= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 comments on The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (632)
I'm a little confused by your answer to number 2. It sounds like you basically agree that somebody tried to stage a break-in. No?
Someone staged a burglary. It isn't necessarily the case that the broken window is part of a staged burglary rather then a way some intruder actually got in. Perhaps the murderer came in through the broken window but knew the victim and thought that making it look like a burglary would send the police in another direction.
Well that's an important point. As others and I have mentioned, there is a small universe of people who would have had much incentive to stage a burglary. And that universe includes Amanda Knox and her boyfriend.
(Further, without knowing anything more, Kercher's roommate(s) would be the strongest suspects of such a staging. Because (1) only a roommate wouldn't have to worry about another resident showing up and discovering him or her; and (2) a roommate would have the strongest incentive to try to point the police somewhere else. For example, if a casual acquaintance broke in through the window and murdered Kercher, what would that person have to gain by staging a burglary? In effect, they've already engaged in a burglary anyway.)
Anyway, if somebody from that limited universe of suspects is hiding something and can't account for his whereabouts at the time of the murder, it's pretty likely that they were involved in the staging/murder.
The universe of people who would have incentive to stage a burglary consists of just about everyone but actual burglars. If the police think that the murder is part of a botched burglary that throws them off the scent of stalkers, sex criminals and people romantically connected to Kercher (along with anyone who lived there or could plausibly have been invited in). Guede, in particular doesn't appear to be the brightest guy around. It seems more that plausible to me that he thought staging a break-in would help his case. He left physical evidence everywhere so on the fly he came up with the story of an anonymous attacker entering while he was in the bathroom. Then he breaks the window to try and create evidence consistent with his story. He doesn't flush the toilet for the same reason.
Or maybe the intruder went through Kercher's belonging looking for incriminating evidence-- love letters say-- and then made a mess of the roommates room to cover the search up.
Obviously I don't have any particular reason to privilege those scenarios but they seem to me about as plausible as two students without criminal experience or evident motive committing a rape-murder and not leaving any physical evidence behind. Remember, a rationale for staging a break-in doesn't have to be flawless. It just has to have enough surface sensibility that it would seem worth doing to Kercher's murderer/s.
"The universe of people who would have incentive to stage a burglary consists of just about everyone but actual burglars."
It seems to me there is a distinction between having any incentive at all and having much incentive. To be sure, it's possible to dream up lots of scenarios where someone who is a stranger or near stranger would stage a burglary, but that's just not realistic in my opinion.
Anyway, earlier I asked you the following question:
Do you agree that if a break-in was staged, the likely perpetrator (of the staged break-in) was somebody who had lawful access to the residence?
Am I correct in assuming that your answer to this question is "no"?
I'm distinguishing between a break-in and a burglary. Someone could have broken-in and then staged the burglary or someone with lawful access to the house (they lived there or were invited in) could have staged the break-in and burglary. If the break-in was staged the person(s) who did it almost certainly came in through the front door (there is no other way in if they didn't come in through the door or the broken window!).
Yeah, I realize that I'm just inventing scenarios. But someone also invented the scenario in which Amanda Knox a twenty-one year old upper middle class college student with no criminal recrord, Raphael Sallecito, and Rudy Guede plan an evening of group sex/ satanic rites without ever communicating by cell phone, coerce Meredith Kercher into participating and when she refuses Guede rapes her and then the men hold her down while Knox stabs her several times and slits her throat. At some point during this period Guede goes to the bathroom and doesn't flush for no particular reason. Later, Sallecito and Knox return, toss the other roommates clothing around the room, throw a rock through the window. They also manage to remove every significant piece of physical evidence they left in Kercher's room, bleach and wash every one of their bloody footprints while not touching any of the evidence implicating Guede.
I'm not sure why my first scenario, where Guede fakes the break-in is any less probable than the one above.
"I'm distinguishing between a break-in and a burglary."
I'm not sure where you are posting from but to me, "burglary" entails breaking in to a place. Are you using the word "burglary" to mean "theft"?
"evening of group sex/ satanic rites without ever communicating by cell phone, coerce Meredith Kercher into participating and when she refuses Guede rapes her and then the men hold her down while Knox stabs her several times and slits her throat."
FWIW I am skeptical of the prosecution's scenario. I think they cooked it up to address a big weak point in their case, which is that they don't have a clear motive. My position is more limited: Simply I'm reasonably confident that Knox and her boyfriend were involved in the murder.
Burglary entails breaking-in + theft. Breaking-in does not entail theft and therefore does not entail burglary. But I might have made that up myself. My point is just that someone could have broken the window and entered the house with intentions other than stealing something and then tossed some things about to make it look like the reason they entered was to steal something.
