I’m saying that Kercher had $200 in cash and it was missing. Guede’s DNA was in her purse, and he needed money to flee the country. Thus, there is strong evidence of a robbery. Saying nothing was taken is simply ignoring the facts. Interpretation of staging is exactly that… interpretation. If you say it was staged, that helps support the prosecution’s version of the crime, but it does not support the totality of the physical evidence.
You can infer whatever you wish from the mop and bucket, but without substantiating evidence it means nothing.
Respectfully, it doesn’t matter. You’re missing the whole point… and I’m not trying to be flip. I apologize if it appears that way. Let’s play devil’s advocate and say there was unequivocal proof of staging/ alteration of the crime scene occurred. You must now prove that Knox or Sollecito were the ones that did it. Your suspicion that they did it is not evidence.I understand about “initially”, but in order to conduct the investigation you must start with the obvious and work from there. I find it very difficult to START my investigation with Knox as a suspect based on what was found initially.
The further away you move from the point of origin of the event, the less accurate your observations will be.
Let’s play devil’s advocate and say there was unequivocal proof of staging/ >alteration of the crime scene occurred.
Ok, fine.
You must now prove that Knox or Sollecito were the ones that did it.
I’m a little confused. I thought your point was that the initial physical evidence offered no reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito and therefore subsequent evidence developed against them should be discounted or even disregarded.
In that case, the question is not whether the evidence proves Knox is guilty but whether it provides a reasonable basis to suspect her.
Here’s exactly how Knox arrived on the radar as a suspect. You tell me if this sounds right:
″...Edgardo Giobbi, a police forensic scientist, told the court in Perugia how during a search at the house just hours after the murder, he handed Knox a pair of shoe covers to prevent contaminating the evidence.
“As she put them on she swiveled her hips, pulled a face and said ‘hop la’ - I thought it was very unusual behavior and my suspicions against her were raised,” Mr. Giobbi told the court...”
My reaction to this statement was something along the lines of, “WTF?”
It is natural in ANY investigation to first look at the people who live at the house, but you can’t let that give you tunnel vision to the physical evidence around you.
Were the wounds consistent with different knives or not?
If they were,
and if it is true that the bathmat print was Raff’s, and other prints were wiped off the floor, then:
Is it theoretically possible that Raff walked into the room and stabbed a dying woman? - that would not lead to leaving DNA only on the floor and the knife—which may have been a different knife, from the one in the flat, and was discarded and never found?
Surely, if the jury convicted on the basis of the prosecution’s story then they must have gone into detail like that in order to examine the plausability of the reasoning?
With all the uncertainty about the many disparate bits of evidence and/or red herrings, I don’t see how one can judge the judgement without reading the whole proceedings.
Certainly I agree that there is no real evidence that Raff and Knox were tumbling around the room with Meredith. But I think what is on trial is how murders come about as much as the act itself. That may be a difference in Italian law.
I think some people feel that Knox and Raff may have been morally responsible, by their inconsiderate behaviour. Maybe they were bullying Meredith a bit and playing games that maybe Guede didn’t understand.
Here’s exactly how Knox arrived on the radar as a suspect.
By the way, as a point of information, do you have a cite for that? TIA.
(Of course my main question is whether I have understood you correctly. Are you saying that the initial physical evidence offered no reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito and therefore subsequent evidence developed against them should be discounted or even disregarded?)
It is natural in ANY investigation to first look at the people who live at the house, but >you can’t let that give you tunnel vision to the physical evidence around you.
I agree, but so what? The issue of whether the police developed tunnel vision is a different question.
Anyway, please tell me if I misunderstood you. Your point seems to be that the initial physical evidence offered no reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito and therefore subsequent evidence developed against them should be discounted or even disregarded.
The problem is there is no “subsequent evidence!!” Behavior is not evidence. You must prove that the accused were involved in a crime. Otherwise, lets burn witches.
Footprints in blood? No. Luminol reveal no blood, so footprints in the hallway of a person who lived there means nothing. Likewise, Knox’s DNA mixed in droplets of Kercher’s blood in the bathroom that they shared is hardly startling. DNA of people who cohabitate mixes all the time whether or not a crime is committed.
There are only TWO pieces of evidence that are said to connect Sollecito and Knox to this crime. The knife and the Bra clasp. An independent report done by the innocence project who directly examined the tester’s reports clearly show this “evidence” is hardly proof of anything.
Some wonderful links, that include actual crime scene video shot by investigators and the DNA report compiled by the Innocence Project:
“The problem is there is no “subsequent evidence!!”″
Of course there is subsequent evidence. For example the fact that Knox and Sollecito were unable to coherently, consistently, and reasonably account for their activities and whereabouts during the time period in question.
That’s evidence. And by the way, by “evidence,” I don’t necessarily mean the same thing as “proof”
Ah, but you are under the FALSE assumption that their stories should match or even be cohesive! Investigators will tell you that people’s recollections of same events, especially when they are under pressure often vary widely.
Eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable type. Thus, if their stories matched, that may indicate a rehearsal before hand. If they had been involved in the killing do you not think they would have tried to get their story straight? They had 5 days to talk about it.
