Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#3

[SMK]

So, do I understand that there is some concern about the fact that, after Guede's trial, it was concluded that he did not act alone?

I suppose the evidence that was analyzed by the courts gave them no choice but to conclude that there was evidence of more than one culprit. That does present problems for Knox and Sollecito, but does that really mean that now the Supreme Court is also worthy of criticism? Is there any part of the Italian Judicial system that does not need to be criticized in order to paint Sollecito and Knox as victims?

No, my last sentence was in earnest:

I was not criticizing the Italian Supreme Court:

I was seriously and sincerely asking CH what, in his opinion, was the cause or motive of them to rule for several attackers if it is so clear that there was only one?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

At his site John Reid wrote, “Some research suggests that false confessions are extremely rare. In a recent publication (2005) one author reported the following: ‘However, using national estimates of interrogations, arrests, convictions, and error rates of wrongful convictions resulting from false confessions range from a low 10 (.001% of all convictions) to a high of 840 (.04% of all convictions) per year.’”

One, John Reid is someone with a vested interest in minimizing the dangers of his interrogation technique’s producing false confessions. Two, there is no basis for using the number of all convictions as the denominator in this statistic. It would make more sense to use the total number of convictions that resulted from confessions. Three, the numerator in the statistic quote is every bit as questionable as the denominator. The source of Reid’s claim is J. P. Blair, “What do we know about interrogation in the United States?” Journal of police and Criminal Psychology Vol 20 No. 2 (2005). A pdf is available at Reid’s site. The two citations given are to articles from 1986 and 1998. Two of the more surefire means of showing that a confession was false are cell phone records and DNA profiling. These essentially did not exist prior to 1986. Even now, DNA profiling is not enough to overcome some false confessions (Billy Wayne Cope). Putting it another way, it is naïve to imagine that every false confession is identified (WM3). Therefore, the values Mr. Reid quoted should be taken with all the salt at the Bonneville Flats.

 

[SMK]

At his site John Reid wrote, “Some research suggests that false confessions are extremely rare. In a recent publication (2005) one author reported the following: ‘However, using national estimates of interrogations, arrests, convictions, and error rates of wrongful convictions resulting from false confessions range from a low 10 (.001% of all convictions) to a high of 840 (.04% of all convictions) per year.’”

One, John Reid is someone with a vested interest in minimizing the dangers of his interrogation technique’s producing false confessions. Two, there is no basis for using the number of all convictions as the denominator in this statistic. It would make more sense to use the total number of convictions that resulted from confessions. Three, the numerator in the statistic quote is every bit as questionable as the denominator. The source of Reid’s claim is J. P. Blair, “What do we know about interrogation in the United States?” Journal of police and Criminal Psychology Vol 20 No. 2 (2005). A pdf is available at Reid’s site. The two citations given are to articles from 1986 and 1998. Two of the more surefire means of showing that a confession was false are cell phone records and DNA profiling. These essentially did not exist prior to 1986. Even now, DNA profiling is not enough to overcome some false confessions (Billy Wayne Cope). Putting it another way, it is naïve to imagine that every false confession is identified (WM3). Therefore, the values Mr. Reid quoted should be taken with all the salt at the Bonneville Flats.

Yes, my favorite Philosophy Professor from back in my undergraduate days just presented on the importance of awareness of false confessions: (his focus was on the U.S. criminal justice system)
http://www.udmercy.edu/events/2013/10/22/police-interrogations.php

 

[Chris_Halkides]

No, my last sentence was in earnest:

I was not criticizing the Italian Supreme Court:

I was seriously and sincerely asking CH what, in his opinion, was the cause or motive of them to rule for several attackers if it is so clear that there was only one?

The forensic pathologists discussed in the Massei report said in effect that the injuries did not rule out a single attacker. (IMO the evidence that there was in fact only one attacker is the great differential of evidence that Guede was in Meredith's room vs. AK, RS, or anyone else.) With respect to Guede's trials it is obvious why he and his defense benefitted from the notion that there were multiple attackers: it lessens his culpability. The prosecution was of course also pursuing a case against AK and RS; therefore, they had no reason to argue for a single attacker at Guede's trial. The CSC finalized the result of the lower courts, which had the effect of saying Guede did not act alone without his trials actually examining the question in any meaningful way.

