I’m sorry Brazl, but now you’re just reaching and I’m going to have to call you out on it. No offense. For your argument to have weight it must be based in facts.
My original argument was that had the investigators followed the facts, Knox and Sollecito would not have been (let me add the word “viable” here for clarification) suspects. Your arguments have done nothing to undermine that assertion. If anything, they’ve only strengthened them, for you have yet to name ONE objective level fact to tie them to the crime.
Even in a circumstantial case, you still need facts to support it.
I’m sorry Brazl, but now you’re just reaching and I’m going to have to call you out on >it. No offense. For your argument to have weight it must be based in facts.
Sure, and the facts suggested a staging/alteration. The killer (or a killer) would have had a strong motive to do so, as well as the best opportunity and means, if he or she was a flatmate of the victim. That’s plenty of evidence to make Knox (and by extension Sollecito) a viable suspect.
for you have yet to name ONE objective level fact to tie them to the crime.
Sorry Braz, but that’s still Interpretative Observation. The staging/ alteration itself is open to interpretation 1) at trial the defense presented a very viable argument as to why the scene was NOT staged (Filomena had unsupervised access to her room to retrieve some personal items and may have moved things. There’s more to it, but I can’t specifically remember and I’m too tired to go hunting for links.). and 2) You still must somehow connect Knox and Sollecito to the staging (if such staging actually occurred… which you can’t conclusively prove either).
Objective level facts of Guede:
I can conclusively prove that Guede had sexual contact on the night of the murder, he was there, and Kercher bled extensively in his presence.
I apologize, you are correct… I was inferring reasonable suspicion. Conclusively implies 100% certainty and that’s hardly ever possible in any case.
I can say that I am 95% sure, Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with this crime base on the evidence presented. I can say I am 95% sure that Guede Killed Meredith Kercher.
To get an idea of how warped this investigation has been, let’s look at a statement from trial judge Judge Paolo Micheli who discounted the “lone wolf” theory and how he arrived at his conclusion:
“I took the opposite approach to that of the defence teams. The lawyers claimed that there was no proof of conspiracy between the three because they didn’t know each other and Kokomani’s testimony wasn’t reliable. They also said that it would have been impossible for them to have organised the crime since they had previous commitments which then fell through. My starting point was the three’s presence in the room where the crime was committed”
i.e. Let’s just forget about doubts that Knox and Sollecito knew Guede and were involved in a conspiracy, and just assume that’s true. WTF? Innocent until PROVEN guilty is suppose to be part of the Italian justice system, yes?
Begin with a flawed premise, you come to a flawed conclusion.
The judge further states that he discounts the contamination of the bra clasp because Sollecito had no reason to go into that room. Well, what about the three unknown people’s DNA on the bra clasp? Who are they?? They are not anyone connected to anyone with the flat as it was compared to all the tenants and their boyfriends. A lab tech’s maybe?
Knox and Sollecito are simply not viable suspects in this crime… at ANY point, and the evidence has been blatantly “shoe horned” to make them fit from the beginning. Under close scrutiny and logical thinking it just doesn’t make sense… from the beginning days of the investigation, to the closing arguments of the prosecutor who couldn’t settle on a theory of the crime.
I’m still confused. Please just answer my question:
Are you saying that nobody can ever become a viable suspect on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone?
Also, do you agree that the killer (or a killer) would have had a strong motive to do engage in staging/alteration, as well as the best opportunity and means, if he or she were a flatmate of the victim?
Please just answer my questions. It’s just two simple yes or no questions.
You are assuming that the assertion of staging is true and there are no alternate explanations… so no.
Here is a neat little compilation I found prepared by “Friend of Amanda” that summarizes the important points nicely. It’s easy reading and worth a look
Then I have no idea what your point is. You seemed to be arguing that Knox and Sollecito were not viable suspects because (initial?) evidence against them was circumstantial. And yet you admit that circumstantial evidence can indeed form a reasonable basis to make somebody a viable suspect.
You are assuming that the assertion of staging is true and there are no alternate >explanations
No I am not. Again, there is a distinction between between evidence and proof.
For one thing, the fact that blood stains indicated that the victim had her bra removed some hours after she was initially attacked.
For another, the fact that a room in the flat was ransacked but nothing was taken even though valuables were in plain view.
Just because this is circumstantial evidence doesn’t mean it’s not evidence.
Just because this evidence does not prove Knox’s guilt doesn’t mean it’s not evidence.
Just because there are ways to explain away this evidence doesn’t mean it’s not evidence.
So please don’t respond by arguing either (1) this evidence can be explained away; or (2) that it’s circumstantial; or (3) that it doesn’t prove Knox’s involvement.