Thus, in reality, this points more to a lack of guilt that an indicator of it. Here’s a fun read:
Anyone with a cursory knowledge of police interrogation techniques knows its just one big “gotcha” game. Confusing the suspect, and undermining their understanding of their reality is basic to “breaking” a suspect. It’s a shame that we don’t have a video of the interrogation (as required by Italian law). So we only have the police version of events to go by as to what transpired. As you might guess, that doesn’t inspire me with a lot of confidence as to the veracity of their statements.
And, hey, while we’re on the subject of changing stories: the initial theory of the crime was a ritualistic rite to celebrate halloween, then it was a sex game gone bad, then it was an argument over Meredith’s missing rent money, then it was revenge on the “smug,” “prissy” girl, then it was “sometimes there is no reason.
Mignini changed his story more times than Amanda and Raffaele put together, but that doesn’t seem to bother a lot of people.
Ah, but you are under the FALSE assumption that their stories should match or >even be cohesive!
You are shifting arguments yet again here.
Anyway, there is a distinction between the sorts of inconsistencies which result from typical human error and the sorts of evolution, tailoring, incoherency, convenient amnesia, etc. which result from prevarication.
Knox and Sollecito’s stories pretty clearly fall into the latter category.
My arguments have remained consistent. You are the one that keeps inserting interpretative observations into this discussion rather than sticking with the objective level facts.
Your argument keeps changing. First you argued that there was no physical crime scene evidence which would cause one to suspect Knox or Sollecito. Then, when that turned out to be untrue, you argued that the police acted unprofessionally. Then, when I pointed out that was irrelevant you claimed that there was no subsequent evidence against Knox or Sollecito. Then, when I pointed out subsequent evidence you tried to explain it away.
Now you simply accuse me of “inserting interpretive observations” into the discussion. I’m not sure what that means. Maybe it’s like the “leap” distinction which other posters tried to draw earlier.
Can you give me two examples of the “interpretive observations” I have been inserting into the discussion?
(1) A room in the crime scene apartment has been ransacked but no valuables (which were in plain view) were taken;
(2) A window in that same room has been broken with marks suggesting it was broken from the inside;
(3) the same window is on the second floor and can be seen from the street. Further, there is no obvious reason why a burglar would need to get in through an upper floor;
(4) Bloodstains indicate that the victim died with her bra on and the bra was removed a few hours later; and * (This was the opinion of a judge. A Forensic scientist for the defense later refuted this contention.)
(5) When the police arrived at the crime scene apartment, one of the victim’s flatmates was standing there with her boyfriend and with a mop and a bucket.
(6) inconsistent stories.
At the end of each of these ask yourself this… how does this connect Knox or Sollecito to the crime?
Objective level facts:
Guede’s DNA inside kercher
Guede’s Bloody fingerprints (with Meredith’s blood) on kersher’s pillow case
Guede’s feces in the toilet
Guede’s DNA in Kercher’s purse
Ask yourself this. How does this connect Guede to the crime?
See the difference?
I sell cars for a living. My BS detector is off the scale. ;)
The opinion of this case by another attorney (just for fun):
It’s still possible to reach reasonable conclusions based solely on circumstantial evidence. For example, I am reasonably confident that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife based solely on the facts that (1) he is her ex-husband; (2) there is a violent history between them; and (3) he cannot account for his whereabouts around the time of the murder.
Of course here, Knox and Sollecito had no obvious motive to kill Kercher, but the same principle applies, i.e. it’s possible to be reasonably confident in a conclusion based solely on circumstantial evidence.
How can that be, if these three people participated in this crime?
Many ways. For example, it is possible that Knox and Sollecito hired Guedo to kill Kircher but did not participate in the actual stabbing. (I’m not saying that this is what happened, I’m just pointing out that it is possible that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder even though there was (apparently) none of their DNA on Kercher’s body.)
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.
Whether to suspect her or not isn’t the issue. By virtue of her being the victim’s roommate, the police should look at her. That’s CSI 101.
However, announcing that the case is closed, and that the murder was the result of a ritual sex game gone wrong before you’ve looked at the forensic evidence seem not only premature, but unprofessional. How can you even come up with such a theory on your interpretation of behavior alone? That says more about the observer than the observed, eh?
For example, much has been made about the “cartwheels” in the police station. Were you aware that Knox was a dancer and practiced yoga? Where you aware that she frequently used yoga positions to relieve stress? Where you aware on the night this was observed she had gone to the station with Sollecito who had himself been summoned by the police? She went voluntarily to the police station. That’s not the behavior of a guilty person. No one that knew her was surprised that while she was waiting she would do yoga stretches to relieve tension. Yet the police took this behavior as odd, and that she wasn’t properly grieving for her roommate, yet for Knox, this was normal. This is what I’m talking about… making premature assumptions with little corroborative evidence invariably heightens the odds of coming to the wrong conclusion.
I’m saying that the evidence they had on hand at the time does not add up to the conclusion they reached.
That’s different from what you seemed to have been saying before.
Your position now seems to be that the police acted unprofessionally and focused on Knox without a reasonable basis. You are saying that they concluded Knox was guilty without a sufficient basis.
First of all, I am skeptical of your claim. I asked you to provide a cite for your claim about the source of initial suspicion of Knox and you failed to do so. I did my own search and found nothing backing up your claim.
