Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

The experts who authored the report concealing the cause of death were Albarello and Vecchiotti.

I recall how they explained the court that he didn't suffer the fracture of a vertebra from the police beating, by showing the court another vertebra. They also "forgot" to discover that Cucchi had died of starvation.

PS: Albarello, Pascali & Vecchiotti are also the authors of the infamous "Olgiata case" experts report.

I'd like to read more of this. Any citation? Is this forgetting that you refer to analagous to the forgetting of Stefanoni in the Kercher case? TMB tests? The re-do testing of knife and bra clasp where the first ones were "forgotten"?

 

[Numbers]

Evidence is a logical concept. It is not "logical concepts". It is itself a logical concept. An activity, not an object.
Which means, it is not an object or a fact or a number of them; it is an inference, it can be from facts or from physical objects, but it is also, always an inference between objects or between facts or between a number of them.

So it's not something that can be restricted in one place.

And anyway, evidence is a demonstration, it is an action, the action to prove something, the human action of drawing inferences, putting findings in relation with others and weighing consequences.

You are using English words in a way that English speakers will find your meanings puzzling.

In the English language, evidence is:

1. a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2. : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

Personal note: I believe I've only heard the word used as in Definition 1

The definition is quite different from the concept of inference:

1
: the act or process of inferring (see infer): as
a : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former
b : the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty
2
: something that is inferred; especially : a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence
3
: the premises and conclusion of a process of inferring

and infer means:

1
: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply
2
: guess, surmise <your letter … allows me to infer that you are as well as ever — O. W. Holmes †1935>
3
a : to involve as a normal outcome of thought
b : to point out : indicate <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him — Shakespeare> <another survey…infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves — H. R. Chellman>
4
: suggest, hint

 

[Kaosium]

No judge ever said this.

Use Google (in Italian) and search for stories on the case in early December 2007 (or late November 2007 I forget) with the name 'Massimio Ricciarelli.' This was the court that 'confirmed' Matteini or whatever the official designation is.

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)
They system is a byzantine bureaucratic nightmare that serves its own interests rather than the people it's empowered to provide services for--which in this instance is justice. It is not the only institution infected, indeed every human institution is in danger of this, but it's one of the primary examples of just how badly an institution with no or limited oversight can become corrupted to the core.

But the Supreme Court and the Judicial institutions in general are among the most trusted institutions by Italian citizens. Much more compared to political institutions such as the Parliament or the Government.
It seems that you follow a partial reading of what I write: you omit to not the basic point that is the reason why the Justice system is inefficient is not the institution, but it is the laws, which are produced by politics. They are produced with the purpose of hindering the functioning of the Justice institution itself, to protect corrupt politicians frpom being prosecuted by the judicial institutions, and with the purpose of feeding lawyers. A huge numer of lawyers - who are also politicians or friends of politicians - who make a huge lot of money out of endless trials.

The Italian population doesn't think that the Justice Institution is the head of the corruption. They know that politics and illicit buisness is the core of corruption. The Justice Institution - its head being the Supreme Court - is seen as an obstacle and a dam to the power of political corruption.

Instead, it is you who see things reversed: you see the Supreme Court as a head of corruption, as a cause of the malfunctioning of the justice system. Compared to my view and to the view of most Italians (not all of them) your view is reversed.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is called corruption not conspiracy, and is endemic to every institution devised by humans. Militaries, governments, religions, businesses, banks--all of whom can make a bad mistake or tolerate poor practices sometimes for years or decades--but instead of admitting to it and fixing it they avoid consequences instead.

I am curious, have you ever read about the song and dance that NIS did in their investigation of the USS Iowa turret explosion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

 

[Numbers]

So they are all part of a conspiracy, aren't they? Indeed it makes a lot of sense. The Supreme Court annulls Hellmann (who, in your view, would have worked properly and issued the "right" verdict) because they are worried about the "reputation of the judiciary". If they were worried about the "reputation of the judiciary" and they thought Hellmann was sound and good, don't you think it would have been very easy to let it stand?
Is that your theory?

