Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Samson]

Also re the above Icelandic case nice slide presentation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27290883

There are enough parallel's to Amanda's situation, over a much shorter time period, to persuade people with open minds that Amanda's version of the five days following the murder can be perfectly correct, if this is the only case consulted for reference, especially Erla.
Good post.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am not sure these things are necessarily separate. Confirmation bias, group think, the negative effects of the alternatives all will lock someone into a fixed view. This will not be entirely conscious. In general most people are very reluctant to change views on any topic. In the case of something so bound up with their professional identity especially so. Why was Einstein so resistant to quantum theory? Just plain wrong. It always makes me cringe when people refer to Einstein as some external paragon, when he is in many ways an example of someone who would not accept the facts in front of them.

You might be right. Blair's position is not even falsifiable so why shouldn't he prefer to believe it? What I noticed about Comedy was her air of absolute certainty. The facts bore only one possible interpretation, that Amanda was padding about in Meredith's blood, no doubt while spotting and selectively erasing all (and only) her own fingerprints from the entire apartment

 

[Rolfe]

Also re the above Icelandic case nice slide presentation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27290883

I've just watched all that. Absolutely fascinating. I had no idea at all about that case.

South, north, big country, small country. It seems there's nowhere it can't happen.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not for one second would evidence from another trial of the kind we are discussing be admitted in a criminal trial in England. In Guede's case we aren't even talking about live evidence actually sworn and heard in court, but material provided to investigating magistrates out of public sight. The equivalent would be if the confession beaten out of obtained from Tongo and the others were admissible against Dewani per se. No freaking way.

Wait, my point is simpler.
Guede accused in writing, Amanda and Raffaele of murder.
Tongo accused Dewani, presumably verbally, of commissioning a murder.

Tongo will be cross examined, but Guede was not cross examined. and never will be by dint of obscure legal process.

This business of Guede's ideas influencing another trial is post the fact. He was deemed immune to cross examination by a quirk of the system when he was the only witness to a killing.

(I am digging a deeper hole, but I want to get away from the idea that the paramount objection is to allow uncontested evidence from one trial to be introduced to another).

Samson, I am replying here to avert a crisis with the mods arising from discussion of the Knox case spilling over into another thread.

I see your point. I see several levels of concern about Guede's evidence (that Amanda and Raf were involved), namely:

• it was not given orally in court
• it was not given in A & R's trial
• it was not subject to cross examination
• it was not subject to any rigorous testing at all because it fit the prosecutor's theory of the crime

I am not sure which of these is the most serious. Your point that it was given in writing does not compute. It does not seem to me to matter so much (compared to the points above) in what form it was given. Are you sure anyway it was given in writing? - that is that Guede wrote down his story and the document itself was presented as evidence - or did he relate what happened in the interrogation and that was transcribed and presented as evidence? I would regard the latter as information (possibly counting as 'evidence' depending on the procedure used and the applicable law) supplied orally. Evidently, it did count as evidence of some kind but our problem is with the way it was used against Knox and Sollecito.

 

[carbonjam72]

You have just altered the photo, what are you thinking?

Ok, I've confirmed it.

I opened the 2 images on my desktop monitor. I identified 2 reference points visible in the images (where the curved rail meets the wall for the upper left and the corner of the pillar supporting the gate arm for the lower right).

In each image I did a screen capture of a selection using those reference points.

I then used the image inspector to see the pixel dimensions of the captured frame.

[imgL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67903536f85ab38f37.png[/imgL][imgL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/15144537472e2db384.png[/imgL]For the image of the person walking into the car park, the image was 528 by 265 pixels. For the image of the person presumed to be Rudy Guede walking out the image was 689 by 466 pixels. The first image has a ratio of 1.992 and the second has a ratio of 1.479. The first image has been stretched by almost 35% relative to the second image. Coincidentally, this is almost the same stretch factor you get when displaying a standard resolution (4x3) image on a high def (16x9) display without letter boxing. Here is your obese person and when properly scaled.

DanO, I didn't follow you're analysis, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Photo alteration is a serious business because the visual result is so hard to spot by the casual viewer.

The photos I extracted are without any alteration and come directly from the link to the original video put out by the TV show site. Here's the link I used from the Huffington Post article on the footage. Just play the footage off their link and see if you can pause it for the fat lady coming into the garage. There's only 9 frames of her, so you should be able to nail it.

I did not alter that image in any way, just a straight copy.
http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/...nuovi-particolari-nell-omicidio-meredith.html

What you have done here is scary. I appreciate your enthusiasm for debate, but altering imagery is inherently deceptive. It's not legitimate to float your "image analysis" as correct, and then print what is actually not authentic material, while claiming the altered material, which you altered, has probative value.