 

[SMK]

The forensic pathologists discussed in the Massei report said in effect that the injuries did not rule out a single attacker. (IMO the evidence that there was in fact only one attacker is the great differential of evidence that Guede was in Meredith's room vs. AK or RS.) With respect to Guede's trials it is obvious why he and his defense benefitted from the notion that there were multiple attackers: it lessens his culpability. The prosecution was of course also pursuing a case against AK and RS; therefore, they had no reason to argue for a single attacker at Guede's trial. The CSC finalized the result of the lower courts, which had the effect of saying Guede did not act alone without his trials actually examining the question in any meaningful way.

Did Hellman examine this in detail, or was it not part of his procedure?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Why was Hellman overturned if all of this was brought up by him as well?

What gave the prosecution the power to overturn him? I thought the fact that the victim had the number of bruises and injuries that she did, and had signs of having been restrained, supported the several attackers theory? Why did the Supreme Court uphold the prosecution's theory of several attackers if the empirical data did not support this???

Judge Hellman felt that the CSC exceeded its authority in the manner in which they overturned the acquittal. The Daily Mail wrote, "The judge who cleared Amanda Knox of killing Meredith Kerchner has hit out at his colleagues who overturned the decision, saying they were 'violating the law'."

On p. 368 of the English translation Massei wrote, "The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person." Massei has to reason osmotically to get around this problem.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Did Hellman examine this in detail, or was it not part of his procedure?

A whole section of the Hellman-Zanetti report is devoted to this question. "It is only too obvious that the ruling in question is not absolutely binding [on us]; that would be contrary not only to the norms of positive law governing the force [efficacia] of criminal verdicts in other cases (C.P.P. Article 654), but also to all the basic constitutionally-guaranteed institutional principles (Constitution, Article 111), since the current defendants would be made to suffer the effects of a ruling issued in a case in which they were not involved."

 

[SMK]

What motivated the decision for retrial, or review, as it may be?
There must have been something which drove the high court to overturn Hellmann.
I'm afraid I actually don't recall the details from last March.

 

[redheadedgal]

I was not criticizing the Italian Supreme Court:

even if you did, it's not against the law to do so... and it's certainly not against TOS here to do so...


i find it so hypocritical for someone to say

Is there any part of the Italian Judicial system that does not need to be criticized in order to paint Sollecito and Knox as victims?

when every last thing about knox --a need for clean clothes, a halloween costume, supposed cartwheels, cuddling with her b/f, and so on-- has been similarly criticized


:twocents:

 

[sherlockh]

Let's take this site out for a test spin.
1. Myths debunked
TMoMK says (Myth 4) that it is a myth that AK quickly withdrew her statement. Quoting her handwritten note of 6 November, " "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik..." they leave out the rest of the sentence. "...but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." In addition they fail to mention her second handwritten note of 7 November, the key portion of which is a complete retraction of her accusation. PM Mignini quoted the key portion of it in his cross of AK, so there should not be any doubt of what she said.

Discussed many times. I fully agree that if she says "I stand by my statements that I made last night' you can't speak of a full retraction. No matter what comes next.

2. Sollecito's supposed replica combat knife
This issue is important to Old Steve, IIUC. TJfMK wrote, <modsnip> The Daily Telegraph reported underneath a photo, "Amanda Knox is shown a knife which the prosecution used to help illustrate the murder of Meredith Kercher" Go to this link, and scroll to picture 7. To the best of my knowledge, a total of three knifes belonging to RS were confiscated. One kitchen knife and two folding knives. Thus TMoMK is advancing a plain falsehood.

How do you jump from 'To the best of my knowledge' to 'a plain falsehood'. I don't see any proof that this knife wasn't from Sollecito's room.

3. Lividity
<modsnip>On page 121 of the translated Massei report Professor Bacci (a prosecution witness) "dismissed" a mark on Meredith as being livor mortis (it was a bruise).

This is clearly sourced. Reported by the medical examiner and reported in detail in the Micheli report.

These are not the only misleading or untrue statements at TMoMK. After taking a test drive, I won't be buying.

It is all free

 

[sherlockh]

The forensic pathologists discussed in the Massei report said in effect that the injuries did not rule out a single attacker. (IMO the evidence that there was in fact only one attacker is the great differential of evidence that Guede was in Meredith's room vs. AK, RS, or anyone else.) With respect to Guede's trials it is obvious why he and his defense benefitted from the notion that there were multiple attackers: it lessens his culpability. The prosecution was of course also pursuing a case against AK and RS; therefore, they had no reason to argue for a single attacker at Guede's trial. The CSC finalized the result of the lower courts, which had the effect of saying Guede did not act alone without his trials actually examining the question in any meaningful way.