But more importantly, your argument doesn’t have much bearing on the ultimate question of guilt or innocence of Knox or Sollecito. If I were arguing that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty because the authorities concluded they were guilty, then you might have a point, assuming you could substantiate your claims.
In that respect, it’s a bit like the OJ Simpson case—the police may very well have rushed to judgment against OJ. But even so, it seems very likely that he committed the crime he was accused of.
brazil84, I just don’t think you have a grasp on how weak the case against Knox and Sollecito is. You’ve said that the two things that make you think they did it—the changing stories and evidence of crime-scene-tampering—contribute 3 or 4 bits of evidence against them. That’s quite a small amount, which is easily overwhelmed by :
The prior improbability that people like K and S would be involved given that someone else was.
The lack of criminal history of K and S.
The lack of motive.
The lack of connection between K/S and G
The lack of any evidence that K and S themselves were at the scene.
I understand that you feel suspicious of Knox and Sollecito based on the reports you’ve read (the prosecution’s narrative does sound like a good made-for-TV-movie), and have a great deal of faith in courts due to your background as a lawyer. In most trials, the defendants are probably guilty. But this isn’t a typical case. There are times when you have to look at the object-level facts, and, frankly, do the math. Sometimes, police, prosecutors, and juries are just plain wrong—stupidly so. This is one of those times.
That’s quite a small amount, which is easily overwhelmed by :
Actually, the 3 or 4 bits was based on the assumption that there was no a priori reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito, such as an obvious motive.
have a great deal of faith in courts due to your background as a lawyer.
Putting aside the issue of my faith in the courts, I have a decent amount of faith in my ability as an attorney to detect BS.
Believe it or not, I have people calling me day in and day out, lying to me and trying to convince me to take their case. For the past few years, I have worked mainly on contingency, so if a prospective client succesfully snows me it’s a complete waste of my time and money. As a result, I’ve gotten pretty good at assessing cases based on limited evidence.
I’m analagous to a professional oddsmaker and most of the folks in this thread are analogous to amateurs telling me I’ve got my odds wrong. Which is of course possible. It happens all the time that the so-called experts are caught up by amateurs.
Still, while I’ve never been involved in a murder case, I have heard literally hundreds of stories of people who have denied wrongdoing, evaluated their cases, and then had the opportunity to learn more through discovery and trial.
In this case, it’s pretty clear to me that Knox and Sollecito are hiding something important. I’ve interviewed and cross-examined dozens if not hundreds of witnesses whose stories evolved in a similar fashion to meet evidence against them, often ultimately turning into “I don’t remembers” when faced with important contradictions. When further evidence is available, it almost always goes against the stories offered by such folks.
7 or 10 years ago, I would have been a lot less confident that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder. But after the experience of having seen hundreds of people lie and attempt to cover up their misconduct, I’m pretty confident that they were involved.
I’m beginning to wonder what evidence could possibly ever convince you that a defendant was innocent. DNA incriminating someone else? We’ve got it here—the DNA shows it was Guede. Prosecutorial irrationality and misconduct? Cornucopias full of it: they came up with their theory before knowing about Guede, and didn’t drop it once he’d been caught; furthermore, Mignini is under indictment for misbehavior in another case, and is notorious for bizarre conspiracy theories. Et cetera.
All those people exonerated via the Innocence Project? Well, there must have been something suspicious about them, or they wouldn’t have been prosecuted and convicted. Why should we be so quick to jump to the conclusion that they weren’t involved, just because the DNA points to someone else?
(The irony here is that, were it not for the fact that Guede has already been nabbed, this case would itself be a perfect candidate for the Innocence Project. Given what was used to convict Knox and Sollecito, we may as well still not know about Guede. In which case, the DNA tests showing that it was someone other than Knox or Sollecito would be considered exculpatory, rather than indicative of a three-way conspiracy.)
Actually, the 3 or 4 bits was based on the assumption that there was no a priori reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito, such as an obvious motive.
Write it out. Write out the evidentiary value of each piece of incriminating evidence, together with the values of the various pieces of exculpatory evidence I listed, and do the addition. Make your assumptions transparent for all to see.
I have a decent amount of faith in my ability as an attorney to detect BS.
“My lawyer’s intuition tells me” isn’t an argument. Beliefs have to be based on evidence. Until you can unpack your intuition and show specifically how the evidence leads to your belief, you might as well be saying you looked into a crystal ball.
I’m beginning to wonder what evidence could possibly ever convince you that a >defendant was innocent. DNA incriminating someone else? We’ve got it here—the >DNA shows it was Guede. Prosecutorial irrationality and misconduct? Cornucopias >full of it: they came up with their theory before knowing about Guede, and didn’t drop >it once he’d been caught; furthermore, Mignini is under indictment for misbehavior >in another case, and is notorious for bizarre conspiracy theories. Et cetera.
I’m satisfied that the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case were innocent. And I was reasonably confident of that long before the state prosecutor announced his belief they were innocent.
Well, there must have been something suspicious about them, or they wouldn’t >have been prosecuted and convicted.
You are attacking a strawman here. I have refrained arguing that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty simply because they were charged and ultimately convicted.
