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

[js202]

You've heard of Poe's Law, I take it?

Now I have. Apparently Poe spends a good deal of time running rampant on the nutjob sites "dedicated to Ms. Kercher's memory"...

Such irrationality literally sends chills up my spine.

 

[katy_did]

I read this as parody. Was that your intent?

I don't know if it was parody but the phrase "She decided that the poop was the smoking gun that will set her free" will linger in the mind for a while. I bet Crini wishes he thought of that one.

 

[Desert Fox]

At this point, I doubt he can recall the whole truth. Human memories are notoriously fragile and malleable. There is scientific evidence that every time one accesses a memory, it changes. On top of that Guede is probably a psychopath, which no doubt exacerbates the problem of confabulation. I suppose he probably still knows that Knox/Sollecito were not there and had nothing to do with the murder, but his sincere recollection of the evening probably deviates greatly from the truth at this point.

I was going to argue that as well. . . .Somebody else who knows the scientific issues involved.

 

[NancyS]

One of my brothers died a few years ago. . . .He had a little money in his estate. Yes, the family discussed the status of the money.
Ultimately, life has to go on and practical matters and practical matters intrude.

Tell you one even closer to now. I had to put my dog to sleep last week.
Had her since around 2000 and she had been my walking companion for many years. Wasn't doing well the last couple of days. Could have taken her to a vet Thursday but waited an extra day until almost first thing Friday morning to take her to Animal Control because they are far cheaper.

One of the biggest stresses for anyone after someone dies is the practical and financial issues - how much everything costs is often at the forefront of people's minds, even in very tragic circumstances.

I've had many a relative on my wards, coming to visit a dying relative, who have been most stressed about the costs of the car park or getting parking fines - and I doubt whether they are all murdering psychopaths

 

[NancyS]

I don't know if it was parody but the phrase "She decided that the poop was the smoking gun that will set her free" will linger in the mind for a while. I bet Crini wishes he thought of that one.

You do sometimes have to wonder if this really is all about a court case, or whether it is actually all a big advert for Movicol - 'the poop will set you free'

 

[Grinder]

I don't. It is obvious that 9-10PM is your window for TOD. It is also pretty obvious that some posters are trying to get a reaction rather than a discussion.

Here's a little drill for those that are mocking the digestive state as evidence that the murder couldn't have been after 10:30 and most likely was an hour earlier.

Imagine that the kids had an iron clad alibi from 10:30 on would they still argue that the TOD could be as late as 11:30 and the lack of chyme in the duodenum means nothing in terms of TOD?

There is no doubt that if they needed to have the TOD before 10:30 they would point to the osmotic analysis of all the other evidence even if the duodenum was full of chyme and the stomach half full.

The digestive evidence fits with everything else known to put the TOD before 10.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here's a little drill for those that are mocking the digestive state as evidence that the murder couldn't have been after 10:30 and most likely was an hour earlier.

Imagine that the kids had an iron clad alibi from 10:30 on would they still argue that the TOD could be as late as 11:30 and the lack of chyme in the duodenum means nothing in terms of TOD?

There is no doubt that if they needed to have the TOD before 10:30 they would point to the osmotic analysis of all the other evidence even if the duodenum was full of chyme and the stomach half full.

The digestive evidence fits with everything else known to put the TOD before 10.

That's the trouble with considering this case "osmotically", isn't it? When considered as a whole, the digestive bell-curve fits with "all the other evidence" that the poor woman was gone before 9:30, given a meal which started at about 6 pm. Even Crini at the Florence Trial gave the Nencini court the option of T.O.D., to fit around the time that the broken down car was outside.

To convict it is not a matter of considering all this osmotically, it is a matter of actually ignoring parts of that osmosis.

I can't believe I just typed this.

 

[Dan O.]

In fact, Filomena understood what losing access to her home meant. So much so that against police orders to stay out she dashed back into her room to grab her laptop, possibly disturbing glass particles and maybe stepping on/smearing the dirt shoeprint that Rudy's shoe left on the floor near her laptop.

That is not entirely true.

Everybody was kicked out of the house after the murder was discovered. But then before they sent everyone off to the police station they let some of the kids back into the living room to grab their things that they brought in that morning. Filomena's bag was on the couch and she grabbed that then slipped into her room which was right there and grabbed her laptop which she had already picked up from the pile earlier before the discovery.

At the police station the police noticed the laptop and insisted that it was to stay because it was seized with the rest of the house.

Filomena got her laptop back along with some other personal items on December 18. It took 5 technicians about a year to restore it to full operation.

The majority of this is from Filomena's testimony of 2009-02-07.

 

[Diocletus]

ECtHR: ISC/Nencini's Procedure was Illegal?

Vaduva v. Romania (25 February 2014) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-141172

Holding: In reversing an acquittal, an appellate court cannot decide contested issues and make credibility determinations without itself hearing the relevant witnesses and allowing proper expert examination of incriminating evidence.

