Is Amanda Knox guilty?

[mike777]

I would add that the forensic science in this case was a complete muck up.

 

To be fair as lousy as the Italian court system is, the USA has more than its fair share of muck ups.

[jjbrr]

I think your source is biased, and am pulling out just this excerpt as an example.

 

Of course I don't know Italian law. But in the USA, the defense would have no obligation to offer an explanation of the location of the lamp. In fact, if Amanda is innocent, she would indeed have no idea why it was there. Burden of proof is criminal law 101, and suggesting that the accused should explain trivial details is not an argument.

 

The second bit is pure speculation, and has no place in a presentation of facts.

 

of course the source is biased. he's spent hundreds of hours on an internet forum arguing with shills that AK is guilty. i can't really think of a more biased source.

 

I also agree that some of his speculations/conclusions/assumptions are bad. In this case I think he was bringing up AK's lamp because it had been wiped clean of fingerprints after the murder.

[mike777]

I read this book years ago and recommend anyone interest in AK and the Italian Justice system read The Monster of Florence.

 

-----------------

----------------

"Hey Bill, I was wondering what you think of the book The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. I noticed you quoted it in a chapter introduction in Popular Crime. The book certainly paints a picture of the way criminal investigations in Italy can be politicized in bizarre ways, perhaps placing the Amanda Knox case in some kind of perspective. On a related note, I'd be very interested in seeing the list of 100 best crime books you alluded to in your book and maybe some insight into what makes a crime book a great one in your opinion.

 

Asked by: Nate

 

 

Answered: 5/20/2011

 

 

 

I did read the book, yes. The Prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case was actually the same Prosecutor as in the Monster of Florence case. . .the same man, some of the same investigators.

 

That is a good book, and I thought about mentioning it in my book, but there's a curious problem with it. Preston and Spezi--having themselves been the victims of irresponsible allegations in the case, and having seen numerous other people prosecuted based on insubstantial allegations, then propose a "solution" to the mystery which is as irresponsible as any such allegation I have ever seen. I was just astonished by that, that, in a book which is essentially about irresponsible allegations on the part of prosecutors, they then put forward a totally baseless, far-fetched and improbable "solution" to the mystery by accusing a man--a living citizen--of committing the murders"

 

 

From Bill James

[Fluffy]

So this is why we don't get any more cats at WC? you were at some other silly forum following this nonsense?

 

The case is pretty clear, she is pretty, she is amercan, she cannot be guilty, period.

[gwnn]

Actually she was convicted twice and counting.

[el mister]

Dropping some knowledge there jjbrr.

It does seem still to circulate around the black hole of motive, though (IMHO) - why would a sane person stab an acquaintance to death for no reason? Has this H17 guy disclosed his conjecture in that regard?

[Aberlour10]

Is there a single tv talk show in North America that not presented her as a victim of the barbarian italian justice?

[billw55]

Actually she was convicted twice and counting.

.. the conviction was also voided once, by an Italian judge, with pretty scathing language for the case and its prosecution. So which actions of the Italian court system shall we accept as correct? Perhaps the conviction of geologists for failing to predict an earthquake.

 

Oh well, only three people really know. Two of them surely aren't telling, and the third is of dubious reliability. I get the feeling she knows more than she is telling, but that doesn't make her a murderer. OK she could be. Or maybe not. To me either is plausible, and we have this thingy about reasonable doubt, well here in USA we do.

 

Dropping some knowledge there jjbrr.

It does seem still to circulate around the black hole of motive, though (IMHO) - why would a sane person stab an acquaintance to death for no reason? Has this H17 guy disclosed his conjecture in that regard?

If the hypothesis is drug rage, then motive isn't really necessary IMO.

[gwnn]

Dropping some knowledge there jjbrr.

It does seem still to circulate around the black hole of motive, though (IMHO) - why would a sane person stab an acquaintance to death for no reason? Has this H17 guy disclosed his conjecture in that regard?