Perhaps conspiracy is the wrong word. Perhaps a better perspective would be to view this issue as the standard of justice or fairness.

The motivation reports and judgments of several of the Italian courts in this case, including the CSC in quashing Hellmann's verdict, do not meet the standard of justice or fairness held by many of us. This may reflect an ideological difference rather than a conspiracy.

No doubt the standards of justice or fairness in the courts of Italy are ultimately the responsibility of the Italian people and, since Italy is a member of the Council of Europe, of conformance to the European Convention for Human Rights.

 

[Kaosium]

But the Supreme Court and the Judicial institutions in general are among the most trusted institutions by Italian citizens. Much more compared to political institutions such as the Parliament or the Government.
It seems that you follow a partial reading of what I write: you omit to not the basic point that is the reason why the Justice system is inefficient is not the institution, but it is the laws, which are produced by politics. They are produced with the purpose of hindering the functioning of the Justice institution itself, to protect corrupt politicians frpom being prosecuted by the judicial institutions, and with the purpose of feeding lawyers. A huge numer of lawyers - who are also politicians or friends of politicians - who make a huge lot of money out of endless trials.

That's probably a factor too, it would be unlikely that it is a simple problem with a simple solution.

The Italian population doesn't think that the Justice Institution is the head of the corruption. They know that politics and illicit buisness is the core of corruption. The Justice Institution - its head being the Supreme Court - is seen as an obstacle and a dam to the power of political corruption.

Ever see "Mr Smith Goes To Washington?" Sometimes the 'Silver Knights' are wallowing in the troth too when they think no one's looking....

Instead, it is you who see things reversed: you see the Supreme Court as a head of corruption, as a cause of the malfunctioning of the justice system. Compared to my view and to the view of most Italians (not all of them) your view is reversed.

It could well be true that Italy's political system exacerbates the situation, but anyone reading the Curatolo section of the ISC's Motivations can see that there's something very wrong with that body.

 

[Numbers]

Autoluminescence would explain why the luminol 'reacted' to gloves and shoelaces, but not so much why it lit up in the shape of footprints/shoeprints....though considering Garofano's comments it could help explain the brightness of the photographs, along with the photoshopping and overexposure.

This is why failure of the prosecution to explain the methods used to obtain the luminol results should be considered an unfairness, in the ECHR sense of failure to provide "equality of arms".

 

[anglolawyer]

But actually, it is not true that such elements don't fit. They fit perfectly. I think they are simply irrelevant. They were also irrelevant as trial arguments in the Florence trial, I mean I recall they were barely mentioned. They were mentioned at the Massei trial, and Stefanoni also talked about them, Massei has no problem dismissing them, but I do not recall TMB was discussed at the Florence trial as far as I remember. I recalled Ghirga mentioned the negative TMB test and called it a "specific test for blood" (sic) but did not really draw an inference from this; the whole speech of Ghirga was about doubt.

This is simply nuts. A series of negative tests, the results of which were withheld from the court and whose probative value was stated by the prosecution's own scientific witness to be decisive cannot in any sense be said to be irrelevant. Ghirga's treatment of it in submissions is a red herring even if what you say were true. This is how Knox's appeal from Massei put it:

Many items will produce a positive luminol test result. It is very easy to obtain false positives. Many items contain iron that will set off the blue glow of luminol. Dr. Stefanoni confirmed that to prove that blood is present, you have to test for it. Dr. Stefanoni claimed that no testing was done. In July 2009 the test records revealed otherwise. The luminol findings were tested using tetramethylbenzidine, and the tests were negative for all tracks. The luminol findings tested negative for blood.

The court makes up a hypothetical result that the negative test results occurred because the sample was just too small, which is not true. Attacks of the tetramethylbenzidine test are not valid, because any error in this type of testing usually provides a false positive, not negative. This same type of testing was able to confirm blood in tests of the bathroom samples of far smaller in quantity than the bare foot print findings. Again, none of these luminol bare footprints showed any DNA of Meredith and no blood. The court simply overcame this result by saying the material was too little to be conclusive. This is a bogus argument and just plain wrong.