Write it out. Write out the evidentiary value of each piece of incriminating evidence,
I will if I can find a block of free time in which I have the motivation to do so.
My lawyer’s intuition tells me” isn’t an argument. Beliefs have to be based on >evidence.
Again you are strawmanning me. I am saying that as an attorney, I have heard hundreds of people give statements or testify. In situations where (1) peoples’ stories have been incoherent/inconsistent in a manner similar to that of Knox; and (2) further evidence became available, that further evidence has virtually always gone against the person’s story. Sometimes dramatically so.
You are attacking a strawman here. I have refrained arguing that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty simply because they were charged and ultimately convicted.
I didn’t say that’s what you argued. I said that if you were to look into the cases of those defendants later considered to be exonerated by DNA evidence, you would likely find grounds for being suspicious of them similar to the grounds on which you are suspicious of Knox and Sollecito. (In fact, I am given to understand that 25% of them actually confessed to the crime.)
I am saying that as an attorney, I have heard hundreds of people give statements or testify. In situations where (1) peoples’ stories have been incoherent/inconsistent in a manner similar to that of Knox;
Meaning that they were browbeaten by police into speculating on how their understanding of the situation might have been wrong?
I’m honestly not sure what you’re talking about here. One keeps hearing these claims that Knox was “inconsistent”, “changed her story”, and the like. But the account given at Friends of Amanda seems perfectly convincing to me. From the beginning, Knox insisted she was at Sollecito’s. But she was told (falsely) that there was solid physical evidence placing her at the crime scene. This was understandably confusing to her. So after hours of being berated by interrogators, she finally gave in to their pressure by speculating—upon their prompting! -- about Patrick Lumumba. This doesn’t sound like evidence of guilt to me. You say that it does to you because of your experience as an attorney, but you’re going to have to do a better job of explaining why—and more importantly, why it comes anywhere near to trumping the other evidence.
At a minimum, you responded to the argument as if somebody had made it. Since you were responding to my post, it’s reasonable to infer that you were attributing that argument to me.
Meaning that they were browbeaten by police into speculating on how their >understanding of the situation might have been wrong?
No.
From the beginning, Knox insisted she was at Sollecito’s
During what time period? From approximately what hour to approximately what hour?
I am saying that as an attorney, I have heard hundreds of people give statements or testify. In situations where (1) peoples’ stories have been incoherent/inconsistent in a manner similar to that of Knox; and (2) further evidence became available, that further evidence has virtually always gone against the person’s story. Sometimes dramatically so.
This is stupid. The reason the further evidence turns out to go against them is because they’re guilty, not because their stories were incoherent. Don’t you think that the vast majority of criminal cases coming to your attention are, by the prosecutor’s discretion and incentive, ones where a strong case for the defendant’s guilt can be made? That’s all the explanation you should need of the phenomena you recount.
The reason the further evidence turns out to go against them is because they’re guilty, not because their stories were incoherent.
No, that’s not it. Their stories are incoherent because they are guilty AND the further evidence goes against them because they are guilty.
Don’t you think that the vast majority of criminal cases coming to your attention are, by the prosecutor’s discretion and incentive, ones where a strong case for the defendant’s guilt can be made?
No—I don’t practice criminal law. I practice civil (administrative) law. Perhaps 40-60% of my clients are innocent of the charges against them and I win more than half the time.
I don’t think you’re allowing much possibility for an innocent who has a suspicious story. You think p(guilty|incoherent) is higher than p(guilty|coherent). I agree. I’m saying that p(guilty|incoherent,criminal prosecution) is very close to the baseline p(guilty|criminal prosecution), because you only see prosecuted those cases where either the defendant is unlucky enough to have a sketchy-seeming alibi, or the direct evidence is strong enough that the alibi doesn’t matter.
Since your experience is from criminal cases, my speculation about it was inaccurate; on the other hand, that means that your experience is even less relevant than I thought. Many civil cases go to trial where, as you say, p(win) is nearly 1⁄2. Not so for criminal prosecutors; they drop cases they won’t win.
I’d like to back away from my initial response (“this is stupid”) to you.
I had understood you to be talking about personally observed frequency of (incoherent and guilty) vs. (coherent and not guilty) in the context of criminal testimony in court. Clearly that’s not the case, and you had much more experience with innocent defendants than I anticipated.
Also, I actually understood you to believe that the causation proceeded from incoherent → guilty, which of course is ludicrous. You later explained that you actually have a roughly correct causal network; my only objection would be in whether you’re using the proper frequency for (incoherent and innocent); only if it’s nearly zero can you immediately conclude that incoherence very strongly suggests guilt. (otherwise, you have to do the math).
I still hold that amongst criminal defendants at trial, (incoherent and innocent) may be quite frequent, because (coherent and innocent) are almost never brought to trial. But what’s important is, amongst criminal defendants, how much higher p(guility|incoherent,trial) is than p(guilty|coherent,trial). I don’t actually know precisely what the difference is; I also expect it to be higher, but dwarfed in importance by the additional evidence. I would be extremely hesitant to convict someone solely based on “suspicious cover-up like behavior”, but I know that it’s happened, e.g. in the case of Hans Reiser.
