AmyStrange.org and the UNeXpLaiNed ©Copyrighted by Dave Ayotte & Caty Bergman
OUR BLOG: 2011 JUN
|2010|JAN|FEB|MAR|APR|MAY|JUN|JUL|AUG|SEP|OCT|NOV|DEC|2012|
2011-JUN-06 [MON] 07:37 PM (PDT)
As we promised, let's look at the evidence and see if this blog entry can earn the title as "the most biased, unbiased, look at the evidence" ever written.
We probably have no chance of ever convincing anyone to give us this title, so let's just get to it, look at the evidence critically, and see what happens.
BEFORE we go any further, let us all bow our heads together for just a second, in memory of Meredith Kercher, who will never get a second chance at anything ever again and is and always will be (regardless of which side you're on) the real victim here.
She is so sadly missed by everyone who loved her.
To both sides of this issue, the drama is worthy of a first-rate mystery thriller, but let's forget about all that for a minute, and ask, what would Meredith do, and how would she want to be remembered?
If nothing else, please atleast keep Meredith in your thoughts every now and again as you read through this.
2011-JUN-07 [TUE] 05:46 PM (PDT) OUR BIAS
Many people would say we're biased, because we still can't find the answer to that one question that would give us an unquestionable arguement for guilt.
Why wasn't Knox's DNA found in Meredith's room? Raffaele's DNA evidence is compromised at best. There are independant experts looking at the raw data right now and will make a report around the end of June. Hopefully, it will put all our questions to rest.
2011-JUN-08 [WED] 05:59 PM (PDT): SIDE CHATTER
SOME WEBSITES have reported Mignini as speculating that maybe Knox was directing the murder from the kitchen and outside of Meredith's room. This is obviously in response to questions about the lack of Knox's DNA in Meredith's room.
OTHER WEBSITES have argued THAT IT IS NOT UNHEARD of for DNA to NOT be found at the crime scene.
BOTH ARGUEMENTS ARE VALID, but are still only possibilities and not absolutes. What this means is that these are one of many valid arguements explaining why there isn't any of Amanda's DNA in the room. Some are more believable than others.
The easiest and most obvious explanation, of course, is that she'd never been in Meredith's room.
Or even more radical (and more obvious) is that, she had nothing to do with the murder.
2011-JUN-08 [WED] 06:19 PM (PDT): MIGNINI
Mignini (sorry to say) is, at the least, a colorful character. Some people even think he is lovable. Delusional or not, he really still believes Knox is guilty. We can't put our finger on it, but his theory about Amanda's DNA not being in Meredith's room just doesn't sound believable to us. Maybe our bias is getting in the way. We really don't know for sure.
Or maybe it's because, when a prosecutor changes their theory of the case depending on what the evidence shows... well, it's not really a good thing. In our opinion, investigators should gather and process evidence first, then form theories, not the other way around. This (the gathering and processing of evidence first) doesn't seem to have happened in this case.
When we say processing, we also mean waiting until the test results come back. The way they went after Patrick is a very good example of why this rule of thumb (evidence first, then theories) is so important. There are exceptions to this rule of course. For example, if you find someone in the room covered with blood and whacking away at the body, it would be safe to assume that this may be the murderer, but forming a theory that a couple are murderers after seeing them eat pizza is not a good enough reason to ignore the above rule of thumb, in our opinion.
Although we do both have to admit, the original satanic-ritual sex-orgy murder theory WAS interesting, but if the theory has no real basis in fact, and Amanda and Raffaele really are innocent, then it's just a very sad and pathetic joke, at the expense of Meredith too.
And, that's the saddest thing of all, because while everyone was titillating over the orgy-murder theory, they seemed to forget (or not even seemed to care) that Meredith suffered horribly for at least seven minutes while she slowly drowned in her own blood.
INSTEAD, WHAT EVERYONE FREAKING remembers is the Foxy Knoxy sex-orgy satanic-ritual SHIT!
Meredith does not need to be remembered this way.
She deserves better.
2011-JUN-08 [WED] 06:32 PM (PDT): NO DNA?
It isn't unheard of for DNA to NOT be found at a crime scene.
FBI stats (we think it is around seventy to eighty percent) seem to indicate that most murders are personal. What that means is that most murder victims personally knew their killers. Therefore, it's not surprising when the killer's DNA is found around the victim's body.
Which leaves us with roughly ten to twenty percent of the murders where very little or no DNA is ever found. Most of these murder scenarios (if not virtually all of them) where no DNA is found are usually at serial killer dump sites. Very little DNA (besides the victim's) is ever found at these places.
Not only that, but we really can't remember any murder case where there are three murderers, but only one of them leaves DNA evidence behind. Can't remember one case like that, not a one.
And finally, finding someone's DNA in the common areas of the house does not prove a thing (mixed with the victim's or not), because the question that still needs to be answered is why wasn't any found in Meredith's room.
