Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Suffolk Skeptic]

Bongiorno was in a room full of people who are too stupid to care about EDFs or even understand what they are. She was responding to a prosecutor who claimed that Meredith freaked out because Guede didn't flush the toilet, and Amanda killed her in response to that. Seriously.

As for the EDFs... I'd like to know why Stefanoni hasn't spoken up, now that a luminary in the field of forensic DNA, Peter Gill, has cited her slovenly work as his central case study, in a book called "Misleading DNA Evidence." That's gotta hurt. And it damn well should hurt, for all the damage Stefanoni has done.

I've just looked for this book on Amazon.

And seen the reviews and the replies.

OMG

 

[anglolawyer]

I've just looked for this book on Amazon.

And seen the reviews and the replies.

OMG

What are you doing here, Suffolk? Kindly get back to the Dewani thread where you belong

 

[Dan O.]

Rudy did not attack and kill Meredith when she 1st came home.
And 20 to 30 minutes before she died is a looong time. Time must have been soooo slow as this happened.
What did he do, restrain her all this time? By himself?

I don't believe there was 20-30 minutes between Meredith returning home and her being attacked. Rudy doesn't have a watch so how is he going to know what time anything hapened? I'm going by the basic element in Rudy's story that he comes out of the bathroom and gets into an altercation in the kitchen/hall where his pants fall down because he didn't get his belt buckled. Rudy comes out of that bathroom as soon as he thinks Meredith is back in her bedroom and tries to seek out of the house unseen. Even 2-3 minutes would be too much time to finish the paperwork, pull up his pants and buckle the belt.

He also did not leave right away,
not for some 30 more minutes, we all seem to agree.
So what really happened afterwards?
he went downstairs, right?

What's keeping Rudy in the cottage for so long? The next time reference is when Meredith's phone is connecting to the distant tower at 22:00. There is almost an hour between Meredith comming home and the subsequent fiddling with the phone buttons and the registered phone connection. Rudy doesn't have to spend that time at the cottage and I don't believe he would. It is much more likely that he got away from that cottage where Meredith was dying as soom as possible and didn't stop running until he was in the shadow of the city wall where he stops to think what he is going to do next. This location by the wall is one of the few places where the phone would be blocked from connecting to the local tower and forced to connect to the distant tower. It's also a good place, out of the light and away from people, to stop and ponder.

 

[Samson]

I've just looked for this book on Amazon.

And seen the reviews and the replies.


OMG

This case is interesting like Dewani, the parallels are that
1. There are people in jail while Dewani is tried for conspiracy to kill.
2. There are people in jail while Amanda Knox is tried for conspiracy to kill.

 

[Diocletus]

But Diocletus' is a mere provocation founded on a basic misunderstanding of the real situation: there isn't a "list of reasons", and there isn't necessarily a specific reason, because it is not a point on which it is the prosecution who needs to have reasons. Instead, based on their previous trial conduct, it is the defence who would need to have a reason if they want to explain why they need the raw data so late, like in 2009.

That's strange. I don't recall massei being concerned about that issue in 2009 when the request was made and he ordered everything to be produced. For that matter, commodi didn't raise a "lateness" argument either.

So, my conclusion is that you're just making stuff up.

 

[Diocletus]

As for my understanding, the raw data in question are a type of vectorial image files, with an array of numeric data values attached. That means: if there are data sources, from which you may produce a document, for example an image file about a magnified detail, a picture, that a machine with diferent settings may render as a chart with a different form that was not looked at at the incidente probatorio, like say a magnified image with more stretched peaks or so, this means the defence party may be able to produe in court some 'evidence' documents which the prosecution and the other parties don't have, didn't have a chance to examine, or didn't agree would be examined. This would be obviously something against the spirit of the incidente probatorio.

So what is the "spirit" of the IP? You seem to think that is to make sure the prosecution has advance notice of any document the defense might wish to use.

Anyway, your scenario makes no sense, since both the defense and the prosecution would have the same set of raw data, and the prosecution could use it in the same manner as the defense, so the prosecution need not be in any way prejudiced.

BTW, the bra clasp profile was not created at an IP.

Further, I seem to recall that all of the egrams were printed in June 2008, thus proving that stefanoni was utilizing the raw data that was denied to the defense.

 

[tsig]

Ah it's that time of year again where a certain group of individuals try once more to claim some sort of "ownership" of "poor Mez" (or, even more presumptuously, "M"....), with cloying appeals to bow heads in reverence and mourn her passing.