But anyway, your question seems to point to the fact the Nencini verdict has "holes", it does not mention all elements. I agree, but this is true for all judges reports, also for the Galati-Costagliola recourse, also for the Supreme Court ruling: it is normal that not all small points are discussed. Nencini leaves out some "good" pieces evidence against the defendants as well, for example about the physical evidence of staging.

If this is true for all judges reports then all those reports are materially and seriously deficient. In fact, it was a successful ground of appeal against Hellman that he failed to address key points in his motivation. That the luminol did not reveal blood was a key plank in the defence. Of course the court, if acting competently and conscientiously, must deal with it expressly. How otherwise is anyone to know the court's full reasons for its verdict? What principle distinguishes whether the court addresses specific facts and arguments expressly from those it appears to ignore?

You, apparently Christiannahannah too, seem to think context a substitute for or more powerful than valid scientifc procedure. Luminol is a test for stuff on the floor (or in a bath) that might be blood, among many other things. The fact there is or has recently been a source of blood nearby cannot override scientific proof that it is not blood nor the dodgy conduct of the forensic scientist in suppressing test results and not conducting tests which could have disposed of all doubt.

 

[carbonjam72]

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
I want to return to this post, because I feel it is so central to Mach's view, and indicative of the fundamental error he is making in regard to his analysis of this case.

The most basic truth of this case, is gravity.

(...)

1. The first question is: where did Meredith receive the fatal blow, which caused the massive blood loss? I mean the location in space. This spot is located between 40 and 60 centimeters from the floor, left of the wardrobe.
Meredith was facing the wall, the fatal wound is at her left, the person holding the kitchen knife (Knox) inflicted the fatal blow while she was located between Meredith and the bed. Immediately after Knox retracted the knife and herself and she let the knife on the bed sheet where the blade left an iprint (which matches the kitchen knife perfectly btw).

Note: between 40 and 60 centimeters. This is the height from which blood travelled by gravity.
Nobody could be standing under such a low spot.
Only the person who was keeping the hold on her in that kneeling position whould have been somehow get significantly dirty with blood, and may also work as a screen to blood drops.

Meredith was immediately left on the floor while the perpetrators retracted and at least two of them run immediately outside. In some minutes Meredith died of haemorragic suffocation and fatal blood loss.
Pools of blood were formed in that spot of the room over the minute following the fatal blow or so, but I don't see why some perpetrator must have necessarily walked in the pools.

2. Rudy Guede was the person holding Meredith. He had both his hands free. He was at her back, slighlty on her right, and was basically the person closest to her. At first he used a hand to commit a sexual violence but then he used both his hand to restrain her, blocking her right wirst. He pressed the palm of his hand on her mouth when she screamed, and so his palm got dirty with blood.

3. Her trousers had been removed forcedly by someone who was pulling them while someone else was holding her. The person who was holding her was Guede, and the person who pulled her trousers could have been Knox. Meredith did not remove her trousers herself, because the trousers are completely reversed and that would be a very unusual and difficult way to remove them even if she did it under threat. You need someone to pull them from a somehow distant position. But someone must hold her. Basically, you need two people.
This means there are some perpetators who are somehow in "external" position.
4. One assailant was facing her at some moment. This assailant did not have both his hands free as Guede did. This one was holding a knife, possibly a small knife, which produced a small cut on her left cheek, that looks like a kind of threat.

5. Meredith also suffered a wound on the right side of her neck. That was a rather superficial wound (4 centimeters) from a pointed narrow blade, a different knife. It's a minor wound but it's the wound that caused the soaking with blood of the bra shoulder, and this happened in another spot of the room, closer to the entrance and while Meredith's head was much more higher from the floor. But she was laid down fwith force on the floor at a certain point. Someone climbed over her, and pressed her body against the floor (the weight caused bruises at the bottom of her back).