If your answer is that it isn't unheard of for DNA to not be found at a crime scene, please reread the previous five paragraphs again, especially the third one. Thank you.
2011-JUN-09 [THU] 05:33 PM (PDT): the BREAK-IN
Let's look at the evidence as it piled up from the beginning.
The first thing, of course, is the "staged" break-in theory.
But, first...
2011-JUN-09 [THU] 06:02 PM (PDT): the MIGNINI LINE
...before we go any further, let's set-up a ground rule. Since Mignini first introduced the satanic-orgy murder theory, then let's use that theory as the approved base-line theory upon which all theories can be measured against, a "litmus-test", so to speak, of acceptable theory language that no one should cross.
Like cannibalism.
NOW you've gone and done it, you just crossed the MIGNINI LINE!! Good luck with that noise.
What's not to like?
APPARENTLY, since we have doubts about the case, we're allowed to make fun of Mignini. Our "fundamental social acceptability algorithmic probability chart", for "today" anyway; says it is now acceptable for doubters to make fun of Mignini. The wonders of number crunching. Gotta Love (LOVE!) those guys!! Number crunchers are always good in the crunch.
Ha Ha.
What?!
THERE IS NO WAY that "crunch" thing was any where near the MIGNINI LINE!!!
Just saying...
2011-JUN-09 [THU] 06:42 PM (PDT): !!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
Not Mignini.
OK where were we at? The "staged" break-in, that's right.
Sorry to say this, but when all is said and done, it is a toss-up.
This is what it comes down to:
There was glass on top of everything in Filomena's room, which couldn't be true, because if someone did break-in through that window, why didn't they ransack that room first? The room did show some signs of ransacking, her computer was on the floor, which basicly means the glass should not have been on top of everything, because while ransacking about, things get knocked over, along with the glass on top of them.
And since everything had glass on top of it, this is what started the police into thinking along the lines of a "staged" break-in theory,
When we first read this and before we started researching the "flip-side", the way they described it did make sense. Why not ransack Filomena's room first? Since you're in there anyway?
Duh?!
It just made sense...
Then we started hearing rumours about "other evidence" which was ignored. Scuff marks under Filomena's window, like someone was trying to get a foot-hold? No glass found or (from what we understand) even searched for on the ground under Filomena's window. There are no photos or videos to back this search up. There would have to be glass under the window for the "staged" break-in theory to be scraped. An arguement was made by a forensic engineer, (some say a pro-Amanda forensic engineer) that was bought by the Knox PR (Public Relations) firm (Marriott) and released as spin in order to alter people's opinions about Meredith's murderer (Amanda), that the break-in was real and not "staged" (see the link below).
Are all these things true or not?
We can't get answers ourselves from anyone or anywhere that explains it better than this site:
(Some folks say it is biased, but even if it is,
it still has some interesting facts worth considering)
http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/RonHendry------2.html
All of this lumped together makes us wonder what the real truth is here.
AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN YET MENTIONED the persistent rumours of photos that show the glass wasn't on top of everything. It was more like on top of "a lot" of stuff, rather than on top of everything.
That's why the "staged" break-in is a toss-up for us. There is just too much conjecture for and against it to be an absolute fact, in our eyes anyway. As we said, lots of conjecture yes, but no real evidence on which to base a statement of fact upon, but what's interesting is that it does really depend on your bias whether you believe the "staged" break-in theory or not.
Unfortunately, the "staged" break-in theory is what got the investigators thinking along the lines that this might be an inside job. So it IS important in that respect.
2011-JUN-10 [FRI] 07:19 PM (PDT): !!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
Not Mignini.
So, where do we go from here?
The thing with toss-up evidence is that it does not disappear, because it can be later used as part of what the U.S. legal system likes to call, the "weight of the evidence". What that means is each individual piece of evidence alone doesn't convict anyone, but when you put it all together, the "weight of the evidence" is just too much for any defense to overcome, or the prosecution would like the defense to believe anyway.
Or something like that.
What "weight" means most of the time is what kind of evidence it is. A legal document has more "weight" than someone's memory. For example, if someone remembers being in jail or in court on a certain day, inmate records or court records would have more "weight" than their memory. "Weight" also refers to how good the probability numbers are. What the odds are that the interpretation of this evidence is wrong.
And believe it or not, many (if not most) murder cases are based on probabilities. Not the, did they probably do it kind of probablies, but real probability numbers.
FOR EXAMPLE... let's look at genetics. The reliability of DNA is based on the probabilities that any one DNA match is wrong. The odds are something like a trillion to one, we think, but even if it's only a million to one, those odds are pretty hard to overcome. Most times, they are almost an insurmountable obstacle, but it has been done, so it's not like DNA is "totally" infallible.