Now, let it be clear that I am not seeking to minimise the horrible death that befell Meredith Kercher, nor the obvious pain and suffering her family and close friends have gone through in the intervening years (suffering made considerably worse, in my opinion, by the incompetent and arrogant Italian judiciary and police, but that's perhaps a different matter). But let it equally be clear that for anyone who did not have a relationship with Kercher before her death, any claims to be deeply emotionally affected by her death are (in my view) either a) mawkish and bogus, or b) the product of a disturbed mental state.
Again, to be perfectly clear on my position: I feel it's a tragedy that she died, especially in such an horrific manner, and I feel deeply sorry for her family and real friends. And certainly the anniversary of her murder gives a small pause for thought. But anything much more than that - particularly when it appears to involve some sort of "claiming" of Kercher's memory - smacks to me of opportunism at best.

The same thing could be said of those who defend Amanda.

Do you feel either a) mawkish and bogus, or b) the product of a disturbed mental state?

 

[Desert Fox]

The same thing could be said of those who defend Amanda.

Do you feel either a) mawkish and bogus, or b) the product of a disturbed mental state?

The difference is that none of us are claiming to be deeply emotionally effected by Amanda's plight. There are some exceptions in that there are a few posters who know her personally but they are probably the exception.

Most of us just case about justice and integrity. Something I would argue the pro guilt side does not, especially personal integrity.

 

[Matthew Best]

The same thing could be said of those who defend Amanda.

Do you feel either a) mawkish and bogus, or b) the product of a disturbed mental state?

Amanda isn't dead yet!

 

[Machiavelli]

That's strange. I don't recall massei being concerned about that issue in 2009 when the request was made and he ordered everything to be produced. For that matter, commodi didn't raise a "lateness" argument either.

So, my conclusion is that you're just making stuff up.

You are mistaken Comodi did rise a "lateness" argument, objected the argument that the defence complaint that they found obstacles to their discovery saying this was false, and objected that now they had a "right" to access further data, but said she agreed to hand laboratory data to the defence.

What Comodi didn't seem to know about, is the existence of raw data.

A "lateness" argument was raised also by judge Micheli, as Bongiorno asked for charts and peaks areas, basically sayin: "we are not going to wait for you now".

It seems to me Massei also urged the parties experts to talk to each other, but the fact that he ordered everything to be produced is certainly not a sufficient argument. It is an argument, but it is not sufficient to accuse the prosecution of violation or hiding data. And while you may not recall prosecution or judge comments, I do not recall any defence complaint about missing raw data subsequently to that, not even a request of raw data, we can read further the Sept. hearing but I'm certain about Bongiorno. And I don't recall anyone else from the defence mentioning the issue too.

 

[carbonjam72]

Rudy's primary motive and getaway -

I don't believe there was 20-30 minutes between Meredith returning home and her being attacked. Rudy doesn't have a watch so how is he going to know what time anything hapened? I'm going by the basic element in Rudy's story that he comes out of the bathroom and gets into an altercation in the kitchen/hall where his pants fall down because he didn't get his belt buckled. Rudy comes out of that bathroom as soon as he thinks Meredith is back in her bedroom and tries to seek out of the house unseen. Even 2-3 minutes would be too much time to finish the paperwork, pull up his pants and buckle the belt.

I agree with this view, as did Judge Hellman and Nina Nurleigh at least. I think Rudy would have tried to avoid a confrontation if possible, but the font door wouldn't open without a key. Rudy needed to either get back to Filomena's room to exit through the window, or get the key from Meredith. No other option for him to leave without alerting Meredith and giving her the chance to call for help. He didn't flush, because he didn't want to be discovered - he wanted to not get caught, that was his primary motive, imo.

What's keeping Rudy in the cottage for so long? The next time reference is when Meredith's phone is connecting to the distant tower at 22:00. There is almost an hour between Meredith comming home and the subsequent fiddling with the phone buttons and the registered phone connection. Rudy doesn't have to spend that time at the cottage and I don't believe he would. It is much more likely that he got away from that cottage where Meredith was dying as soom as possible and didn't stop running until he was in the shadow of the city wall where he stops to think what he is going to do next. This location by the wall is one of the few places where the phone would be blocked from connecting to the local tower and forced to connect to the distant tower. It's also a good place, out of the light and away from people, to stop and ponder.

Two other points though. Firstly, there does seem to be a suppressed crime scene downstairs, with samples of blood returning human DNA profiles that have not been disclosed, among other elements.

But also, wasn't there a couple coming down the outside stairs that Rudy had run past (and bumped into?) coming up and disheveled? Wasn't that also in the record. Was the 'black man' the couple bumped into on the steps not Rudy?

Wish we had a nice map of the different routes Rudy may have taken showing the cottage, the garage, the steps, the garden where the phone were tossed, the various gates to the city, and Rudy and Raf's apartments.

 

[carbonjam72]

delete

 

[js202]

Are you not aware of how stilted and condescending your posts are? I'm not surprised you haven't addressed the seminal question of why Bongiorno didn't raise the issue of discovery suppression in her address to the Nencini court. Maybe you have a take on that.