For one thing, the fact that blood stains indicated that the victim had her bra removed some hours after she was initially attacked.
For another, the fact that a room in the flat was ransacked but nothing was taken even though valuables were in plain view.
You didn’t establish that these are evidence against Knox and Sollecito. To do so, you must explain why these facts elevate the probability that Knox and Sollecito in particular were involved in the murder.
Actually I did in a previous post. As noted in that post, someone involved in the murder would have had a strong motive and the best means and opportunity to engage in staging/alteration if he was a flatmate of the victim.
Someone with little or no connection to the victim would not have had much incentive to engage in staging/alteration. And someone who did not live in the flat would have had far less confidence in returning to the crime scene or staying at the crime scene for an extended period of time. Why? Because such a person would naturally worry that another resident of the flat would already be there when he or she returned. Or would return while her or she was there.
So if the crime scene really was altered/staged, the natural suspect is a resident of the flat (and anyone acting in concert with him or her).
Okay. I agree that evidence of very time-consuming alterations is evidence that the alterer didn’t fear interruption. Now, what was the evidence that the bra was removed “some hours” after the murder?
More pertinent to the point: Was the delayed removal of the bra noticed before Knox and Sollecito were suspects? That is, was it initial evidence, as captcorajus requested?
As for the ransacking, I expect a fake ransacker to be about as likely to fake-steal things as a real ransacker would be to really steal things. Therefore, the failure of the ransacker to steal is not much evidence either way regarding the genuineness of the ransacking.
Now, what was the evidence that the bra was removed ‘some hours’ after the
murder?
It’s on the anti-Knox web site linked to from the “you be the jury” post. If you really want, I will try to dig up a link for it.
That is, was it initial evidence, as captcorajus requested?
I don’t know, but in most of my posts I’ve been using the word “initial” to mean evidence which could be developed from the crime scene without having any particular suspect in mind. “initial” in a logical sense rather than a chronological sense.
If you read back through captcorajus’ comments, you will see why that makes sense. But I do agree it’s a sloppy use of the word “initial” I suppose it would be better to call it “a priori” evidence.
I expect a fake ransacker to be about as likely to fake-steal things as a real >ransacker would be to really steal things.
I wouldn’t. For one thing, if you fake-steal things, you have to take time and energy to dispose of them somewhere and you have to worry that your fingerprints or DNA will be on them. For another, if you have just killed someone and you have never given a lot of thought to staging a crime, there’s a good chance it wouldn’t occur to you that you actually need to fake-steal stuff to make it look good.
It’s on the anti-Knox web site linked to from the “you be the jury” post. If you really want, I will try to dig up a link for it.
I was able to find claims that the bra was removed and the body moved “some time” after her death, but not “some hours”. Any murderer would have been with the body for some time after the death. [ETA: I also couldn’t find what evidence established that the bra had been removed even “some time” after death.]
But, if the murderer stayed for multiple hours, I would consider that to be evidence that the murderer had some confidence that he wouldn’t get caught by the residents. Then, I concede, it becomes necessary to consider how likely different people were to have had that confidence.
I was able to find claims that the bra was removed and the body moved “some >time” after her death, but not ‘some hours’ Any murderer would have been with the body for some time after the death.
You may be right about “some time” versus “some hours.” However, there was also the claim that the victim took quite a while (an hour?) to actually die from her wounds. So it does not seem the murderer would need to have been with the body for some time after the death.
The actual evidence, as I recall, was (1) that there was in impression in the dried pool of blood under the victim from her bra; and (2) there were minimal blood stains on the victim’s breasts compared to other parts of her upper body.
You may be right about “some time” versus “some hours.” However, there was also the claim that the victim took quite a while (an hour?) to actually die from her wounds. So it does not seem the murderer would need to have been with the body for some time after the death.
I would expect any murderer to stay long enough to ensure that the victim was dead. If the victim was alive during the “some time” needed to remove her bra, then that event doesn’t add significant probability to the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. Any murderer would want to make sure that the victim didn’t live long enough to identify him.
I would expect any murderer to stay long enough to ensure that the victim was >dead.
I wouldn’t necessarily expect that. The murderer might very well just panic and run while the victim lay dying. Indeed, one witness apparently reported hearing a scream followed shortly by running footsteps.
In any event, I would guess that the normal way to make sure somebody is dead is to keep stabbing them until they stop moving. Apparently the victim in this case stopped moving for a while (“quite some time” was the phrased used on the anti-Knox site) before she was moved and her bra cut off.