6. Meredith was obviously resisting through all the steps of this violent assault. She was never complied with the aggrssors. Her wounds are a massive set of defensive wounds, they show how the assailants were forced to employ physical force to restrain her, they show her resistence. However, they also show that her capability to resist was being diminished, her hands were immobilized. Only one hand has defensive wounds showing contact with the blade and those defensive wounds are minimal. She has massive defensive wounds, but not defensive wounds on her hands.

Thank you Mach, for your very detailed analysis of the crime. Now as an exercise, would you consider going slowly through each paragraph, and try to see if there are any self-contradictory positions, or positions which are contradicted by the evidence of only one set of footprints in Meredith's blood in the room?

Bearing in mind, the burden of proof is the prosecution's - to prove, 'guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not enough to present a possible scenario, the prosecution must present a provable one. Is the evidence you base your views on, proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Here, I'll start you off with the highlighted contradictions, would you kindly tell me if you agree, or need more time to consider?

 

[Machiavelli]

You are using English words in a way that English speakers will find your meanings puzzling.

In the English language, evidence is:

1. a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2. : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

Personal note: I believe I've only heard the word used as in Definition 1

The definition is quite different from the concept of inference:

1
: the act or process of inferring (see infer): as
a : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former
b : the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty
2
: something that is inferred; especially : a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence
3
: the premises and conclusion of a process of inferring

and infer means:

1
: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply
2
: guess, surmise <your letter … allows me to infer that you are as well as ever — O. W. Holmes †1935>
3
a : to involve as a normal outcome of thought
b : to point out : indicate <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him — Shakespeare> <another survey…infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves — H. R. Chellman>
4
: suggest, hint

It's an interesting observation, interesting quotes from dictionary entries.

A good occasion to point out another aspect of law and language.

In the Italian law and in the Italian language too, there isn't a word equivalent to "evidence".

The italian word used for "evidence" is prova, which is the same word used for mathematical "proof" and a synonim of "demonstration".

The word evidenza exists in Italian, but means "what's apparent", "what seems obvious", it does not have a use related to investigation or crime.

In the Italian law, instead of "evidence" there are two different words (with some variants, say to concepts), one word is prova and the othr word is indizio.

Prova is roughtly "direct evidence";
Indizio is (roughly) "circumstantial evidence";

Both words are numerable (they have a singular and plural form).

Prova means a complete proof, which may consist in what you would call some big piece of direct evidence, or be constituted of a number of indizi, that is pieces of circumstantial evidence.

One single indizio is a piece of circumstantial evidence, something that "indicates" and let's say points in the direction of how to build a proof.

As you may guess from the Italian language, the equivalents of "evidence" are translated as something very related to the semantics of mathematics and logic. The concept of "inference" is very strong in the word prova, and also present to some degree in the word indizio. Those words tend to have an "active", or "performative" meaning, describe the activity of a subject, like "find the result"; they mean "build a demonstration" and "follow a direction". For an Italian speaker prova (evidence) is foremost an argumentation, not an object.

I think this concept of inference is very inherent to the Italian words prova and indizio, which are also the words of legal language.

 

[carbonjam72]

It's not my theory; it's my evil twin's theory.

In other words, the African DNA ID is just a set of (non)working hypotheses or speculations.
So at the moment is the Rudy Guede immediate MO ID theory, unless Napoleone or someone confesses. Nencini's statements are not credible to me; they're a kind of hearsay. I do credit Moore's speculations based on Guede being allowed to return from Milan to Perugia after being arrested in the nursery.

Neither theory is actually that beneficial to the case IMO; they simply help attribute a motive to the police for the framing of AK, RS, and PL. The data needed to verify either theory is suppressed or would require acquisition of inside information (e.g., a police leak).

I would be more pleased if I could find an ECHR case directly relating to equality of arms and forensic testing, especially DNA.

I'm wondering if I can ask you to focus a little longer on this issue.

If Mignini, Napoleone, Zugarini, recognize Guede's MO at the Kercher crime scene (there's video of Zugarini and Napoleone greeting Mignini at the crime scene which I find mesmerizing), AND, they know that Perugian authorities (whoever) intervened with Milan just 5 days earlier to free Guede and bring him back to Perugia, that's a big deal. It means they own his crimes. It means they aren't just covering for Guede, they are covering their own asses.