I would be extremely hesitant to convict someone solely based on “suspicious cover-up like behavior”, but I know that it’s happened
I also would be hesitant. And indeed, I don’t know if there was enough evidence to inculpate Knox beyond a reasonable doubt. My point in these discussions is that I’m pretty confident she was involved in the murder.
that means that your experience is even less relevant than I thought.
I would say it’s pretty relevant. I’ve questioned hundreds of people who were accused of wrongdoing; come to a belief about their guilt or innocence; and then had an opportunity to see further evidence against them and update my beliefs, so to speak.
As to your point that there is a selection bias in criminal prosecutions, that may very well be the case. I’m not sure what it implies for the Amanda Knox case. I suppose one could argue that the decision to prosecute her is evidence of her guilt. Evidence in the logical sense, not the courtroom sense.
I’m saying that Kercher had $200 in cash and it was missing. Guede’s DNA was in her purse, and he needed money to flee the country. Thus, there is strong evidence of a robbery. Saying nothing was taken is simply ignoring the facts. Interpretation of staging is exactly that… interpretation. If you say it was staged, that helps support the prosecution’s version of the crime, but it does not support the totality of the physical evidence.
You can infer whatever you wish from the mop and bucket, but without substantiating evidence it means nothing.
Respectfully, does that mean “yes” or “no”?
P.S. By “initially” I mean just looking at the crime scene evidence.
Respectfully, it doesn’t matter. You’re missing the whole point… and I’m not trying to be flip. I apologize if it appears that way. Let’s play devil’s advocate and say there was unequivocal proof of staging/ alteration of the crime scene occurred. You must now prove that Knox or Sollecito were the ones that did it. Your suspicion that they did it is not evidence.I understand about “initially”, but in order to conduct the investigation you must start with the obvious and work from there. I find it very difficult to START my investigation with Knox as a suspect based on what was found initially.
The further away you move from the point of origin of the event, the less accurate your observations will be.
Ok, fine.
I’m a little confused. I thought your point was that the initial physical evidence offered no reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito and therefore subsequent evidence developed against them should be discounted or even disregarded.
In that case, the question is not whether the evidence proves Knox is guilty but whether it provides a reasonable basis to suspect her.
Did I misunderstand you?
Here’s exactly how Knox arrived on the radar as a suspect. You tell me if this sounds right:
″...Edgardo Giobbi, a police forensic scientist, told the court in Perugia how during a search at the house just hours after the murder, he handed Knox a pair of shoe covers to prevent contaminating the evidence.
“As she put them on she swiveled her hips, pulled a face and said ‘hop la’ - I thought it was very unusual behavior and my suspicions against her were raised,” Mr. Giobbi told the court...”
My reaction to this statement was something along the lines of, “WTF?”
It is natural in ANY investigation to first look at the people who live at the house, but you can’t let that give you tunnel vision to the physical evidence around you.
What about the knife wounds?
Were the wounds consistent with different knives or not?
If they were,
and if it is true that the bathmat print was Raff’s, and other prints were wiped off the floor, then:
Is it theoretically possible that Raff walked into the room and stabbed a dying woman? - that would not lead to leaving DNA only on the floor and the knife—which may have been a different knife, from the one in the flat, and was discarded and never found?
Surely, if the jury convicted on the basis of the prosecution’s story then they must have gone into detail like that in order to examine the plausability of the reasoning?
With all the uncertainty about the many disparate bits of evidence and/or red herrings, I don’t see how one can judge the judgement without reading the whole proceedings.
Certainly I agree that there is no real evidence that Raff and Knox were tumbling around the room with Meredith. But I think what is on trial is how murders come about as much as the act itself. That may be a difference in Italian law.
I think some people feel that Knox and Raff may have been morally responsible, by their inconsiderate behaviour. Maybe they were bullying Meredith a bit and playing games that maybe Guede didn’t understand.
By the way, as a point of information, do you have a cite for that? TIA.
(Of course my main question is whether I have understood you correctly. Are you saying that the initial physical evidence offered no reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito and therefore subsequent evidence developed against them should be discounted or even disregarded?)
I agree, but so what? The issue of whether the police developed tunnel vision is a different question.
Anyway, please tell me if I misunderstood you. Your point seems to be that the initial physical evidence offered no reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito and therefore subsequent evidence developed against them should be discounted or even disregarded.
Did I get you right? Or did I misunderstand?
The problem is there is no “subsequent evidence!!” Behavior is not evidence. You must prove that the accused were involved in a crime. Otherwise, lets burn witches.
Footprints in blood? No. Luminol reveal no blood, so footprints in the hallway of a person who lived there means nothing. Likewise, Knox’s DNA mixed in droplets of Kercher’s blood in the bathroom that they shared is hardly startling. DNA of people who cohabitate mixes all the time whether or not a crime is committed.
There are only TWO pieces of evidence that are said to connect Sollecito and Knox to this crime. The knife and the Bra clasp. An independent report done by the innocence project who directly examined the tester’s reports clearly show this “evidence” is hardly proof of anything.
Some wonderful links, that include actual crime scene video shot by investigators and the DNA report compiled by the Innocence Project:
http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e16/4193542.0.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHleYhBJy8k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLE4s3jXTVU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.thewrap.com/blog-entry/2354
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n71ZJPBq8uk&feature=player_embedded#
And a link that was requested by Braz:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523400,00.html
“The problem is there is no “subsequent evidence!!”″
Of course there is subsequent evidence. For example the fact that Knox and Sollecito were unable to coherently, consistently, and reasonably account for their activities and whereabouts during the time period in question.
