Amanda Knox

In My Humble Opinion
161

This is what I wanted to avoid, long arguments with microfocus on individual details. You can try to discount any individual item, but when you look at the evidence as whole it paints a clear picture.
 

If Meredith’s blood wasn’t on the knife, then please explain why Sollecito lied and told a false story about how her blood got on the knife.

You could also talk about Sollecito’s violent fantasies about killing people with knives long before the crime.

If you have such confidence in the Court of Cassation, what is your opinion on the 2013 Cassion report vs. the 2015 Cassation report?
 

You mean no forensic evidence besides:

  • The mixed samples of Knox’s and Meredith’s blood, found in 5 places.
  • Sollecito’s DNA on the bra hook (yes I know the controversy).
  • Bloody footprints compatible with the bare feet of Knox and Sollecito, but not with Guede. Some footprints contained Knox’s DNA, and one contained a mixture of both her and Meredith’s DNA.
  • The bathmat footprint in Meredith’s blood, compatible with Sollecito’s foot, but not Guede’s
  • Footprint on the pillow (disputed).
  • The faked burglary - Guede had no motive to fake a burglary where there was none, and Sollecito stated that nothing was stolen before he had any opportunity to check.
  • The autopsy report that said there were multiple attackers, and two different knives were used.

Cleanup. The scene was cleaned with bleach. A shop owner testified that first thing the next morning Knox was waiting outside his shop when he opened it, and went straight to the cleaning section. (According to her alibi she was in bed at the time.) Sollecito’s apartment smelled strongly of bleach and two bottles were found under his kitchen sink. He employed a cleaner, who testified that she never used bleach, and had never seen bleach in his apartment before.

This is in addition to the multiple lies told by Knox and Sollecito, their conflicting alibis and changing story, the false accusation by Knox against Lumumba, the strange initial phone calls by Sollecito to the police, the immediate knowledge of the crime scene, without apparently seeing it.

162

If an individual item is suspect, or outright incorrect, then the big picture is non-existant. Your arguments are tright there with 911 trutherism.

163

What an absurd thing to say.

164

Seconded. If I can find the case, I’ll link to it, but I recall at least one known instance of a false confession (in the US) that was induced by the police asking their completely innocent suspect to describe how they might have committed the crime, if they had been one to do it.

If the police badger you long enough about how X “might” have happened (even if it actually DIDN’T happen), it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that eventually “I don’t EXPLETIVE’ing know!” erodes to “I told you, I don’t know!” to “I don’t know,” to “I’d tell you if I knew…” to “Well, maybe it happened when…”

165

Please explain why you think it’s absurd.

They analysed the knife. The report said it had Meredith’s blood on it.

Sollecito then told a far-fetched story about how they cooking together one day, and she cut her finger and got blood on the knife. It was proved to be a lie.

166

So your position is that when confronted with “proof” that something that so far as you know DID NOT HAPPEN (someone else’s blood on your knife or a knife you had access to), but would be DAMNING if indeed it did happen (because someone murdered them with a knife, and here’s your knife that the police insist has the murder victim’s blood on it–even though you have NO IDEA how that could have happened), you wouldn’t possibly, as an innocent person, try to come up with an innocent explanation–even fabricate one–for the “evidence” put forward by the police that doesn’t look so bad for you?

My position is this: fabricated evidence may lead to fabricated explanations and excuses, even from innocent people.

167

That’s a major fallacy. Judicial proof simply doesn’t work that way. It’s not scientific proof.

Usually no item of evidence in any case is 100% certain. However, casting doubt on each of them individually doesn’t erase the effect of all of them together.

This is a point that many people don’t realize, probably as a result of watching too many TV shows, rather than real court cases.

e.g.

Suppose 4 independent pieces of evidence put a suspect at the scene of the crime.

Item A has a 20% probability of being true, item B 60%, item C 30%, item D 65%. (These probabilities will always be subjective.)

You can look at them individually and say that A proves nothing, B is not beyond reasonable doubt, C can be dismissed, D is not beyond reasonable doubt.

However, taking them all together, what is the probability that the accused was not at the scene of the crime?

Item A indicates an 80% probability he was not there. B 40%, C 70%, D 35%.

The probability they are all independently wrong at the same time is 0.8 * 0.4 * 0.3 * 0.65 = 0.06%

So taken together, these independent items of evidence put him at the scene with 94% certainty.

A case is usually built up out of many individual items of forensics that can be argued over, many witness testimonies and statements that can be credited to a greater or lesser degree, logical arguments that can be accepted or not.

Nothing is ever certain in real life, everything is a matter of judgment.

The judges and/or jury have to consider the cumulative overall effect of all the evidence, not each piece in isolation. Thy then have to apply common sense and reason, and decide whether the whole case proves a verdict “beyond reasonable doubt” – not with 100% certainty.

