”

http://netk.net.au/Canada/Morin30.asp

Emphasis mine.