That’s evidence. And by the way, by “evidence,” I don’t necessarily mean the same thing as “proof”
Ah, but you are under the FALSE assumption that their stories should match or even be cohesive! Investigators will tell you that people’s recollections of same events, especially when they are under pressure often vary widely.
Eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable type. Thus, if their stories matched, that may indicate a rehearsal before hand. If they had been involved in the killing do you not think they would have tried to get their story straight? They had 5 days to talk about it.
Thus, in reality, this points more to a lack of guilt that an indicator of it. Here’s a fun read:
http://truthinjustice.org/untrueconfession.htm
Anyone with a cursory knowledge of police interrogation techniques knows its just one big “gotcha” game. Confusing the suspect, and undermining their understanding of their reality is basic to “breaking” a suspect. It’s a shame that we don’t have a video of the interrogation (as required by Italian law). So we only have the police version of events to go by as to what transpired. As you might guess, that doesn’t inspire me with a lot of confidence as to the veracity of their statements.
And, hey, while we’re on the subject of changing stories: the initial theory of the crime was a ritualistic rite to celebrate halloween, then it was a sex game gone bad, then it was an argument over Meredith’s missing rent money, then it was revenge on the “smug,” “prissy” girl, then it was “sometimes there is no reason.
Mignini changed his story more times than Amanda and Raffaele put together, but that doesn’t seem to bother a lot of people.
It really bothers me.
You are shifting arguments yet again here.
Anyway, there is a distinction between the sorts of inconsistencies which result from typical human error and the sorts of evolution, tailoring, incoherency, convenient amnesia, etc. which result from prevarication.
Knox and Sollecito’s stories pretty clearly fall into the latter category.
My arguments have remained consistent. You are the one that keeps inserting interpretative observations into this discussion rather than sticking with the objective level facts.
Your argument keeps changing. First you argued that there was no physical crime scene evidence which would cause one to suspect Knox or Sollecito. Then, when that turned out to be untrue, you argued that the police acted unprofessionally. Then, when I pointed out that was irrelevant you claimed that there was no subsequent evidence against Knox or Sollecito. Then, when I pointed out subsequent evidence you tried to explain it away.
Now you simply accuse me of “inserting interpretive observations” into the discussion. I’m not sure what that means. Maybe it’s like the “leap” distinction which other posters tried to draw earlier.
Can you give me two examples of the “interpretive observations” I have been inserting into the discussion?
Is it ok if I give you six?
interpretive observations:
(1) A room in the crime scene apartment has been ransacked but no valuables (which were in plain view) were taken;
(2) A window in that same room has been broken with marks suggesting it was broken from the inside;
(3) the same window is on the second floor and can be seen from the street. Further, there is no obvious reason why a burglar would need to get in through an upper floor;
(4) Bloodstains indicate that the victim died with her bra on and the bra was removed a few hours later; and * (This was the opinion of a judge. A Forensic scientist for the defense later refuted this contention.)
(5) When the police arrived at the crime scene apartment, one of the victim’s flatmates was standing there with her boyfriend and with a mop and a bucket.
(6) inconsistent stories.
At the end of each of these ask yourself this… how does this connect Knox or Sollecito to the crime?
Objective level facts:
Guede’s DNA inside kercher
Guede’s Bloody fingerprints (with Meredith’s blood) on kersher’s pillow case
Guede’s feces in the toilet
Guede’s DNA in Kercher’s purse
Ask yourself this. How does this connect Guede to the crime?
See the difference?
I sell cars for a living. My BS detector is off the scale. ;)
The opinion of this case by another attorney (just for fun):
http://www.grahamlawyerblog.com/2009/11/30/issue-of-demeanor-raised-in-amanda-knox-case/comment-page-1/#comment-2988
It sounds to me like you are claiming that the case against Knox and Sollecito is based mainly on circumstantial evidence.
Is that about right?
Exactly, and were Knox and Sollecito the only two people charged in this case you MIGHT have a case (a very poor one).
However, to compound the problem even more, you have another suspect for whom the evidence is overwhelming.
The evidence against Guede is so geometrically out of proportion than that against Knox and Sollecito that it defies logic.
How can that be, if these three people participated in this crime?
The only logical answer is very simply… it can’t.
It’s still possible to reach reasonable conclusions based solely on circumstantial evidence. For example, I am reasonably confident that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife based solely on the facts that (1) he is her ex-husband; (2) there is a violent history between them; and (3) he cannot account for his whereabouts around the time of the murder.
Of course here, Knox and Sollecito had no obvious motive to kill Kercher, but the same principle applies, i.e. it’s possible to be reasonably confident in a conclusion based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Many ways. For example, it is possible that Knox and Sollecito hired Guedo to kill Kircher but did not participate in the actual stabbing. (I’m not saying that this is what happened, I’m just pointing out that it is possible that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder even though there was (apparently) none of their DNA on Kercher’s body.)
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.