2011-JUN-12 [SUN] 01:43 PM (PDT) THE CONFESSION
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
Not Mignini.
The way Amanda and Raffaele acted after the murders up until their confessions is examined and theorized as part of the evidence against them.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs for both of them.
To us, all they are guilty of is "at best" bad taste, or "worse" bad manners.
Specifically the pizza eating, "lingerie" buying, cartwheeling, kissing and hugging and smiling behavior, some of which was photographed or videotaped. Some people said it was just plain bizzare behavior, especially since your roommate was just recently killed at your home. In the room next to yours. You should be in a bed somewhere crying your eyes out and also under the covers cowering and fearing for your life, lest you be next.
And it is true, for us anyway, that when you look at them from some angles, Amanda's eyes do look a little spooky.
All of this and more is still used by some people as evidence of their guilt. And since we did see the spooky look, we can understand why people think the way they do and that it makes sense why some people think of her as a "sociopath".
We eventually came away with a different conclusion though.
We agree that when you look only at the videos and photos of her and Raffaele kissing and hugging, and of Amanda smiling in court, the "sociopath" theory did make some sense. Some "sociopaths" like to kill, and thus the pro-guilty theory made sense.
THEN, before even looking to see what the "flip-side" had to say, we thought of context. What was the context of these photos and videos? What was happening around them at the time the photos and videos were taken, and also what were they doing just before and after?
Context like seeing her parents in court and smiling at them.
That's what context is, and sometimes context is everything. Single "stills" (taken out of context) can be deceiving, and if that's all you use to accompany written (or spoken) articles or comments about the case, then (in our opinion) that's dishonest reporting. As an interesting aside, we can usually tell the bias of a news article by the photo (or video) used to accompany it.
We also saw some before and after videos of them kissing and hugging. And, what we saw was a young lady in shock and probably still stuck in denial, but that's just what we think we saw, and not really evidence of anything at all, except to us.
Like we said, a good arguement can be made that she is a "sociopath", but it's a little harder to accept if you know the context.
We have to put this one in our "weight of evidence" files.
Alone it really doesn't mean anything, but when you put it together with the "staged break-in" theory, it really does start picking up some "weight", but there's really not a whole lot of it right now, but (once again) that's just our opinion.
LET'S ALL BE HONEST and see if this is not true for some of you out there also --if not all of you.
Most funerals we have attended, and the "reception" areas, before, during and after burials, is usually filled ceiling to cellar with a widely diverse collection of people and behaviors. Can't really remember any cameras at these things, but if there were. You would get a lot of odd and bizarre behavior that could be construed as suspicious also.
Anyone else out there notice this besides us?
Anyway long story short, odd and bizarre behavior from family and friends after someone dies isn't as uncommon as some people would like it to be.
Which brings us to probably the most complex and misrepresented aspect of this case and that is Amanda's confession.
Let's look first at what is right with it, but unfortunately this is also where some of the misinformation got its start.
In it, Amanda is suppose to have confessed to being at her home while Meredith was being killed in the other room. She named Patrick as the murderer. Later, after she had signed this "confession" and was put back in her cell, she recanted, but not the part about Patrick.
The one bit of evidence that can be proven about this confession, especially since the interrogations weren't recorded, is how soon after the confession was signed, they went out and arrested Patrick.
Many people have argued that the interrogations didn't need to be recorded. But we also believe that the police shouldn't then be able to profit from this and bring slander charges up, unless they record the whole interrogation, because most people will believe the authorities and it's kind of chilling in the way it can handcuff the defense.
So in this case it's a tough break for Amanda, but we really have wondered about this more than any other aspect of the case, because even though we're not experts, we know enough about "false confessions" to google up a few relevant examples for anyone to compare this case to, but a good place to start is the Innocence Project:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php
Find your own evidence, read what you want on the subject, pro and con, and then make up your own mind about the confession.
But what really makes us wonder about this confession, is that almost immediately after getting it, and without even doing any kind of investigation, they went out and arrested Patrick and declared the case solved. Then a few days later the DNA evidence shows that Patricks didn't do it, but did show that a man named Guede's DNA was found in more than just a couple places in Meredith's room. A few days later, they released Patrick, due to lack of evidence, air-tight alibi, or whatever they wanted to call it.
Almost immediately after they got the confession, without any kind of investigation, they went out and arrested Patrick. We are repeating this, because it needs repeating. And to us, the only scenario that makes sense about this was if they thought Patrick was guilty and they told Amanda that she can either say that and get out of there now, or deny it and stay in this room until you do say it. Your choice. We can keep this up for days and weeks. How long can you hold out?
It explains all the weirdness about the confession, the arrest, and the recant that wasn't, better than any other explanation we've heard anywhere.
2011-JUN-12 [SUN] 08:12 PM (PDT)
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
Not Mignini.