It’s hard for me to believe that a random killer would watch the victim die; watch her motionless for a long enough for her blood to dry significantly, and only then move her and cut off her bra. All the while wondering if somebone else is about to enter the apartment and discover him.
In order for you to believe that the bra must have been removed more than minutes after the stabbings, you must believe one of:
1) the bra was removed in a way that rubbed the material all around her breasts, not cut or unclasped and lifted straight off.
or
2) blood was still dripping significantly from a wound or large smear uphill of the breasts relative to the body’s orientation
Evidence I’d accept for 1: smudging suggestive of sloppy bra removal, but with less blood smear than you’d expect from unclotted/dried blood. But I’d need a wide range of lab experiments producing similar marks by smearing different-aged blood in order to know the timeframe.
Evidence I’d accept for 2: pattern of blood flows around the breast may suggest one or more orientations of the body before total drying.
But even if the bra was removed hours later: who says K/S did it, and who says that raises the likelihood of their also stabbing the victim above 1%? I would be interested in what the killer was doing hanging around for hours, if it turns out he did, but that’s not impossible either.
In terms of probabilities, if the crime scene was altered, there’s a pretty good chance it was done by someone who lived in the apartment. Why? Because a resident of the apartment would have an incentive to do so and would have a much better opportunity.
their also stabbing the victim above 1%?
To me, the question is not whether Knox stabbed the victim so much as whether Knox was involved in the murder.
If I own or rent a residence, and one of the residents is killed there, I agree that I expect some suspicion to fall on me.
I don’t agree that I’m therefore very likely to attempt to cover up the crime. In fact, it would be irrational, unless I think the authorities are extremely likely to railroad me out of laziness.
I’d say, if the crime scene was covered up in any way, I’d suspect the perpetrator first.
I read a little more about the case; apparently it was mostly throat-slashing. On the whole, I think it’s crazy to suspect that Knox did the slashing, ultimately mostly on the basis of “her behavior was strange” (under extreme duress).
There’s a difference between (1) the probability that a resident will attempt to alter or stage the crime scene; and (2) the probability, given that the crime scene was altered or staged, a resident is responsible.
ultimately mostly on the basis of “her behavior was strange”
Respectfully, I don’t think that’s a fair summary of the evidence against Knox.
True. There’s some physical evidence that can be interpreted as implicating her. I just meant that her prosecution was ultimately caused by a feeling of “her behavior is strange”.
There was a side-discussion in another thread about how it is quite likely Amanda Knox is a sociopath and that could have made the prosecution think she was guilty and explains some of her strange behavior. But, sociopaths are 5-10% of the population and being a sociopath only marginally increases the probability of committing murder.
If you are saying that the police became suspicious of her at the very beginning because her behavior seemed strange, then you may be right. How should this affect our assessment of the probility she is guilty? I would say it depends on exactly what strange behavior you are talking about.
I’m sorry Brazl, but now you’re just reaching and I’m going to have to call you out on it. No offense. For your argument to have weight it must be based in facts.
My original argument was that had the investigators followed the facts, Knox and Sollecito would not have been (let me add the word “viable” here for clarification) suspects. Your arguments have done nothing to undermine that assertion. If anything, they’ve only strengthened them, for you have yet to name ONE objective level fact to tie them to the crime.
Even in a circumstantial case, you still need facts to support it.
Sure, and the facts suggested a staging/alteration. The killer (or a killer) would have had a strong motive to do so, as well as the best opportunity and means, if he or she was a flatmate of the victim. That’s plenty of evidence to make Knox (and by extension Sollecito) a viable suspect.
See above.
Sorry Braz, but that’s still Interpretative Observation. The staging/ alteration itself is open to interpretation 1) at trial the defense presented a very viable argument as to why the scene was NOT staged (Filomena had unsupervised access to her room to retrieve some personal items and may have moved things. There’s more to it, but I can’t specifically remember and I’m too tired to go hunting for links.). and 2) You still must somehow connect Knox and Sollecito to the staging (if such staging actually occurred… which you can’t conclusively prove either).
Objective level facts of Guede:
I can conclusively prove that Guede had sexual contact on the night of the murder, he was there, and Kercher bled extensively in his presence.
Good night Braz.
I’m a little confused. Are you saying that nobody can ever become a viable suspect on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone?
Are we talking about conclusive proof or reasonable suspicion?
I’m happy to discuss either one, but please choose one or the other.
I apologize, you are correct… I was inferring reasonable suspicion. Conclusively implies 100% certainty and that’s hardly ever possible in any case.
I can say that I am 95% sure, Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with this crime base on the evidence presented. I can say I am 95% sure that Guede Killed Meredith Kercher.