Now, tell me again, what is so compelling about the reasons they gave for claiming they knew immediately that the break-in was staged?

 

[Kaosium]

I am curious, have you ever read about the song and dance that NIS did in their investigation of the USS Iowa turret explosion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

Yes, recently--I think you posted it.

 

[anglolawyer]

And more than this: once can only start to add the cumulative bits of evidence together once each of them, separately, has been shown to be reliable. The "additive" benefit comes from the fact that each individual piece of evidence (assuming it's reliable enough) might have several possible inferences, but where several different pieces of evidence all point towards the same inference (and there's no other shared inference), then the additive effect can be very powerful. An example:

I have a "thing" hidden behind a curtain in front of me, about which I am give several pieces of evidence, and I have to see if I can say beyond reasonable doubt what it is.

The first piece of evidence I'm given is this: It has a collar.

Now, there are obviously several possible reasonable inferences from this single piece of evidence. The "thing" could be a shirt/tshirt etc, it could be a man/woman in a shirt/tshirt etc, it could be a vicar, it could be a dog, it could be a beer bottle.

Now I'm given a second piece of evidence: It has legs.

Obviously there are multiple possible inferences for this piece of evidence too. But let's just focus on the ones that correlate with inferences from the first item of evidence. We can now discount "beer bottle" and "shirt/tshirt/etc"", but there are matching inferences with "man/woman in shirt etc", vicar, and dog.

Now the third piece of evidence: It receives medical treatment at a veterinary clinic.

Any guesses?

Now for the fourth piece of evidence: It barks.

Ahh, so while each of the individual pieces of evidence might have several valid inferences, when you put them together they become self-enhancing since they only share a single common inference: the "thing" is a dog.

But suppose that you'd decided after the third piece of evidence that the "thing" was a dog. Pretty safe guess, huh? Well, imagine if the fourth piece of evidence was not as above, but instead was this:

It purrs and meows.

So it's not actually a dog - it's a cat. And you cannot simply ignore the "It purrs and meows" piece of evidence in favour of your prior conclusion that the "thing" is a dog, since it totally contradicts your conclusion. Instead, you must re-evaluate your conclusion such that it fits reasonable inferences drawn from ALL the evidence. This is somewhat analogous to the subject under discussion here.........

I disagree with the highlighted part and don't think your illustration is actually all that apt. A crummy piece of evidence can be firmed up by another so that they both gain weight from each other. The combinative process itself not only strengthens the inference you want to draw from the evidence (that it's a dog) but can also shore up the individual elements. A bad example, until I think of a better one, is the ID evidence against Barry George (I saw a man in a dark coat a year ago was about the sum total of it) which wasn't even third rate but which the Court of Appeal combined with other crap when turning down his first appeal.

Maybe a better analogy is a jigsaw puzzle. I might have a piece that is entirely blue. It could be anything: sky, sea, a wall, somebody's clothing - basically anything. But once I start to fit other pieces together and the picture begins to emerge the likelihood that it is sky (say) starts to become increasingly likely, eventually reaching certainty when I finally see where the piece fits.

Further, I might have ten puzzles with all the pieces jumbled into a great heap and thus not able to say whether a particular piece belongs to the one puzzle of interest to me (the steam locomotive!). If I first had to prove that a particular piece belonged to that puzzle I would never be able to complete it.

 

[Dan O.]

Apart from the fact that is a lot of evidence in the room: there's the whole autopsy report, a lamp of Knox, and DNA of Sollecito; the simple point is that your argument is completely irrational. The alleged "no evidence" in the room is nothilg like evidence of innocence, it's not like something that can counter-balance something else. It is simply false that you must prove she was in the murder room. It is false both legally and by common sense. And the room is not "more important" to the crime than other places which are equally necessarily involved in the crime, in which the murderer necessarily performed activities. So that: if "absence of physical evidence" is evidence of absence, something that must be won and overcome, than a reverse equivalent argument could be brought in favor of Guede: how do you explain the absence of Guede's DNA or any other proof of him in the small bathroom, where the murderer must have switched on the light, washed himself/herself, his hands and feet, touched the taps and walked barefoot? And also: if physical evidence on the crime scene is an important indicator, how is it that you don't consider the room where there was the breaking a window as part of the crime scene? Why do you ignore the presence of luminol stains 176 and 177 with mixed DNA traces from the victim and with Knox, why don't you "count" them as physical evidence findings?