Amanda and Rafaelle stole some money from her (Meredith) and they were trying to threaten her and things got out of hand. One account had Rudy pricking her on one side with the knife and she reflexively pulling her neck away from it, into the other knife held by Amanda. Then they "had to" kill her if they were going to get away with it. Yes, several points of this account are based on speculation but a proper narrative and motive is not needed for a conviction (H17's point but I guess it is correct) -- this is not an Agatha Christie novel, people kill other people for stupider reasons than a life insurance or silencing a witness, and a clear narrative may not be available like Hercule Poirot's nice roundups.

[gwnn]

doubleton

[gwnn]

.. the conviction was also voided once, by an Italian judge, with pretty scathing language for the case and its prosecution. So which actions of the Italian court system shall we accept as correct? Perhaps the conviction of geologists for failing to predict an earthquake.

 

Oh well, only three people really know. Two of them surely aren't telling, and the third is of dubious reliability. I get the feeling she knows more than she is telling, but that doesn't make her a murderer. OK she could be. Or maybe not. To me either is plausible, and we have this thingy about reasonable doubt, well here in USA we do.

 

 

If the hypothesis is drug rage, then motive isn't really necessary IMO.

Bill, the point is that Fluffy was demonstrably wrong. This particular cute American girl has been convicted twice and acquitted once. According to his theory it should have been three acquittals out of three. She would have spent 0 years in prison, not 4.

[jjbrr]

Dropping some knowledge there jjbrr.

It does seem still to circulate around the black hole of motive, though (IMHO) - why would a sane person stab an acquaintance to death for no reason? Has this H17 guy disclosed his conjecture in that regard?

 

Of course he has. (I fixed some obvious typos)

 

First, motive does not matter. If the evidence clearly establishes that someone did something then they did it. There is no need to establish why. In this case the evidence establishes that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder of Merdith Kercher. There is absolutely no doubt of that fact.

 

With respect to motive it also is not hard to come up with one. Sollecito has mental issues. Meredith is not the first girl he attacked. He previously attacked a girl with scissors years earlier. He collects magazines depicting women in graphic murder rape scenes that no normal mind would find enjoyable. He also has a knife and weapons fetish and was insanely possessive of Knox in the way that was way more intense than the typical insecure inexperienced boy possessiveness.

 

Knox also shows signs of being disturbed although much less. She is more like a social misfit with a tiny dash of sociopath. She has a history of showing bad judgement and escalating situations. We also know that Meredith and her started off as friends but Meredith and everyone else found her obnoxious. We know that Knox was interested in a boy who instead started to date Meredith. We also know that two days prior to the murder Knox lost her job and that her boss wanted to hire Meredith. Knox asked Meredith to do something both the night before and the night of the murder and Meredith blew her off.

 

So we have a narcissistic social misfit dating a psychopath with violent tendencies and a ****load of butthurt for the narcissist. Now lets add in the rent money. Knox was the only person that knew it was there. She was found with a similar amount of money on her person and no way to explain it. Knox tried to lie about finances during her testimony. Sollecito despite being from a very wealthy family was on a very restrictive cash allowance because of his drug issues. Knox was burning through money like someone with a coke habit. There is some evidence that they went to purchase drugs that afternoon after Meredith left the house giving Knox and Sollecito access to her rent money.

 

If you can't come up with multiple possible motives out of that then you just lack creativity. In the end it doesn't matter since the evidence is indisputable and there is just so much of it. The evidence that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder is so strong that you can take it and then remove 80% of it at random and the remaining 20% is still more than enough to meet the burden of proof in any court.

 

I personally would categorize this as one of the posts that makes that thread a dumpster fire, but ymmv.

[nige1]

Thanks jjbrr for all that work! Mostly news to me -- but a bit one-sided. If you can be bothered, please would you briefly summarise the main arguments for the defence -- omitting prosecution refutations -- or keeping them short, factual and unemotional.

 

Google offers various meanings of "dumster fire". Do you mean "an issue that's hard to deal with"?

[jjbrr]

dumpster fire: a complete disaster

 

see also train wreck, hot mess, cluster fk, etc

 

I'm going to copy/paste the main points from what i suppose is the appeal. the url is injusticeinperugia.org so obviously this is at least equally biased in the other direction. I should note that I tried to pull a summary from the 2p2 thread and none of the shills was willing to post one that i could find.