To get an idea of how warped this investigation has been, let’s look at a statement from trial judge Judge Paolo Micheli who discounted the “lone wolf” theory and how he arrived at his conclusion:
“I took the opposite approach to that of the defence teams. The lawyers claimed that there was no proof of conspiracy between the three because they didn’t know each other and Kokomani’s testimony wasn’t reliable. They also said that it would have been impossible for them to have organised the crime since they had previous commitments which then fell through. My starting point was the three’s presence in the room where the crime was committed”
i.e. Let’s just forget about doubts that Knox and Sollecito knew Guede and were involved in a conspiracy, and just assume that’s true. WTF? Innocent until PROVEN guilty is suppose to be part of the Italian justice system, yes?
Begin with a flawed premise, you come to a flawed conclusion.
The judge further states that he discounts the contamination of the bra clasp because Sollecito had no reason to go into that room. Well, what about the three unknown people’s DNA on the bra clasp? Who are they?? They are not anyone connected to anyone with the flat as it was compared to all the tenants and their boyfriends. A lab tech’s maybe?
Knox and Sollecito are simply not viable suspects in this crime… at ANY point, and the evidence has been blatantly “shoe horned” to make them fit from the beginning. Under close scrutiny and logical thinking it just doesn’t make sense… from the beginning days of the investigation, to the closing arguments of the prosecutor who couldn’t settle on a theory of the crime.
I’m still confused. Please just answer my question:
Are you saying that nobody can ever become a viable suspect on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone?
Also, do you agree that the killer (or a killer) would have had a strong motive to do engage in staging/alteration, as well as the best opportunity and means, if he or she were a flatmate of the victim?
Please just answer my questions. It’s just two simple yes or no questions.
No, I’m not saying that at all!
You are assuming that the assertion of staging is true and there are no alternate explanations… so no.
Here is a neat little compilation I found prepared by “Friend of Amanda” that summarizes the important points nicely. It’s easy reading and worth a look
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/amanda_knox_case_summary.pdf
Then I have no idea what your point is. You seemed to be arguing that Knox and Sollecito were not viable suspects because (initial?) evidence against them was circumstantial. And yet you admit that circumstantial evidence can indeed form a reasonable basis to make somebody a viable suspect.
No I am not. Again, there is a distinction between between evidence and proof.
Braz, WHAT initial evidence against them???
For one thing, the fact that blood stains indicated that the victim had her bra removed some hours after she was initially attacked.
For another, the fact that a room in the flat was ransacked but nothing was taken even though valuables were in plain view.
Just because this is circumstantial evidence doesn’t mean it’s not evidence.
Just because this evidence does not prove Knox’s guilt doesn’t mean it’s not evidence.
Just because there are ways to explain away this evidence doesn’t mean it’s not evidence.
So please don’t respond by arguing either (1) this evidence can be explained away; or (2) that it’s circumstantial; or (3) that it doesn’t prove Knox’s involvement.
You didn’t establish that these are evidence against Knox and Sollecito. To do so, you must explain why these facts elevate the probability that Knox and Sollecito in particular were involved in the murder.
Actually I did in a previous post. As noted in that post, someone involved in the murder would have had a strong motive and the best means and opportunity to engage in staging/alteration if he was a flatmate of the victim.
Someone with little or no connection to the victim would not have had much incentive to engage in staging/alteration. And someone who did not live in the flat would have had far less confidence in returning to the crime scene or staying at the crime scene for an extended period of time. Why? Because such a person would naturally worry that another resident of the flat would already be there when he or she returned. Or would return while her or she was there.
So if the crime scene really was altered/staged, the natural suspect is a resident of the flat (and anyone acting in concert with him or her).
Okay. I agree that evidence of very time-consuming alterations is evidence that the alterer didn’t fear interruption. Now, what was the evidence that the bra was removed “some hours” after the murder?
More pertinent to the point: Was the delayed removal of the bra noticed before Knox and Sollecito were suspects? That is, was it initial evidence, as captcorajus requested?
As for the ransacking, I expect a fake ransacker to be about as likely to fake-steal things as a real ransacker would be to really steal things. Therefore, the failure of the ransacker to steal is not much evidence either way regarding the genuineness of the ransacking.
It’s on the anti-Knox web site linked to from the “you be the jury” post. If you really want, I will try to dig up a link for it.
I don’t know, but in most of my posts I’ve been using the word “initial” to mean evidence which could be developed from the crime scene without having any particular suspect in mind. “initial” in a logical sense rather than a chronological sense.
If you read back through captcorajus’ comments, you will see why that makes sense. But I do agree it’s a sloppy use of the word “initial” I suppose it would be better to call it “a priori” evidence.