Hey Machiavelli, are you calling Rudy Guede a liar? Rudy claims that he entered the small bathroom to fetch towels twice.

So what about this DNA evidence you say is missing? How much DNA is deposited turning on a light switch? How much DNA is going to be deposited by a person touching a light switch once? How is this going to show up in relation to the DNA in a visible blood stain? Show some references. Establish some facts. Do some actual science and see if your theory even gets off the ground.

You are claiming the absence of DNA on things Rudy would have touched as evidence of Rudy's absence. But where are the samples taken from those things? Why are they absent from the DNA results? The only sample taken from a tap in that bathroom was the tap on the sink with a clot of Amanda's blood. None of the other taps were tested. Are you claiming that the investigators were stupid dolts not to recognize these obvious points?

 

[Machiavelli]

I'd like to read more of this. Any citation? Is this forgetting that you refer to analagous to the forgetting of Stefanoni in the Kercher case? TMB tests? The re-do testing of knife and bra clasp where the first ones were "forgotten"?

No, it's not analogous. It's quite different. Albarello's conclusion was that the police beating was irrelevant to Cucchi's death. I made a mistake, as I went to look back on the point of starvation: what Albarello Vecchiotti wrote in their report is basically that the police had no responsability in Cucchi's death, and also that the indication of treatment given by the ospital Fatebenefratelli in Milan was correct. They concluded Cucchi has died only because the assistence at the second hospital of arrival was not adequate, and that was merely due to a mistake. He would have required intensive care treatment, while the gravity of his condition was ignored by doctors.

In fact, Cucchi's family pointed out that Stefano had a severe bladder haematoma that prevented him from urinating, and had a pulmonar haedema. It's not just the doctors at the second ospital who made a mistake: in fact, there was a documentation cover up in order to hide the beating committed by the police.
Albarello and Vecchiotti also stated that there was no conclusive evidence of a beating, since the fracture may have been compatible with an accidental fall from a sitting position and reported that other bruises were compatible with falling from the stairs. As for Albarello and Vecchiotti Stefano died because of his pre-existing conditions. In fact they did not deny completely the existence of evidence of a beating but basically made it so dibious so that it became impossible to accuse the police, or to relate the possible beating with the death.

 

[Numbers]

"Digestion science" is only your self-proclaimed muse, nothing but an invocation from yourself. I taught you instead a little of basic statistics, but just to show the actual context in which digestion statistics science must be applied here (statistic science must be applied to a specific condition), and you seemingly didn't absorb it. You went on claiming - this is what you said more or less literally - even that 10 minutes earlier "must" be considered "much more likely", no matter what's the position of the figure would be on the Gauss curve! Which is pure insanity. The actual statistic picture says that in the applied case if you are ready to accept a 90 minutes delay as "the most likely", this means you are ready to accept a 100 minutes delay as "close to the most likely". You don't unserstand that you imply a mathematical intorno whenever you decide a value, and you don't understand the distribution of values is more varied the more extreme the farther they are located towards the "tails" of the curve (which is where you want to locate it), a percentile where the tolerance and variability becomes huge. Yet, you want to "locate" it there as the most likely value while - at the same time - you want to deny tolerence for its variation; which is pure nonsense.

On the same topic I also reminded how the gastric emptying argument is actualy an alibi argument, and I pointed out how this argument becomes completely pointless since there is absolutely no alibi valid for the two suspects beyond 8:30/8:40 pm. The few spot-like claimed computer interactions at times like 9:18 are not an alibi.