168

That shows a weird lack of knowledge of human nature. :rofl:

169

Does the :rofl: emoji mean you’re joking? People straight up confess to crimes they did not commit. Counterintuitive or not, it is well established that people are capable of inventing–and do invent–explanations for events that did not happen and stories for how they did things that they did not do, particularly when under the coercion of police investigating a crime.

170

Suppose someone tells your wife that she saw you going into a brothel yesterday, but you know it’s false, and you were not there.

Are you going to say, ‘I wasn’t there. She must have made a mistake, or she’s lying for some reason.’

Or are you going to lie yourself and say, ‘Yes I was in the brothel, but I didn’t know what the place was, and I only went in to see if I could get change for a $20 bill.’

171

The consequences of being believed, and the nature of the evidence, are different. There is a difference between your wife saying that someone else told them that they saw you doing “embarrassing misdemeanor X” and the police saying they have scientific evidence that will stand up in court (even if it really won’t, as reality has played out) that your knife was used as a murder weapon.

At this point, it’s your knowledge of human nature, and in particular your inability to account for how people might react in extraordinary (as opposed to mundane) circumstances that has me not so much rolling on the floor laughing as… disappointed.

172

This is just riddled with errors. Your math is wrong (it’s 0.80.40.7*0.35 = ~8%), you make the assumption - almost certainly incorrect in any real world scenario - that they’re all purely independent, and none of that matters anyway. Jurors aren’t given some quantitative probability bar which, if exceeded, makes a claim true. They’re asked (in the US anyway - Italy may be different) if there’s reasonable doubt. If all your physical evidence has major problems with its chain-of-custody, or the significance of the findings are low, or have various other defects, an impartial juror is simply going to have reasonable doubt about it.

173

You know what else is a fallacy? That just because a person is covicted means they actually committed the crime. Just because the law says you are guilty doesn’t retroactively make you the actual killer. Facts matter.

174

I don’t think you can take four flawed or tentative pieces of evidence and multiply them together to reach a high probability of attaining an accurate conclusion, whether in law* or science.

*for all I know, Italian courts have complicated mathematical formulas they use to assign guilt or innocence. It would explain a lot. But from what I’ve heard, they rely more on fantasies about satanic rituals.

175

Exactly. GIGO.

I’m sure a motivated person could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt and with - geometric logic - that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist! Doesn’t mean there was one.

176

What happened to Knox was basically the equivalent of throwing some spaghetti in the air and trying to read the future in where it dropped. It exposed Italy as a third-world country where medieval Catholic superstition and the collective guilt of “outsiders” completely control the justice system.

Try going into an American court room and arguing that “the defendant obviously is a Satan worshipper, which we know because she isn’t a virgin, and her desire to ritually sacrifice a random person explains not only the apparent lack of evidence for her involvement in this murder but also the lack of any other motive.” We have plenty of problems with legal fairness in this country but that’s not happening, even in Texas. The fact that it flies in Italy, even in the most high-profile case with the world watching, says it all about how much we should trust their magic foot measurements or evidence-handling procedure or bullshit multiplications of made-up numbers.

177

Cop: We have a knife from your kitchen with the victim’s blood all over it. Any idea how that could have happened?
Innocent person: No sir, no idea.
Cop: Here’s the thing. We’re pretty sure you killed her with it. So unless you can tell me differently, that’s the evidence we’ll present in court.
IP: Really, I don’t know!
Cop: You sure? You can’t think of any other way her blood got on this knife? Just give me something. If that’s the only story I have, then you’ll be found guilty for sure.
IP: It could have been anything! Maybe she cut her finger when we were cooking dinner last week!
Cop: Is that what happened? Because it’s either that or the chair for you, bub.
IP: Sure, yes! She cut herself!

178

Eh…it sort of kind of happens here, too. The case of the West Memphis 3 comes to mind, since I was still a kid in the area when it happened and the trial judge well known to my family.

The defendants were also accused of killing (3 boys in this case) as part of a satanic ritual. The prosecution even brought in a supposed ‘expert’ in the field to testify to this effect. This was in the heydey of satanic panic in the US. The evidence against them was lackluster at best and there were (successful) attempts at police coercion via leading questions of the form “well, you could have left the knife out, right?”

Whether or not they were involved, and the balance of probabilities indicates they were just 3 stupid teenagers and not murderers, the police investigation and trial were a total shitshow.

Not to say it’s commonplace but it’s absolutely something that can and has happened here.

179

In 1994? Really? Huh, I thought the heyday was mid to late Seventies.

180

How about Arkansas?

ETA: Ninja’d by Great_Antibob.