 

- The statement that was signed by Amanda on November 6, 2007 at 5:45 am should not be used against her because there was no attorney provided.

 

- The defense states in the appeal that Amanda's hand written note should not be allowed into evidence. Allowing this hand written note into evidence is a violation of Italian law, 11 Article 237 c.p.p. and Article 188 c.p.p. Amanda was not allowed/provided and attorney.

 

- In accordance with Italian law, evidence presented by the prosecution must be certain and unique, and not be contradictory and illogical. There are facts that can be inferred from clues leading to reasonable doubt, especially when logically reconstructing circumstantial evidence.

1. No logical explanation was given by the court as to why there is absolutely no proof of Amanda being in Meredith's room.

2. The court does not mention in the motivation that Amanda is the material author of the murder. This goes against the prosecution’s theory and leaves many unanswered questions.

3. The court neglects to discuss the doubt of two knives being used in the murder. Evidence clearly shows that there is doubt that more than one knife was used.

4. The court provides no logical explanation for Raffaele’s kitchen knife being transported from Raffaele's apartment to the cottage.

5. The court provides no logical explanation as to why complete strangers would get together to commit a murder. Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito had never met.

6. The court provides no logical explanation as to why Amanda would participate in the rape of her friend.

 

- The defense argues that Amanda’s character, personality and attitude do not coincide with the prosecution’s reconstruction of the crime. There are many examples of conflicting evidence.

 

- The defense argues that it was already well established at trial that Raffaele’s kitchen knife is not the weapon that killed Meredith Kercher.

(There are apparently many questions about the knife/knives including how Raf's knife made it from his apartment to AK's cottage and some of the forensics/DNA testing)

 

-No evidence of Amanda was found in Meredith’s room

Several items of Rudy Guede were in the cottage and in Meredith's room including biological traces, fingerprints, footprints and feces. Some items of Amanda and Raffaele were found in her own residence, but nothing to link them to the murder because she lived there and Raffaele had visited several times. (jjbrr note: I believe this is wrong because a footprint was found beneath Meredith's body and estimated by a forensics team to be a size 37-38 women's footprint. AK wears a size 37.5. Forensics guessed the shoes were Asics, tho AK didn't have a pair of Asics, if I understood correctly)

 

-The defense argues that Nara, (the witness that claimed she heard a scream) was not a reliable witness.

 

-Experts cannot rule out that Meredith was murdered by one person

 

-Traces detected with luminol

The court makes two contradictory observations regarding the bare footprints detected with luminol. In one statement the court says Amanda walked to Filomena’s room then her own room from the murder room, then to the bathroom. In another scenario, Amanda goes to the bathroom first, washes off her feet, then walks to Filomena’s room with blood residue on the bottoms of her feet. The court cannot seem to decide exactly how those prints were made. More importantly, testing confirmed that the material detected with luminol was never determined to in fact be blood.

 

The defense argues that the observations made by Dr. Stefanoni should not be allowed because there is no proof that these prints were made in blood and there is nothing to link these prints to the murder.

 

It is easy to get false positives, etc

 

-Cleaning activity

The defense argues that there are many factors showing that no clean up effort took place after the murder. Many items were left untouched like the footprint on the blue bathroom floor mat. None of the shoe prints from Rudy were touched. In Meredith’s room many items were not cleaned, such as fingerprints, shoe prints and blood stains. There was DNA all over Meredith’s room. There was also visible blood in the bathroom. The fact that there are no footprints leading up to the blue mat proves nothing. Why would they leave the mat untouched after cleaning all the footprints leading up to it? There was no removal of dirt from any of the areas inspected. Yet the court thinks Amanda and Raffaele were barefoot, so they cleaned up only those items related to themselves. The court feels the cleanup occurred the next morning around 8:00 am to 12 noon. The defense argues that there is no logical reasoning to suggest that Amanda and Raffaele had 4 hours to cleanup and missed all these items.