Whether to suspect her or not isn’t the issue. By virtue of her being the victim’s roommate, the police should look at her. That’s CSI 101.
However, announcing that the case is closed, and that the murder was the result of a ritual sex game gone wrong before you’ve looked at the forensic evidence seem not only premature, but unprofessional. How can you even come up with such a theory on your interpretation of behavior alone? That says more about the observer than the observed, eh?
For example, much has been made about the “cartwheels” in the police station. Were you aware that Knox was a dancer and practiced yoga? Where you aware that she frequently used yoga positions to relieve stress? Where you aware on the night this was observed she had gone to the station with Sollecito who had himself been summoned by the police? She went voluntarily to the police station. That’s not the behavior of a guilty person. No one that knew her was surprised that while she was waiting she would do yoga stretches to relieve tension. Yet the police took this behavior as odd, and that she wasn’t properly grieving for her roommate, yet for Knox, this was normal. This is what I’m talking about… making premature assumptions with little corroborative evidence invariably heightens the odds of coming to the wrong conclusion.
I’m saying that the evidence they had on hand at the time does not add up to the conclusion they reached.
That’s different from what you seemed to have been saying before.
Your position now seems to be that the police acted unprofessionally and focused on Knox without a reasonable basis. You are saying that they concluded Knox was guilty without a sufficient basis.
First of all, I am skeptical of your claim. I asked you to provide a cite for your claim about the source of initial suspicion of Knox and you failed to do so. I did my own search and found nothing backing up your claim.
But more importantly, your argument doesn’t have much bearing on the ultimate question of guilt or innocence of Knox or Sollecito. If I were arguing that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty because the authorities concluded they were guilty, then you might have a point, assuming you could substantiate your claims.
In that respect, it’s a bit like the OJ Simpson case—the police may very well have rushed to judgment against OJ. But even so, it seems very likely that he committed the crime he was accused of.
brazil84, I just don’t think you have a grasp on how weak the case against Knox and Sollecito is. You’ve said that the two things that make you think they did it—the changing stories and evidence of crime-scene-tampering—contribute 3 or 4 bits of evidence against them. That’s quite a small amount, which is easily overwhelmed by :
The prior improbability that people like K and S would be involved given that someone else was.
The lack of criminal history of K and S.
The lack of motive.
The lack of connection between K/S and G
The lack of any evidence that K and S themselves were at the scene.
I understand that you feel suspicious of Knox and Sollecito based on the reports you’ve read (the prosecution’s narrative does sound like a good made-for-TV-movie), and have a great deal of faith in courts due to your background as a lawyer. In most trials, the defendants are probably guilty. But this isn’t a typical case. There are times when you have to look at the object-level facts, and, frankly, do the math. Sometimes, police, prosecutors, and juries are just plain wrong—stupidly so. This is one of those times.
Actually, the 3 or 4 bits was based on the assumption that there was no a priori reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito, such as an obvious motive.
Putting aside the issue of my faith in the courts, I have a decent amount of faith in my ability as an attorney to detect BS.
Believe it or not, I have people calling me day in and day out, lying to me and trying to convince me to take their case. For the past few years, I have worked mainly on contingency, so if a prospective client succesfully snows me it’s a complete waste of my time and money. As a result, I’ve gotten pretty good at assessing cases based on limited evidence.
I’m analagous to a professional oddsmaker and most of the folks in this thread are analogous to amateurs telling me I’ve got my odds wrong. Which is of course possible. It happens all the time that the so-called experts are caught up by amateurs.
Still, while I’ve never been involved in a murder case, I have heard literally hundreds of stories of people who have denied wrongdoing, evaluated their cases, and then had the opportunity to learn more through discovery and trial.
In this case, it’s pretty clear to me that Knox and Sollecito are hiding something important. I’ve interviewed and cross-examined dozens if not hundreds of witnesses whose stories evolved in a similar fashion to meet evidence against them, often ultimately turning into “I don’t remembers” when faced with important contradictions. When further evidence is available, it almost always goes against the stories offered by such folks.
7 or 10 years ago, I would have been a lot less confident that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder. But after the experience of having seen hundreds of people lie and attempt to cover up their misconduct, I’m pretty confident that they were involved.
I’m beginning to wonder what evidence could possibly ever convince you that a defendant was innocent. DNA incriminating someone else? We’ve got it here—the DNA shows it was Guede. Prosecutorial irrationality and misconduct? Cornucopias full of it: they came up with their theory before knowing about Guede, and didn’t drop it once he’d been caught; furthermore, Mignini is under indictment for misbehavior in another case, and is notorious for bizarre conspiracy theories. Et cetera.
All those people exonerated via the Innocence Project? Well, there must have been something suspicious about them, or they wouldn’t have been prosecuted and convicted. Why should we be so quick to jump to the conclusion that they weren’t involved, just because the DNA points to someone else?
(The irony here is that, were it not for the fact that Guede has already been nabbed, this case would itself be a perfect candidate for the Innocence Project. Given what was used to convict Knox and Sollecito, we may as well still not know about Guede. In which case, the DNA tests showing that it was someone other than Knox or Sollecito would be considered exculpatory, rather than indicative of a three-way conspiracy.)