Coming from someone who takes Machiavelli's posts as a model of conciseness and wisdom, I'll view that observation as a compliment. There is no "seminal question" with re: to Bongiorno and the EDFs. It has been demonstrated by C&V's own words in court that Machiavelli was wrong when he claims they were never requested in the second trial.

Nencini refused the defense's request to review the bra clasp evidence and ignored the fact that the knife re-tested negative for Kercher DNA. What reasonable person - and Bongiorno is nobody's fool - would expect him to split hairs over something as subtle as the EDFs? It is clear from his motivations that he does not adequately understand many of these concepts, and/or persistently warps their meaning to suit the marching orders he was given by the ISC.

As for your argumentation, here? I recall that not dissimilar to Machiavelli, you are impervious to cites that controvert your beliefs, relying on what you do or do not perceive as "very telling." When you get backed into a corner, you disappear. Please tell me, what kind of person finds it more "telling" that Sollecito is white than the fact that he *did not know Rudy Guede*?

 

[Machiavelli]

Coming from someone who takes Machiavelli's posts as a model of conciseness and wisdom, I'll view that observation as a compliment. There is no "seminal question" with re: to Bongiorno and the EDFs. It has been demonstrated by C&V's own words in court that Machiavelli was wrong when he claims they were never requested in the second trial.

I think I was sufficiently clear saying the defence didn't request them. Because we are talking about defence requests.
Nobody has shown I am wrong.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think I was sufficiently clear saying the defence didn't request them. Because we are talking about defence requests.
Nobody has shown I am wrong.

I have.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have.

You didn't.

How can you hope to prove that I am wrong by quoting pieces that relate to C&V's activities?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)Nencini refused the defense's request to review the bra clasp evidence and ignored the fact that the knife re-tested negative for Kercher DNA. What reasonable person - and Bongiorno is nobody's fool - would expect him to split hairs over something as subtle as the EDFs? It is clear from his motivations that he does not adequately understand many of these concepts, and/or persistently warps their meaning to suit the marching orders he was given by the ISC.

This would only confirm that the Sollecito defence didn't make the request at the second appeal neither. But the argument is also nonsense, because the defence instances are presents altogether at the opening sessions, in the request instance phase. The Sollecito defence presented a list of requests and the raw data was not among them.

 

[Bill Williams]

What's even harder for the guilters is to try to argue this without just acknowledging that they should be turned over. They have to pretend the defense didn't ask (enough times or just right) or try to imply they don't matter at all and hope any neutral observers are bamboozled.
That suggests to me that they know damn well the case gets scuttled if they're ever seen, and/or that Italian authorities will never let anyone get their grubby little hands on those edfs because it would lead to one of those embarrassing debacles like the lab in Victoria (Oz) or the FBI had with Blake where they may have to revisit a number of convictions because the police lab was corrupt/incompetent.

This.

Is this not, then, the very definition of a "media campaign"** to control key elements of "the pro-Guilt PR message"?

**(With respect to ISF/old-JREF, this board is loosely referred to as "media".)

 

[Machiavelli]

So what is the "spirit" of the IP? You seem to think that is to make sure the prosecution has advance notice of any document the defense might wish to use.

But the spirit is to make sure that the evidence resulting from the incidente probatorio discussion is "crystallized" (it is that finding that is discussed, not something else) and all parties are talking about something that is already deposited and they can immediately check as authentic, certified, in real time; that it's one among the pieces of information they have already seen at the IP session. A document that a party claims it comes from the incidente probatorio must be already recognizable by all parties and deposited as such. If a party comes showing a new picture that the other parties have not seen, and they claim it comes from the incidente probatorio, without a previous check, well this is something the incidente probatorio procedure should take care of preventing. It is intended for that purpose.

Anyway, your scenario makes no sense, since both the defense and the prosecution would have the same set of raw data, and the prosecution could use it in the same manner as the defense, so the prosecution need not be in any way prejudiced.

But they need to agree, at the incidente probatorio, that they will use that data at the discusson.

BTW, the bra clasp profile was not created at an IP.

The bra clasp profile was indeed created at an incidente probatorio procedure.

Further, I seem to recall that all of the egrams were printed in June 2008, thus proving that stefanoni was utilizing the raw data that was denied to the defense.

But the machine obviously only reads the raw data, whenever you print a chart. But all charts were printed under the incidente probatorio procedure
, there was a summoning of parties, there was open access to the laboratory and there was an investigating judge, Stefanoni was doing nothing alone or secretly. Those documents are produced in a session "together" by the parties, so the law sees them.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The same thing could be said of those who defend Amanda.

Do you feel either a) mawkish and bogus, or b) the product of a disturbed mental state?

Interesting observations of post #5494.

I have scanned a few pages, I can only find #5494 I assume I missed the post(s) being referred to.