I pointed out how, on the other hand, the digestion argument is a defensive argument not a refutation of the evidence (thus an alibi) therefore it would even require to meet, in principle, an extremely high standard of certainity.
I did not argue about the delusional statement that their alibi should be considered "osmotically sound", I didn't spend time on that since any rational observer understands that the situation of the two suspects' alibies is absolutely catastrophic.

Statistics is too difficult, ok. Galileo Galilei's method also caused confusion among the pro-Knoxes (Numbers mistook the roles, as if Galileo was the one claiming that when "standards" of "absolute certainity" are not met than you need to accept the contrary theory, and that analogies - like blood footprints on bathmat and luminol prints - are not circumstantial evidence - while instead it was the Cardinal Mazzarino crowd who took this side, and it was Galileo's science who endorsed circumstantial evidence!).
Let's turn to something more simple. Addition and subtraction. You have an example for where the pro-Knoxes managed get lost on something as simple as that: an expression with a subtraction and a division to calculate Guede's penalty. Like calculating a discount down from the price tag when you by a car from a a salesman on a special offer day. They got it wrong. Kaosium said he surrenders. For how incredible this might be, some people like Kaosium here get lost about this calculaion; but if you get even this calculation wrong I'm not surprised if you don't understand circumstantial evidence.

At the risk of going off-topic, I will try to explain to you what Galileo inferred from his telescopic observations of the phases of Venus and the revolution of four bright objects (Jovian moons) around Jupiter. This set of inferences was a brilliant and strong step in establishing the scientific method upon which others such as Newton and many others have built up our picture of nature.

Galileo inferred from his observations of Venus that Venus revolved about the sun, rather than about the earth. He inferred from his observations of Jupiter and the four Jovian moons he discovered (now often called the Galilean moons) that heavenly bodies may revolve around some other body not the earth. These observations and inferences contradicted the geocentric theory (or model); they supported the heliocentric theory (or model).

To learn more about Galileo in a brief article, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

There are of course many works devoted to Galileo and his accomplishments (and errors, as well; he wrongly believed comets to be atmospheric phenomena).

A somewhat longer treatment of interest is:

Galileo and the Scientific Revolution, by Laura Capon Fermi with Gilberto Bernardini (Basic Books, 1961) ISBN 0-486-43226-2

Laura Fermi was the wife of the illustrious Italian-American physicist and Nobel prize winner, Enrico Fermi.

 

[MDDVS]

At the risk of going off-topic, I will try to explain to you what Galileo inferred from his telescopic observations of the phases of Venus and the revolution of four bright objects (Jovian moons) around Jupiter. This set of inferences was a brilliant and strong step in establishing the scientific method upon which others such as Newton and many others have built up our picture of nature.

Galileo inferred from his observations of Venus that Venus revolved about the sun, rather than about the earth. He inferred from his observations of Jupiter and the four Jovian moons he discovered (now often called the Galilean moons) that heavenly bodies may revolve around some other body not the earth. These observations and inferences contradicted the geocentric theory (or model); they supported the heliocentric theory (or model).

To learn more about Galileo in a brief article, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

There are of course many works devoted to Galileo and his accomplishments (and errors, as well; he wrongly believed comets to be atmospheric phenomena).

A somewhat longer treatment of interest is:

Galileo and the Scientific Revolution, by Laura Capon Fermi with Gilberto Bernardini (Basic Books, 1961) ISBN 0-486-43226-2

Laura Fermi was the wife of the illustrious Italian-American physicist and Nobel prize winner, Enrico Fermi.

In my opinion this Galileo discussion is not really relevant. Also, he had to completely ignore contemporary (Tycho Brahe) models which were very successful in describing the available data at the time, and ignore data that argued against his heliocentric model (no measured stellar parallaxes). In face of this, and with o physics of gravitation, it was wrong of him to push an heliocentric model.