Where is the proof of any of this? A conspiracy between the prosecution in Guede's case and AK&RS's case? Come on now. The SC confirmed the multiple attacker scenario because the evidence leaves no room for any doubt. Since we are dealing with the same evidence, the appeal court was wrong to overthrow a SC decision. That is illegal. One of the many illegal things the appeal court had to include to come to their decision of innocence. The SC made it very clear that judge Hellmann was completely incompetent. No wonder he was a bit cranky and accuses them of 'violating the law'. Not a smart move by the way. JMO.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Multiple_Attackers

 

[Amber29]

that site contains errors.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Prosecutionscase.html

<modsnip>... I've read there I have no desire to visit that site.

 

[Amber29]

Let's take this site out for a test spin.
1. Myths debunked
TMoMK says (Myth 4) that it is a myth that AK quickly withdrew her statement. Quoting her handwritten note of 6 November, " "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik..." they leave out the rest of the sentence. "...but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." In addition they fail to mention her second handwritten note of 7 November, the key portion of which is a complete retraction of her accusation. PM Mignini quoted the key portion of it in his cross of AK, so there should not be any doubt of what she said.

2. Sollecito's supposed replica combat knife
This issue is important to Old Steve, IIUC. TJfMK wrote,<modsnip> The source for this claim is an anonymous commenter. The Daily Telegraph reported underneath a photo, "Amanda Knox is shown a knife which the prosecution used to help illustrate the murder of Meredith Kercher" Go to this link, and scroll to picture 7. To the best of my knowledge, a total of three knifes belonging to RS were confiscated. One kitchen knife and two folding knives. Thus TMoMK is advancing a plain falsehood.

3. Lividity
<modsnip> On page 121 of the translated Massei report Professor Bacci (a prosecution witness) "dismissed" a mark on Meredith as being livor mortis (it was a bruise).

These are not the only misleading or untrue statements at TMoMK. After taking a test drive, I won't be buying.

Even the few things you've mentioned changes nothing, there is more than enough evidence for a conviction. The lividity isn't the only part of the claim her body was moved and this is addressed in the Micheli report not the massei report.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Discussed many times. I fully agree that if she says "I stand by my statements that I made last night' you can't speak of a full retraction. No matter what comes next.

How do you jump from 'To the best of my knowledge' to 'a plain falsehood'. I don't see any proof that this knife wasn't from Sollecito's room.

This is clearly sourced. Reported by the medical examiner and reported in detail in the Micheli report.

It is all free

1. I infer from the first memoriale that she was extremely uncertain as of 6 November. I never called the first memoriale a full retraction; you misunderstood. The full retraction comes in the second memoriale (7 November), which is the document in which she says that she "didn't return back to the house." Besides being quoted by PM Mignini himself, it is also in Follain, p. 153.
2. If the knife in the photo had been confiscated by the police there would be a record of it, but I have seen no record of it. The Daily Telegraph article to which I linked clearly contradicted the claim by "Some Alibi" (the anonymous person used by TMoMK as their source) that the knife was from Sollecito. Under the photo they wrote, "Amanda Knox is shown a knife which the prosecution used to help illustrate the murder of Meredith Kercher Photo: EPA" Are you saying that "Some Alibi" was correct and that the Daily Telegraph is wrong? If so, what is his source?
3. The Massei report was written after the Micheli report. Are you saying that Professor Bacci was wrong? If so what are your reasons?

 

[Amber29]

The forensic pathologists discussed in the Massei report said in effect that the injuries did not rule out a single attacker. (IMO the evidence that there was in fact only one attacker is the great differential of evidence that Guede was in Meredith's room vs. AK, RS, or anyone else.) With respect to Guede's trials it is obvious why he and his defense benefitted from the notion that there were multiple attackers: it lessens his culpability. The prosecution was of course also pursuing a case against AK and RS; therefore, they had no reason to argue for a single attacker at Guede's trial. The CSC finalized the result of the lower courts, which had the effect of saying Guede did not act alone without his trials actually examining the question in any meaningful way.

You know the forensics you say prove RG was the lone wolf tells a different story. For me it's where no proof of RG was found like the small bathroom, in Filomena's room, and let's not mention those shoe prints that lead straight out the front door. Again as Otto has pointed out the whole cottage is the crime scene not just Meredith's room. Just because Amanda's DNA wasn't found in Meredith's room doesn't mean she wasn't there.