Vaduva and alleged co-conspirators were indicted for drug trafficking. The trial court convicted the co-conspirators, but acquitted Vaduva for lack of evidence against him. The prosecutor appealed Vaduva’s acquittal, and the Court of Appeal conducted a proceeding in which it did not hear testimony from Vaduva or others, and instead, relied on (i) statements undercover police operatives, (ii) partially-disclosed transcripts of wiretaps, and (iii) a retracted statement that a co-conspirator had made in the absence of counsel. The Court of Appeal determined that Vaduva was dishonest, and convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis of the existing record.

Vaduva argued that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had erred by reversing his acquittal without hearing Vaduva’s testimony, witness testimony, examining the defense arguments, or allowing full discovery of the wiretap evidence.

The ECtHR explained that appellate courts are bound to conduct a “fair trial” when they adjudicate a case on both the facts and the law. This means that the defendant has a right to be heard. In addition, there must be an adversarial procedure and equality of arms, and therefore, all evidence against the defendant must ordinarily be presented in a public trial and the defendant must have an adequate and proper opportunity to cross-examine.

The ECtHR concluded that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were obligated to “make a full assessment of the applicant’s guilt or innocence . . . since the same evidence had been used both to acquit and to convict.” Given the issues raised before the appellate courts, including the issue of Vaduva’s credibility, the appellate courts should have conducted a “full assessment.” It was a violation of Article 6 for the appellate courts to convict Vaduva (i) “without hearing evidence directly from him or from the witnesses,” (ii) “without giving proper consideration to his requests to allow expert examination” of incriminating evidence, and (iii) without allowing appropriate questioning of the undercover witnesses.

The ECtHR ordered a new trial or re-opening of the domestic proceedings.

 

[Desert Fox]

The "evidence" we have of her guilt is that she acted strange after the rape and a forced "confession."

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, you should well know my stance by now, I am through repeating it, if you don't wish to go back and look it up the 100 times I have repeated it then just follow the evidence and you will find the truth.

Well, I will follow the last half of your recommendations.

Rudy did it. Amanda returned to the cottage at 10:30 am the next day and had a shower. The cottage was in an unusual state, Knox did odd things based on an unintelligible state that the cottage was in.

Proof that the cottage was in a confused state (apart from what was behind Meredith's locked door) was that the postal police did not suspect anything more than "this is no burglary", which of course it wasn't, even if it had started out that way.

Rudy broke in. Took a dump. One poster on this thread actually believes that Amanda could tell it was Rudy just by looking at his pooh. Now THAT'S a new one.

I do know your theory. It holds no water. It's best to go with the evidence, rather than evidenceless assertions. There's been too much of that...

 

[Bill Williams]

In fact, Filomena understood what losing access to her home meant. So much so that against police orders to stay out she dashed back into her room to grab her laptop, possibly disturbing glass particles and maybe stepping on/smearing the dirt shoeprint that Rudy's shoe left on the floor near her laptop.

That is not entirely true.

Everybody was kicked out of the house after the murder was discovered. But then before they sent everyone off to the police station they let some of the kids back into the living room to grab their things that they brought in that morning. Filomena's bag was on the couch and she grabbed that then slipped into her room which was right there and grabbed her laptop which she had already picked up from the pile earlier before the discovery.

At the police station the police noticed the laptop and insisted that it was to stay because it was seized with the rest of the house.

Filomena got her laptop back along with some other personal items on December 18. It took 5 technicians about a year to restore it to full operation.

The majority of this is from Filomena's testimony of 2009-02-07.

There's a poster here who believes it is incriminating against Knox because she mentioned this in her e-mail of Nov 4, the difficulties of knowing where to live, now that the house was a crime scene. The confirmation bias is that this proves Knox is a murdered.

Filomena, on the other hand, lawyered up as soon as she heard about the break-in. The window in her room was the one broken. Was she on the hook for damages? Was she on the hook for rent?

This is Italy... better lawyer up, because the legal process could take years to settle.

The very last call Knox had as a free woman in 2007 was with Filomena and they were BOTH discussing this. Why, then, is not Filomena considered a co-conspirator... she also had a key to the front door, and relied on her boyfirend's alibi, if you will.

Reading a poster try to link Knox's Nov 4 e-mail to something suggesting murder, is what it is. Silly.

It's part of "all the other evidence", once the DNA collapses, which it did in the Conti-Vecchiotti report back in 2011. True, Italy is about to strike that down, but consider this...

... the American State of Indiana once tried to legislate the value of Pi, to make it confirm more to the Biblical value of Pi as found in 1 Kings 7:23.

Cassazione can do a lot for justice, but when it starts trying to fiddle with empiricism.....

 

[toto]

I read this as parody. Was that your intent?

I thought it was rather a good parody, but unfortunately he made it clear in his following post that he meant it.