You are diminishing your credibility to me by refusing to except the original source material as authoritative and accurate.

I seriously hope you're not suggesting I toyed with the image in any way?

 

[carbonjam72]

Sample Submission For Professor DanO's photographic Laboratory

DanO, I didn't follow you're analysis, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Photo alteration is a serious business because the visual result is so hard to spot by the casual viewer.

The photos I extracted are without any alteration and come directly from the link to the original video put out by the TV show site. Here's the link I used from the Huffington Post article on the footage. Just play the footage off their link and see if you can pause it for the fat lady coming into the garage. There's only 9 frames of her, so you should be able to nail it.

I did not alter that image in any way, just a straight copy.
http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/...nuovi-particolari-nell-omicidio-meredith.html

What you have done here is scary. I appreciate your enthusiasm for debate, but altering imagery is inherently deceptive. It's not legitimate to float your "image analysis" as correct, and then print what is actually not authentic material, while claiming the altered material, which you altered, has probative value.

You are diminishing your credibility to me by refusing to except the original source material as authoritative and accurate.

I seriously hope you're not suggesting I toyed with the image in any way?

Ok DanO., I have an idea for you. Here again is the original frame from the CCTV video, directly from the Italian show's own clip. Next to it is another copy/paste of a area of detail within that frame, but this time it has narrower dimensions then the previous one, In fact, I'll post that too so you can see they're the same.

Try repeating your 'analysis for image correction' on this narrower clip and see if you come out with a different result.

The large frame is the true full frame. The extraction is a straight copy, without alteration, as can be verified. If you need to, print them out on transparencies, and hold them up to the light to confirm they are exactly the same.

Science! Seriously, I'm game. Let's hear (and see) your results. Maybe I'm wrong.

(I just looked at this post in 'preview mode', and my first impression was the lady in narrower cropped image, looked THINNER, then in the wider cropped picture of the same lady! Then, I stared at the two cropped images, and tried to gage the width objectively, and they are in fact the same size. A marvelous quirk of perception, and very interesting indeed. I guess i have to say thanks for pushing me to look further. Still though, there was no photo alteration, and that lady is simply genuinely obese. ).

 

[Samson]

I've just watched all that. Absolutely fascinating. I had no idea at all about that case.

South, north, big country, small country. It seems there's nowhere it can't happen.

Rolfe.

From time to time I mention this case from home, wiki is fine for background.
It seems that multiperpetrators, (more than one) are the common thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teina_Pora

Always multi perpetrators. Why when one can do it?
This case is heading soon to your privy council.

ETA not sure where independence is at.

 

[Samson]

Samson, I am replying here to avert a crisis with the mods arising from discussion of the Knox case spilling over into another thread.

I see your point. I see several levels of concern about Guede's evidence (that Amanda and Raf were involved), namely:

• it was not given orally in court
• it was not given in A & R's trial
• it was not subject to cross examination
• it was not subject to any rigorous testing at all because it fit the prosecutor's theory of the crime

I am not sure which of these is the most serious. Your point that it was given in writing does not compute. It does not seem to me to matter so much (compared to the points above) in what form it was given. Are you sure anyway it was given in writing? - that is that Guede wrote down his story and the document itself was presented as evidence - or did he relate what happened in the interrogation and that was transcribed and presented as evidence? I would regard the latter as information (possibly counting as 'evidence' depending on the procedure used and the applicable law) supplied orally. Evidently, it did count as evidence of some kind but our problem is with the way it was used against Knox and Sollecito.

I thought it was a given that Guede delivered a written statement at Hellmann but is absolved from testifying. All the questions I would like to ask are impossible
Question one.
When Amanda let you into the apartment, who entered the door first?

 

[Strozzi]

The prosecutors almost never admit their mistakes. With just a few exceptions of clearly wrongfully convictions the prosecutors remain thoroughly convinced that they had it right and go down swinging. What is unique I think in this case is that judge after judge and prosecutor after prosecutor have taken up the mantle in a wrongful action.

Acbytesla, is it possible that the prosecutors have quietly told select friendly judges (perhaps not Hellman) that they have "secret proof" that the defendants were present and involved in the murder.

We saw how Mignini mistook Amanda's statement to her mother that "I was there" as her secretly-recorded admission that she was at her house, when to others (Hellman) it is understood from the context that Amanda was speaking of being at Raffaele's flat. Mignini (and Machiavelli) fought and fought for Mignini's interpretation, both because Mignini believes his interpretation to be right and because it serves his purpose. Mignini used it to justify the continued detention of Amanda.