"Burglary entails breaking-in + theft."
Technically, burglary also includes breaking in + intent to commit a certain other crimes. For example,if you break into somebody's residence in order to commit rape (with no intent to steal anything), that would be considered burglary under the traditional definition.
But anyway, putting aside semantic issues, it seems you basically concede the reasonable point that staging a crime scene was likely to have been done by somebody with a significant connection to the victim.
The idea of a staged burglary came from Mignini and was unsubstantiated. Since then, it has been debunked. He claimed it was staged due to two shards of glass on clothing. Those shards close up were revealed to be polka dots.
Well do you agree that one of the bedrooms had clothing and such strewn around it while the owner of the room testified that the room had been left orderly?
Logically, items strewn around the room does not implicate Amanda. The connection of the messy room and Amanda was invented by the prosecution. It could be explained by various means, namely, during the struggle with the perpetrator and Meredith, or more likely, the perpetrator looking for something to steal.
I'm not sure what your point is. I thought you were claiming that there was essentially no evidence which reasonably supports the hypothesis that somebody staged a burglary or break-in.
Now it seems you admit that there is such evidence but believe it could be explained away.
I don't think there is evidence of a staged break-in. I think there is evidence of a break-in.
Well do you agree that the room's occupant testified that there had been valuable items in plain view, none of which were taken?
I think he was looking for money. It was the 1st of the month and rent was due. Meredith had dated casually a guy downstairs and Rudy had hung out there. Also, I think it is likely he didn't expect to find anyone home and was interrupted when Meredith came home early, for an early night. I don't think he was planning to take objects, though might have if uninterrupted.
The claim was that there was essentially no evidence which reasonably supports the hypothesis that the burglary was staged.
Ok, so again my question:
"do you agree that one of the bedrooms had clothing and such strewn around it while the owner of the room testified that the room had been left orderly?"
And yes, I am well aware that there are other possible explanations for this evidence besides staging.
This is a relevant question. It is not evidence that I weigh particularly highly given what I know about witness testimonies, particularly those under motivated prompting. But it is evidence.
The only evidence was a broken window. He provided the unbased theoretical narrative (as usual).
This assumption that at least part of the burglary/break in was staged seems to me entirely unjustified. The only thing I've heard offered to support it is that the broken glass was on top of the strewn clothes, but seriously that doesn't prove anything... maybe the clothes were just strewn across the room innocently... maybe the glass just happened by chance to end up on top at the end of the clothes being mucked about with.... theres an infinite possible number of explanations that don't involve anything being staged.
And as to the assertion that it was staged since it looked like a burglary but nothing was stolen, thats simply not true: kercher's two cellphones were stolen, at a minimum (any number of other things might also have been stolen, but just not noticed missing, due to their owner not being around to point them out)
Sorry, the clothes were strewn across the room innocently? By whom? For what possible reason? If the girl who lived in the room hadn't said anything about the matter I'd assume she was just messy. But that wasn't her testimony. The matter of the glass on top of the clothes depends on how much glass was found on top of the clothes. But I agree that it could have happened even if the window was broken first.
The two cell phones weren't being stolen isn't evidence that someone broke to steal them since they ended up tossed in someone's garden and not sold to someone. Something else might have been stolen but 1) the roommates and the family of the victim are probably capable of making a good accounting of Kercher's valuable possessions. Presumably this was done by the police, though their competence is definitely suspect at this point. And 2) it is improbable that someone breaking in to steal things would only happen to steal those things which belonged to the person they also killed and only those things her family and friends wouldn't notice missing.
The story that actually explains that a burglary without missing property is that the thief entered, was surprised by Kertcher, killed her (and raped her?) and then panicked and decided not to steal anything for fear it would implicate them.
And let's not forget, that many stranger-on-stranger rapes are burglaries and crimes of opportunity.
"Sorry, the clothes were strewn across the room innocently? By whom? For what possible reason?"
I haven't seen the crimescene, I'm only speculating of course. But does the fact that some friends describe her as a neat person really preclude any possibility whatsoever that she might have had some clothes strewn about? Maybe she was a neat person who cleaned up her room once a day or so, but just hadn't gotten to her daily cleaning session yet that day when the crime occurred. Or maybe her friends were just being nice by describing her as neat. Or maybe any of a million other things. The point is that there are so many possible explanations for this that it has no evidentiary value - it's just noise, to paraphrase OP
The clothing and room in question didn't belong to Meredith Kercher. They belong to the other roommate Filomena Romanelli. The claim that someone had scattered her clothing about the room is based on her testimony about her clothing, in her room. The possibilities are 1) Someone strew her clothes across the room, 2) she is lying about the condition she left her room in, 3) she is seriously misremembering the condition she left her room in.