I wouldn’t. For one thing, if you fake-steal things, you have to take time and energy to dispose of them somewhere and you have to worry that your fingerprints or DNA will be on them. For another, if you have just killed someone and you have never given a lot of thought to staging a crime, there’s a good chance it wouldn’t occur to you that you actually need to fake-steal stuff to make it look good.
I was able to find claims that the bra was removed and the body moved “some time” after her death, but not “some hours”. Any murderer would have been with the body for some time after the death. [ETA: I also couldn’t find what evidence established that the bra had been removed even “some time” after death.]
But, if the murderer stayed for multiple hours, I would consider that to be evidence that the murderer had some confidence that he wouldn’t get caught by the residents. Then, I concede, it becomes necessary to consider how likely different people were to have had that confidence.
You may be right about “some time” versus “some hours.” However, there was also the claim that the victim took quite a while (an hour?) to actually die from her wounds. So it does not seem the murderer would need to have been with the body for some time after the death.
The actual evidence, as I recall, was (1) that there was in impression in the dried pool of blood under the victim from her bra; and (2) there were minimal blood stains on the victim’s breasts compared to other parts of her upper body.
I would expect any murderer to stay long enough to ensure that the victim was dead. If the victim was alive during the “some time” needed to remove her bra, then that event doesn’t add significant probability to the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. Any murderer would want to make sure that the victim didn’t live long enough to identify him.
I wouldn’t necessarily expect that. The murderer might very well just panic and run while the victim lay dying. Indeed, one witness apparently reported hearing a scream followed shortly by running footsteps.
In any event, I would guess that the normal way to make sure somebody is dead is to keep stabbing them until they stop moving. Apparently the victim in this case stopped moving for a while (“quite some time” was the phrased used on the anti-Knox site) before she was moved and her bra cut off.
It’s hard for me to believe that a random killer would watch the victim die; watch her motionless for a long enough for her blood to dry significantly, and only then move her and cut off her bra. All the while wondering if somebone else is about to enter the apartment and discover him.
In order for you to believe that the bra must have been removed more than minutes after the stabbings, you must believe one of:
1) the bra was removed in a way that rubbed the material all around her breasts, not cut or unclasped and lifted straight off.
or
2) blood was still dripping significantly from a wound or large smear uphill of the breasts relative to the body’s orientation
Evidence I’d accept for 1: smudging suggestive of sloppy bra removal, but with less blood smear than you’d expect from unclotted/dried blood. But I’d need a wide range of lab experiments producing similar marks by smearing different-aged blood in order to know the timeframe.
Evidence I’d accept for 2: pattern of blood flows around the breast may suggest one or more orientations of the body before total drying.
But even if the bra was removed hours later: who says K/S did it, and who says that raises the likelihood of their also stabbing the victim above 1%? I would be interested in what the killer was doing hanging around for hours, if it turns out he did, but that’s not impossible either.
In terms of probabilities, if the crime scene was altered, there’s a pretty good chance it was done by someone who lived in the apartment. Why? Because a resident of the apartment would have an incentive to do so and would have a much better opportunity.
To me, the question is not whether Knox stabbed the victim so much as whether Knox was involved in the murder.
If I own or rent a residence, and one of the residents is killed there, I agree that I expect some suspicion to fall on me.
I don’t agree that I’m therefore very likely to attempt to cover up the crime. In fact, it would be irrational, unless I think the authorities are extremely likely to railroad me out of laziness.
I’d say, if the crime scene was covered up in any way, I’d suspect the perpetrator first.
I read a little more about the case; apparently it was mostly throat-slashing. On the whole, I think it’s crazy to suspect that Knox did the slashing, ultimately mostly on the basis of “her behavior was strange” (under extreme duress).
There’s a difference between (1) the probability that a resident will attempt to alter or stage the crime scene; and (2) the probability, given that the crime scene was altered or staged, a resident is responsible.
Respectfully, I don’t think that’s a fair summary of the evidence against Knox.
True. There’s some physical evidence that can be interpreted as implicating her. I just meant that her prosecution was ultimately caused by a feeling of “her behavior is strange”.
There was a side-discussion in another thread about how it is quite likely Amanda Knox is a sociopath and that could have made the prosecution think she was guilty and explains some of her strange behavior. But, sociopaths are 5-10% of the population and being a sociopath only marginally increases the probability of committing murder.
If you are saying that the police became suspicious of her at the very beginning because her behavior seemed strange, then you may be right. How should this affect our assessment of the probility she is guilty? I would say it depends on exactly what strange behavior you are talking about.