This example caused me to wonder if the police and prosecution have other snippets of conversations which lead them to adamantly believe that the parties are guilty. Such snippets could be from recordings not just of the defendants, but of the defense lawyers or defendants' family members.

Perhaps Rudy or his lawyer said or inferred something which the prosecution regards (incorrectly) as proof that the three were together.

 

[Samson]

DanO, I didn't follow you're analysis, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Photo alteration is a serious business because the visual result is so hard to spot by the casual viewer.

The photos I extracted are without any alteration and come directly from the link to the original video put out by the TV show site. Here's the link I used from the Huffington Post article on the footage. Just play the footage off their link and see if you can pause it for the fat lady coming into the garage. There's only 9 frames of her, so you should be able to nail it.

I did not alter that image in any way, just a straight copy.
http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/...nuovi-particolari-nell-omicidio-meredith.html

What you have done here is scary. I appreciate your enthusiasm for debate, but altering imagery is inherently deceptive. It's not legitimate to float your "image analysis" as correct, and then print what is actually not authentic material, while claiming the altered material, which you altered, has probative value.

You are diminishing your credibility to me by refusing to except the original source material as authoritative and accurate.

I seriously hope you're not suggesting I toyed with the image in any way?

In the real world the thinner image seems likely. The bag is still on the wrong shoulder for Amanda. This is a distraction from the science. Have you studied the deeply embedded glass shard, as I think it proves innocence in the most simple terms. Minute 55:10 in the case for innocence knox youtube video.
CJ72 your input would be appreciated.

 

[anglolawyer]

Also re the above Icelandic case nice slide presentation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27290883

I've just watched all that. Absolutely fascinating. I had no idea at all about that case.

South, north, big country, small country. It seems there's nowhere it can't happen.

Rolfe.

Bloomin' 'eck! Great system. Indefinite solitary, torture, mind-bending drugs, all night interrogation and extremely limited access to advice - that's bound to get a reliable confession isn't it?

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought it was a given that Guede delivered a written statement at Hellmann but is absolved from testifying. All the questions I would like to ask are impossible
Question one.
When Amanda let you into the apartment, who entered the door first?

Yes but didn't the written statement concern itself only with the evidence of some jailhouse snitch? I may be wrong. The key 'evidence' that Guede participated with Amanda and Raffaele was given t the PM in interrogations the results of which were presented at his fast track trial. In that trial, there was no live issue as to whether there were multiple killers since both sides agreed there were. That is unfair and goes on top of all the other unfair aspects of Guede's 'evidence'.

 

[andreajo]

DanO, I didn't follow you're analysis, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Photo alteration is a serious business because the visual result is so hard to spot by the casual viewer.

The photos I extracted are without any alteration and come directly from the link to the original video put out by the TV show site. Here's the link I used from the Huffington Post article on the footage. Just play the footage off their link and see if you can pause it for the fat lady coming into the garage. There's only 9 frames of her, so you should be able to nail it.

I did not alter that image in any way, just a straight copy.
http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/...nuovi-particolari-nell-omicidio-meredith.html

What you have done here is scary. I appreciate your enthusiasm for debate, but altering imagery is inherently deceptive. It's not legitimate to float your "image analysis" as correct, and then print what is actually not authentic material, while claiming the altered material, which you altered, has probative value.

You are diminishing your credibility to me by refusing to except the original source material as authoritative and accurate.

I seriously hope you're not suggesting I toyed with the image in any way?

This is not as scary as you are making it out to be. I don't think that anyone has deliberately altered the aspect ratio of the images in order to deceive. I think what Dan O. is getting at is that they were likely recorded at 4:3 aspect ratio, then prepared for display at 16:9. Images and video on the web are typically run through resizing and re compression for display. If this process is an automated one, a person who is not trained in media might not realize that they had altered the aspect ratio when preparing and posting the media.

I think that your idea of having the "original" source images is not quite right. That would be the recording stored by the camera. Whatever you got from the web must have been resized/re compressed.

 

[carbonjam72]

Better to Rely on Hendry Analysis

In the real world the thinner image seems likely. The bag is still on the wrong shoulder for Amanda. This is a distraction from the science. Have you studied the deeply embedded glass shard, as I think it proves innocence in the most simple terms. Minute 55:10 in the case for innocence knox youtube video.
CJ72 your input would be appreciated.