Write it out. Write out the evidentiary value of each piece of incriminating evidence, together with the values of the various pieces of exculpatory evidence I listed, and do the addition. Make your assumptions transparent for all to see.
“My lawyer’s intuition tells me” isn’t an argument. Beliefs have to be based on evidence. Until you can unpack your intuition and show specifically how the evidence leads to your belief, you might as well be saying you looked into a crystal ball.
I’m satisfied that the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case were innocent. And I was reasonably confident of that long before the state prosecutor announced his belief they were innocent.
You are attacking a strawman here. I have refrained arguing that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty simply because they were charged and ultimately convicted.
I will if I can find a block of free time in which I have the motivation to do so.
Again you are strawmanning me. I am saying that as an attorney, I have heard hundreds of people give statements or testify. In situations where (1) peoples’ stories have been incoherent/inconsistent in a manner similar to that of Knox; and (2) further evidence became available, that further evidence has virtually always gone against the person’s story. Sometimes dramatically so.
I didn’t say that’s what you argued. I said that if you were to look into the cases of those defendants later considered to be exonerated by DNA evidence, you would likely find grounds for being suspicious of them similar to the grounds on which you are suspicious of Knox and Sollecito. (In fact, I am given to understand that 25% of them actually confessed to the crime.)
Meaning that they were browbeaten by police into speculating on how their understanding of the situation might have been wrong?
I’m honestly not sure what you’re talking about here. One keeps hearing these claims that Knox was “inconsistent”, “changed her story”, and the like. But the account given at Friends of Amanda seems perfectly convincing to me. From the beginning, Knox insisted she was at Sollecito’s. But she was told (falsely) that there was solid physical evidence placing her at the crime scene. This was understandably confusing to her. So after hours of being berated by interrogators, she finally gave in to their pressure by speculating—upon their prompting! -- about Patrick Lumumba. This doesn’t sound like evidence of guilt to me. You say that it does to you because of your experience as an attorney, but you’re going to have to do a better job of explaining why—and more importantly, why it comes anywhere near to trumping the other evidence.
At a minimum, you responded to the argument as if somebody had made it. Since you were responding to my post, it’s reasonable to infer that you were attributing that argument to me.
No.
During what time period? From approximately what hour to approximately what hour?
This is stupid. The reason the further evidence turns out to go against them is because they’re guilty, not because their stories were incoherent. Don’t you think that the vast majority of criminal cases coming to your attention are, by the prosecutor’s discretion and incentive, ones where a strong case for the defendant’s guilt can be made? That’s all the explanation you should need of the phenomena you recount.
No, that’s not it. Their stories are incoherent because they are guilty AND the further evidence goes against them because they are guilty.
No—I don’t practice criminal law. I practice civil (administrative) law. Perhaps 40-60% of my clients are innocent of the charges against them and I win more than half the time.
I don’t think you’re allowing much possibility for an innocent who has a suspicious story. You think p(guilty|incoherent) is higher than p(guilty|coherent). I agree. I’m saying that p(guilty|incoherent,criminal prosecution) is very close to the baseline p(guilty|criminal prosecution), because you only see prosecuted those cases where either the defendant is unlucky enough to have a sketchy-seeming alibi, or the direct evidence is strong enough that the alibi doesn’t matter.
Since your experience is from criminal cases, my speculation about it was inaccurate; on the other hand, that means that your experience is even less relevant than I thought. Many civil cases go to trial where, as you say, p(win) is nearly 1⁄2. Not so for criminal prosecutors; they drop cases they won’t win.
I’d like to back away from my initial response (“this is stupid”) to you.
I had understood you to be talking about personally observed frequency of (incoherent and guilty) vs. (coherent and not guilty) in the context of criminal testimony in court. Clearly that’s not the case, and you had much more experience with innocent defendants than I anticipated.
Also, I actually understood you to believe that the causation proceeded from incoherent → guilty, which of course is ludicrous. You later explained that you actually have a roughly correct causal network; my only objection would be in whether you’re using the proper frequency for (incoherent and innocent); only if it’s nearly zero can you immediately conclude that incoherence very strongly suggests guilt. (otherwise, you have to do the math).
I still hold that amongst criminal defendants at trial, (incoherent and innocent) may be quite frequent, because (coherent and innocent) are almost never brought to trial. But what’s important is, amongst criminal defendants, how much higher p(guility|incoherent,trial) is than p(guilty|coherent,trial). I don’t actually know precisely what the difference is; I also expect it to be higher, but dwarfed in importance by the additional evidence. I would be extremely hesitant to convict someone solely based on “suspicious cover-up like behavior”, but I know that it’s happened, e.g. in the case of Hans Reiser.
I also would be hesitant. And indeed, I don’t know if there was enough evidence to inculpate Knox beyond a reasonable doubt. My point in these discussions is that I’m pretty confident she was involved in the murder.
I would say it’s pretty relevant. I’ve questioned hundreds of people who were accused of wrongdoing; come to a belief about their guilt or innocence; and then had an opportunity to see further evidence against them and update my beliefs, so to speak.
As to your point that there is a selection bias in criminal prosecutions, that may very well be the case. I’m not sure what it implies for the Amanda Knox case. I suppose one could argue that the decision to prosecute her is evidence of her guilt. Evidence in the logical sense, not the courtroom sense.