 

[anglolawyer]

That's the trouble with considering this case "osmotically", isn't it? When considered as a whole, the digestive bell-curve fits with "all the other evidence" that the poor woman was gone before 9:30, given a meal which started at about 6 pm. Even Crini at the Florence Trial gave the Nencini court the option of T.O.D., to fit around the time that the broken down car was outside.

To convict it is not a matter of considering all this osmotically, it is a matter of actually ignoring parts of that osmosis.

I can't believe I just typed this.

Yes, it is quite incredible that you did. Slowly, through repeated use, 'osmotic' is becoming a serious word, as if it actually means something. I mean well done for using those quotation marks but slowly they will disappear. You watch. The word is doesn't even provide a very good image for what it's supposed to describe. A newbie coming to the thread in a few more months will read us using it in all seriousness (once we have forgotten, or ceased to bother linking it to, its ridiculous source) and will wonder - WTF?

 

[Kestrel]

I was going to argue that as well. . . .Somebody else who knows the scientific issues involved.

The public perception is that human memory works like a TIVO box. Science tells us that when we recall an event, we reconstruct what happened. This reconstruction isn't based on just our observations from the time of the event. It often includes other information we picked up before or after the event.

Recalling a memory is also destructive. Whenever we recall an event, our brain needs to store that information again. If that process is interrupted, the memory can be lost.

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought it was rather a good parody, but unfortunately he made it clear in his following post that he meant it.

There was a parody thread at IIP but it proved insufficiently extreme to capture the flavour of some of the guilter crap so a 'beyond parody' thread was found to be required The post you reference and Sherlock's recent involvementer effort belong in there.

 

[katy_did]

You do sometimes have to wonder if this really is all about a court case, or whether it is actually all a big advert for Movicol - 'the poop will set you free'

Well it's certainly catchy...

 

[anglolawyer]

Vaduva v. Romania (25 February 2014) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-141172

Holding: In reversing an acquittal, an appellate court cannot decide contested issues and make credibility determinations without itself hearing the relevant witnesses and allowing proper expert examination of incriminating evidence.

Vaduva and alleged co-conspirators were indicted for drug trafficking. The trial court convicted the co-conspirators, but acquitted Vaduva for lack of evidence against him. The prosecutor appealed Vaduva’s acquittal, and the Court of Appeal conducted a proceeding in which it did not hear testimony from Vaduva or others, and instead, relied on (i) statements undercover police operatives, (ii) partially-disclosed transcripts of wiretaps, and (iii) a retracted statement that a co-conspirator had made in the absence of counsel. The Court of Appeal determined that Vaduva was dishonest, and convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis of the existing record.

Vaduva argued that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had erred by reversing his acquittal without hearing Vaduva’s testimony, witness testimony, examining the defense arguments, or allowing full discovery of the wiretap evidence.

The ECtHR explained that appellate courts are bound to conduct a “fair trial” when they adjudicate a case on both the facts and the law. This means that the defendant has a right to be heard. In addition, there must be an adversarial procedure and equality of arms, and therefore, all evidence against the defendant must ordinarily be presented in a public trial and the defendant must have an adequate and proper opportunity to cross-examine.

The ECtHR concluded that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were obligated to “make a full assessment of the applicant’s guilt or innocence . . . since the same evidence had been used both to acquit and to convict.” Given the issues raised before the appellate courts, including the issue of Vaduva’s credibility, the appellate courts should have conducted a “full assessment.” It was a violation of Article 6 for the appellate courts to convict Vaduva (i) “without hearing evidence directly from him or from the witnesses,” (ii) “without giving proper consideration to his requests to allow expert examination” of incriminating evidence, and (iii) without allowing appropriate questioning of the undercover witnesses.

The ECtHR ordered a new trial or re-opening of the domestic proceedings.

Nice find.

 

[Dan O.]

The very last call Knox had as a free woman in 2007 was with Filomena and they were BOTH discussing this. Why, then, is not Filomena considered a co-conspirator... she also had a key to the front door, and relied on her boyfirend's alibi, if you will.

The facts seem to be often forgotten by those seeking to vilify Amanda. That last phone call was recorded (those Italian police record everything except that which is required to be recorded):

AK: I know. And I thought I wouldn't have to go [inaudible squeak but I'm
guessing she said "there today"]. And what did you do today?

FR: Me, today, I went to my office to get some information about our contract.

AK: Yes? And how is it?

FR: It's good, it's good. And then I called the agency.

AK: Mmm. And?

FR: And I have an appointment for tomorrow morning.

 

[sunmaster14]

... the American State of Indiana once tried to legislate the value of Pi, to make it confirm more to the Biblical value of Pi as found in 1 Kings 7:23.

This appears to be a myth, according to wikipedia. It had nothing to do with the Bible, and was not even directly related to the value of Pi. Seems to have been an attempt by an amateur mathematician to have an erroneous geometric proof effectively patented by legislation.

But of course I agree with your point.