THE CONFESSION changed everything.
It gave the prosecution all it needed to hold Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick over for trial, except they than switched, and took out Patrick and put Guede in his place, all the while, keeping Amanda and Raffaele as co-murderers.
2011-JUN-16 [THU] 06:38 PM (PDT)
But, now they had to go out and get the evidence to get Amanda and Raffaele convicted of murder.
They didn't need to go out and get anymore to get Guede convicted, but getting proof that Amanda and Raffaele were also there wasn't easy.
Most of the evidence that supported their alibi was good until around ten p.m. After that, the only evidence they have is each other. If either of them gives up on the other, well, look at what already happened with the confession. There are rumours though that all Raffaele agreed to was that technically he didn't know for sure where Amanda was between 9 and 1, because he was asleep.
That's when the house of cards started falling down, ending with the "infamous" perp parade through town as the highlight of the whole festive event.
After that, they buckled down and started looking for evidence, but at the same time, they also started thinking up theories to explain away the early ToD (Time of Death) announcement which was originally thought to be between 9 and 10 p.m.
FOR THE MOMENT, we are taking a break to work on some other stuff.
But, we'll be back. the prelim forensic report should be ready in a couple weeks, we think, but before we leave, we wanted to pass along this "biased" blog article. Even "Harry Rag" makes an appearance, just like the old days. Ha ha:
Amanda Knox and the serial killer
(Sarah - Sunday, June 12, 2011)
http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/2011/06/amanda-knox-and-serial-killer.html
"I haven't blogged much (or ever?) about the Amanda Knox case.
But not because I haven't followed it or formed opinions about
it. I have... "
Since we're "biased", here is an opposite view from ours. It's always a good idea to read both sides, and THEN make up your own mind using critical thinking:
A COMMENT from a reader - Antony:"I disagree with the item on your website which appears to accuse Injustice in Perugia of the equivalent failings as TJMK (IIP at least presents the evidence in an organised and objective way, while TJMK employs astrology and statement analysis). You go on to advise people to read both websites and make up their own minds (in which case the contrasting styles will be obvious), but I'm afraid many will not do this and will form the opinion that both sides are as bad as the other."
The above quote can be found here (at this specific JREF FORUM thread):
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215085&page=84
We tend to think the above reader is right that maybe you (our dear reader) might assume (from our comments) that both websites are too biased to even consider reading, but we want to emphasize that you shouldn't take our word for anything and that (while using your critical thinking skills of course) you should make up your own mind by reading both sites, because both sites each have their own way of evaluating the evidence and this is crucial in understanding why the case has developed as it has, and we can't emphasis enough to be sure to read them both using your critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking involves not assuming what the writer or debater is saying is true, but question whether what they are saying is based on actual fact, perceived fact or is merely an opinion of the author, and then try to determine how exactly did they reach that conclusion. In short, critical thinking means being skeptical (or critical) of everything you read, no matter what your bias.
One way to differentiate between fact and opinion, is to look at the adjectives used. They can sometimes indicate the writers intent. Try replacing suspicious adjectives with neutral-biased adjectives and see if that changes the tone of the arguement. Also, don't read a quote out of context, but read the whole context of a quote or picture or video.
Also, take the opposite track and look at something from an opposing point of view (put yourself in their shoes) to see if it makes sense to you. We have faith that you are smart enough to find the real truth of this case and atleast form a fair and unbiased opinion as to whether Amanda and Raffaele have a higher probability of innocence or of guilt.
HERE ARE THE THREE WEBSITES (AND FORUMS) MENTIONED ABOVE:
the TJMK (True Justice for Meredith Kercher) homepage
the TJMK FORUM Registration
the IIP (Injustice In Perugia) homepage
the IIP FORUM
the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) homepage
the JREF FORUMS homepage
PLUS, here is an archived (translated) copy of the Massei Report which is the "Motivations Report" (from the panel of judges and jurors who sat in on the first trial) that explains the reasoning behind why Amanda and Raffaele were convicted:
http://www.amystrange.org/BLG-Massei-Report.pdf
2011-JUN-29 [WED] 11:17 AM (PDT)
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
(Court Appointed) Experts Contest DNA Evidence in Knox Trial - Italy
LINK BELOW IS OUTDATED:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/06/29/world/europe/AP-EU-Italy-Knox.html?_r=1
NEW ARTICLE IS LINKED TO BELOW:
Amanda Knox DNA Evidence Called Unreliable - Italy
Posted by Janis Esch on August 1, 2011 11:55 AM
http://www.thirdage.com/news/amanda-knox-dna-evidence-called-unreliable_08-01-2011
"Independent experts testified Saturday that DNA evidence used in the Italian murder trial of U.S. college student Amanda Knox is unreliable... "
LAST UPDATED: July 5, 2011MAY <<<< 2011 >>>> JUL