 

-Many paragraphs under the heading 'Seventh Violation: The tale of Amanda Knox' that i can't believe the court would actually listen to. they sort of gloss over the fact that Raf called the police while the police were already there and AK's short phone calls to Meredith's phone. I'm not sure if that stuff was dropped by the prosecution or if the defense is just stuffing its fingers in its ears and pretending those things didn't happen.

 

-They question the validity of some witness testimonies

 

-Some questions about why AK came home to shower (?)

 

-Questions about motive (which obviously don't matter, so lol)

 

-Multiple violations concerning test results and observations made by the court.

[blackshoe]

Why are we wasting our time trying Amanda Knox in here?

[jjbrr]

true, barmar move this to simple rulings plz

[gwnn]

Why are we wasting our time trying Amanda Knox in here?

Why are we wasting our time discussing a game with 52 coloured cards and bidding boxes? I personally find this case fascinating but I know that it is very unlikely to have any effect on me (I am unlikely to meet AK or RC and they are unlikely to kill or hurt me even if we do meet, whether or not they are guilty).

[helene_t]

So this is why we don't get any more cats at WC?

Tbf he quoted the defence argument that it must have been the cat that operated the phone while they were asleep

 

But I agree with Csaba. This story is fascinating

[kenberg]

Tbf he quoted the defence argument that it must have been the cat that operated the phone while they were asleep

 

But I agree with Csaba. This story is fascinating

 

No! No! No! I refuse to be dragged into this!

 

She needs a spiffy name. Hurricane has already been used. How about Amanda "Tornado" Knox?

 

Oh, I am being sucked in! Help!

[gwnn]

I'm not sure why people are making jokes here, is it funny that her throat was slit open or that her roommate&BF tried to cover it up? Aren't there enough comedy threads available in the water cooler?

[mike777]

As I said this case along with the Monster of Florence represents an indictment of the entire Italian system of Justice. You cannot trust the facts in the forensic science, the prosecutor, some of the investigators, and the interrogation. One can only hope in this case given time the system will right itself.

[PassedOut]

As I said this case along with the Monster of Florence represents an indictment of the entire Italian system of Justice. You cannot trust the facts in the forensic science, the prosecutor, some of the investigators, and the interrogation. One can only hope in this case given time the system will right itself.

We have the same problems many places in the US. Seems like a stretch to indict "the entire Italian system of Justice."

[Winstonm]

I would hate to be tried by a jury of my peers that based their decisions on media accounts and internet stories.

[mike777]

Italy does not have a jury of peers judge you.

 

 

"Italy does not try anybody by a jury of peers"

"...an Italian trial, including the preliminary investigations, preliminary hearing, trial and appeals, can last several years. To keep a citizen — who continues to work..."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

 

 

One reason, if accurate, may be:

 

"The legal system grinds very slowly and it takes years for a case to come to court; the average time between indictment and a court judgement is ten years, and eight out of ten convictions involving prison terms never take effect"

[mikeh]

having read most of the obsessively detailed description of the 'evidence', my view is that if the description is factually accurate, and ignoring what appear to be biased arguments drawn from the facts (such as the significance of the lamp, which to me seems dubious at best, then it would be my view that she is guilty. However, as a trial lawyer who has occasionally seen newspaper articles about trials where I was counsel, I would not accept as factually correct, in all salient details, anything that was second-hand. I would want to read the actual transcript (translated reliably) and the actual exhibits or very accurate copies of them. This is true even when the person recounting the details is completely honest and (far more rare) objective. My reading of the posts suggests that objectivity may have been lost, if it was ever there. That is not intended as a criticism of the blogger, nor a suggestion that I think the facts ARE inaccurate. I don't and can't know that, and I would be very surprised if most of what was written was wrong. However, guilt is usually, and in this case apparently definitely, the result of the drawing of inferences from facts, and sometimes very minor alterations in the manner in which evidence was given, or minor details that are understandably omitted by the recounter would in real life have a significant effect on the inferences.

 

In other words, in my view attempts to analyze the result of a police investigation and subsequent trial ought not to be done without full access to the record and without training in how the system works.

 

So my vote, were I to have one, is that I suspect that she is guilty but am not so convinced that I would vote to convict in the very improbable scenario where I was called upon to vote, based on what was made available here.