 

[anglolawyer]

Apart from the fact that is a lot of evidence in the room: there's the whole autopsy report, a lamp of Knox, and DNA of Sollecito; the simple point is that your argument is completely irrational. The alleged "no evidence" in the room is nothilg like evidence of innocence, it's not like something that can counter-balance something else. It is simply false that you must prove she was in the murder room. It is false both legally and by common sense. And the room is not "more important" to the crime than other places which are equally necessarily involved in the crime, in which the murderer necessarily performed activities. So that: if "absence of physical evidence" is evidence of absence, something that must be won and overcome, than a reverse equivalent argument could be brought in favor of Guede: how do you explain the absence of Guede's DNA or any other proof of him in the small bathroom, where the murderer must have switched on the light, washed himself/herself, his hands and feet, touched the taps and walked barefoot? And also: if physical evidence on the crime scene is an important indicator, how is it that you don't consider the room where there was the breaking a window as part of the crime scene? Why do you ignore the presence of luminol stains 176 and 177 with mixed DNA traces from the victim and with Knox, why don't you "count" them as physical evidence findings?

It's funny how the lamp has resumed its rightful place at the heart of the case. It is indeed an item of 'undoubted significance' as Nencini put it (without bothering to say what the significance was, unfortunately). Who but Battistelli (or his sidekick) had any reason to use a lamp from the next room in preference to Meredith's working lamp and place it out of the way of anyone wanting to enter the room but in the way of someone exiting? Why has this key item never been dusted for prints or tested for DNA? Why can we see it standing on her desk in the 18 Dec vid attracting no interest from anybody at all? Could it be that the liars running this case know full well the lamp is irrelevant but are so desperate to account for the absence of evidence of her presence in the room that they are willing to stoop even this low?

The lamp, like many other items, is a window on a world of corruption, incompetence and lies. Machiavelli, how come you are so easily fooled?

 

[Machiavelli]

Hey Machiavelli, are you calling Rudy Guede a liar? Rudy claims that he entered the small bathroom to fetch towels twice.

Of course I am calling Guede a liar. What Guede said is irrelevant: he said this very late, after his arrest. Guede also claims he cut his hand during the crime, and in fact he had scars on his fingers, do you recall that?
The towels are evidence of a cleanup, there is no question of this, is it?
And another sure fact, is that someone was on the crime scene some time after the crime was committed. Maybe hours later. Meredith was already dead when they pulled the duvet over her, but she didn't die immediately. She was also lying in a different position and was still wearing her sweater when she was stabbed. And someone swept blood with semi circular movement around her after her death.

So what about this DNA evidence you say is missing? How much DNA is deposited turning on a light switch? How much DNA is going to be deposited by a person touching a light switch once? How is this going to show up in relation to the DNA in a visible blood stain? Show some references. Establish some facts. Do some actual science and see if your theory even gets off the ground.

You are claiming the absence of DNA on things Rudy would have touched as evidence of Rudy's absence. But where are the samples taken from those things? Why are they absent from the DNA results? The only sample taken from a tap in that bathroom was the tap on the sink with a clot of Amanda's blood. None of the other taps were tested. Are you claiming that the investigators were stupid dolts not to recognize these obvious points?

I have established more facts myself than all posters of this forum altogether. I have done things like a thorough analysis and measurement of the bathmat print, showing whom it belongs to and whom it does not. Yet it seems the forum is full of posters who make statements and claim while feling no need to establish anything. Remind: I am not the person who starts with claiming absence of DNA is evidence of absence, I am responding pointing out the inconsistency of their arguments. How much DNA is deposited turning on a light switch? A nice question. By the way, did someone establish how much DNA is deposited by stabbing someone in the neck? Maybe zero picograms?

And what happens when you walk inside a room and touch objects with your hands, after you just had you fingers cut? Did Guede cut his fingers, or not? Why didn't he leave his blood drops in the small bathroom, where he supposedly washed his hands?
Why there are no traces of Guede's blood and of his bloody hands nor his DNA on Meredith's body, if he returned to the scene and touched the body half an hour later or so?
And how is it that he got his bare feet dirty with blood, if he was wearing shoes? (and whose is the second footprint on the mat?)
And how did he manage to wash (why?) his feet splashing half of the bathmat with bloody water, without stepping or dropping water on the bathroom floor? And why is there no trail of bare bloody footprints going to or leaving from the bathmat?