Hi Samson, I'm on board with the glass shard embedded in the outside shutter of the window proves the glass broken from the outside (duh). I saw Hendry's analysis, I think it is on 'Injustice in Perugia.com'.

I found Hendry totally convincing on this, and every point he raised. Rudy Guede, lone killer. If Mignini and his investigators have some actual reasons based in evidence for alleging the break-in was staged, I can't see that its based on any kind of logic that we could recognize as rational.

So maybe they have another reason for suggesting the break-in was staged, or maybe they're misperceiving the issue for some other reason. I can't explain what they're thinking, it's just obvious to me that they're mistaken.

Concerning the photo conversation with DanO, I find it enormously frustrating the degree of misreporting and wanton character assassination that has accompanied this case from the outset., and I believe it has played a role in the these wrongful convictions.

So when I see the latest load of crap coming out of this Italian "investigative TV show", I find that an irresistible target for ridicule. And I truly believe that humor is among the most effective tools for social protest we have available.

So DanO's alteration of the imagery is a big deal to me, because it means we're entering a fantasy land of self appointed experts in any variety of disciplines, real and invented. It's an endless, bottomless pit of conspiracy theories if you're not content to work with the actual evidence. I don't want to play in that space.

Here's another test for you if you're still not sure the lady in question is obese. If you have a MAC, go to the full frame image and put your cursor over the lady. Now, use the zoom magnification feature to zoom in on the picture of the lady ( just press the [command] + [option] + [=] keys).

In the zoom, you see her features are preserved, and she's ginormously wide bodied. If that still doesn't convince you, repeat the same screen magnification experiment with a reference sample with which you're familiar. Would love to hear your conclusions.

 

[Vibio]

I found Hendry totally convincing on this, and every point he raised.

Did this Hendry person visit the site of the murder and break-in?
Did he speak directly with investigators?
Did he attend the trial?
Was he cross examined?

About his expertise: Would you please post some specific cases that Hendry has worked on?


---

 

[Chris_Halkides]

according to whom?

No, not necessarily.


--

Vibio,

Do you have a citation?

 

[Bill Williams]

Did this Hendry person visit the site of the murder and break-in?
Did he speak directly with investigators?
Did he attend the trial?
Was he cross examined?
About his expertise: Would you please post some specific cases that Hendry has worked on?


---

I am wondering if you will ask this question of Judge Nencini.

The reason I mention this is because Nencini has included Rudy's Guede's un-cross-examined claim into his motivations report, that Amanda and Meredith were arguing over rent money.

 

[Vibio]

Vibio,

Do you have a citation?

I most certainly do not drive Chevrolets.


--

 

[MichaelB]

Did this Hendry person visit the site of the murder and break-in?
Did he speak directly with investigators?
Did he attend the trial?
Was he cross examined?

About his expertise: Would you please post some specific cases that Hendry has worked on?


---

Pasquali's testimony and reconstruction is very convincing. 30 years experience, former RIS ballistics expert. IIRC he did 3 experiments throwing a rock through the window all showing the same result as Guede's break-in. What are your thoughts?

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/...Pasquali-Farsi-Argiro-Campolongo-Luciani2.pdf

 

[acbytesla]

Acbytesla, is it possible that the prosecutors have quietly told select friendly judges (perhaps not Hellman) that they have "secret proof" that the defendants were present and involved in the murder.

Maybe on some level Strozzi. But is it any more than any defendant? Why would they hide the "smoking gun"? Unless it is some piece of evidence that was gathered illegally. But I can't imagine what that would be. No, I'm convinced that every single piece of evidence has been brought forth.

We saw how Mignini mistook Amanda's statement to her mother that "I was there" as her secretly-recorded admission that she was at her house, when to others (Hellman) it is understood from the context that Amanda was speaking of being at Raffaele's flat. Mignini (and Machiavelli) fought and fought for Mignini's interpretation, both because Mignini believes his interpretation to be right and because it serves his purpose. Mignini used it to justify the continued detention of Amanda.

This example caused me to wonder if the police and prosecution have other snippets of conversations which lead them to adamantly believe that the parties are guilty. Such snippets could be from recordings not just of the defendants, but of the defense lawyers or defendants' family members.

Perhaps Rudy or his lawyer said or inferred something which the prosecution regards (incorrectly) as proof that the three were together.

They have made no secret that they have been recording their every word since the beginning, so what could they be hiding? But I do agree with the premise that they didn't really understand Amanda and a key part of this travesty is the language barrier. People "miscommunicate" when they are speaking the same language, let alone going from one language to another. All it takes is a missing pronoun or implied intent and people's minds go off on tangents.