 

[sherlockh]

1. I infer from the first memoriale that she was extremely uncertain as of 6 November. I never called the first memoriale a full retraction; you misunderstood. The full retraction comes in the second memoriale (7 November), which is the document in which she says that she "didn't return back to the house." Besides being quoted by PM Mignini himself, it is also in Follain, p. 153.
2. If the knife in the photo had been confiscated by the police there would be a record of it, but I have seen no record of it. The Daily Telegraph article to which I linked clearly contradicted the claim by "Some Alibi" (the anonymous person used by TMoMK as their source) that the knife was from Sollecito. Under the photo they wrote, "Amanda Knox is shown a knife which the prosecution used to help illustrate the murder of Meredith Kercher Photo: EPA" Are you saying that "Some Alibi" was correct and that the Daily Telegraph is wrong? If so, what is his source?
3. The Massei report was written after the Micheli report. Are you saying that Professor Bacci was wrong? If so what are your reasons?

1. I infer she is lying and trying to play the police by keeping all options open.
2. I don't know and don't really care to be honest. The site is full with information, transcripts, translations, and there might be a meaningless mistake about a single picture. Ok.
3. No, I said it was well sourced so nothing wrong with it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Even the few things you've mentioned changes nothing, there is more than enough evidence for a conviction. The lividity isn't the only part of the claim her body was moved and this is addressed in the Micheli report not the massei report.

There are more falsehoods in that site than the three that I listed, even if we confine ourselves to the lack of evidence that Meredith's body was moved long after her death. The other claims about the movement of the body are also problematic. The issue with respect to a mark of blood on Meredith's body was discussed here. Knowledge about the case has advanced considerably since Micheli wrote his report in 2008. Professor Bacci's testimony with respect to livor mortis is a good example. Or do you think he was wrong? If so, why?

 

[Amber29]

There are more falsehoods in that site than the three that I listed, even if we confine ourselves to the lack of evidence that Meredith's body was moved long after her death. The other claims about the movement of the body are also problematic. The issue with respect to a mark of blood on Meredith's body was discussed here. Knowledge about the case has advanced considerably since Micheli wrote his report in 2008. Professor Bacci's testimony with respect to livor mortis is a good example. Or do you think he was wrong? If so, why?

I've read the massei report although years ago. Unlike you I don't choose to cherry pick it and believe only what I want from it. I believe massei got it right and I don't completely discount Micheli simply because his report is from 2008.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

You know the forensics you say prove RG was the lone wolf tells a different story. For me it's where no proof of RG was found like the small bathroom, in Filomena's room, and let's not mention those shoe prints that lead straight out the front door. Again as Otto has pointed out the whole cottage is the crime scene not just Meredith's room. Just because Amanda's DNA wasn't found in Meredith's room doesn't mean she wasn't there.

The shoe prints do not lead straight out the door; that is rhetorical excess. A reasonable hypothesis is that Guede made them after returning to Meredith's room and stepping in blood. Suppose we toss 100% of the DNA evidence in this case (just for the sake of argument). There is still Guede's bloody handprint. The blood is a time stamp and the lines on the hand are an identity stamp. That alone makes Guede guilty BARD. Beyond that, there are his shoe prints plus the fact that he admitted being there and that he fled the country. Those three elements are also enough to convict him BARD. Where are the bloody clothes from AK or RS? Where are their footprints or shoe prints in Meredith's room. Guede admits being in the bathroom, so your argument doesn't really work. And there are signs that someone was in F's room (Rep. 198 and 199).

 

[Amber29]

The shoe prints do not lead straight out the door; that is rhetorical excess. A reasonable hypothesis is that Guede made them after returning to Meredith's room and stepping in blood. Suppose we toss 100% of the DNA evidence in this case (just for the sake of argument). There is still Guede's bloody handprint. The blood is a time stamp and the lines on the hand are an identity stamp. That alone makes Guede guilty BARD. Beyond that, there are his shoe prints plus the fact that he admitted being there and that he fled the country. Those three elements are also enough to convict him BARD. Where are the bloody clothes from AK or RS? Where are their footprints or shoe prints in Meredith's room. Guede admits being in the bathroom, so your argument doesn't really work. And there are signs that someone was in F's room (Rep. 198 and 199).

I'm sorry I'm not going to make a list of the evidence. You know it as well as I do, it's been argued over and over.
IMO which I'm entitled to here they are guilty. The circumstantial evidence paints a clear picture and the physical evidence seals the deal.
Now please don't think you've made any head way in changing my mind or making me see the light. We will just have to agree to disagree.