Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

Even you can meet Mignini if you think you have something to say, you ask for an appointment at his secretary. This would mean absolutely anything.

This is good news. Does the fat dumbass Skype? I have no current plans to be in Perugia, but I have some information that I would like to convey to him and a video connection would be necessary.

 

[Diocletus]

I did not follow all this as closely as I should have but it really is surprising in retrospect that anybody had any hopes for what would come out of Nencini. In essence, the ISC told him to find them guilty somehow and he obeyed. That's how it seems.

I think that people expected that an Italian judge might have some degree of integrity, but alas, this guy turned out to be a complete lackey scumbag. This is exactly how the Nazis got away with everything they did: appoint officious drones to carry out your orders.

 

[Diocletus]

Starting at p.107 of the PMF translation of Nencini there is a section called:

4 The calunnia - the false (sic) alibi

It is introduced in an alarmingly prejudicial way:

'Thus far in piecing together the events of the night of 1-2 November 2007, an overview of the circumstantial evidence leads us to the conclusion that Meredith Kercher was attacked in the house on Via della Pergola by three people: Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox, and Raffaele Sollecito. They fatally wounded her with one or more knives (whether it was one or more will be addressed in the later section dedicated to the most probable reconstruction of the dynamics of the murder). Given this assertion, the next logical step is to test the veracity of the statements made by the defendants and whether, on the basis of these [93] statements, it could reasonably be argued that either or both of them was somewhere other than at the scene of the murder. That is, whether either or both defendants have provided an alibi that has subsequently been proved credible or, at least, which survives scrutiny as such.'

Whatever. Before fast-forwarding to the bit about the Mac Book pro, I should mention that the word 'naruto' nowhere appears in the motivation. The discussion starts on p.160. Nencini records the testimony of the posties as having been given on 14 Mar '08 and of defence experts Giglio and Ambrosio on 26 Sep '09. And that's it. The expert whose report we are now considering is professor Alfredo Milani. The date of his report is not included in the translation nor has he seen fit to say when he conducted his examination of the lap top, both bloody infuriating omissions. His name does turn not up in Nencini either and there is no reference to his two main points: that Naruto was downloaded or activated or something at 9.26 and there was human interaction between 10.04 and 10.17 p.m on 5th Nov.

But Nencini does indirectly refer to the report in saying Raffaele was good until approximately 9.20 (trying to find that reference if anyone knows the page). I know Mach says judges don't have to set out all their reasons for finding this or that fact but I disagree. I think they do. So, it's a bit of a mystery to me whether this latest report played any part in the ruling and, if so, what?

Nencini records (p.38) the fate of an application Sollecito made on 30 Sep 2013 at the outset of the Florence remand:

4) With regard to the request for a technical examination of the MacBook-Pro owned and used by the defendant Raffaele Sollecito, the Court observes that the technical assessment has already been carried out under direct and cross-examination by all parties, such that in the trial proceedings there is a broad and articulated critical contribution of the technical consultant of the Defense, material that allows this Court to offer a full judgment of the relevance of the circumstantial evidence of the use of the aforementioned computer by the defendant, without any need to reopen the investigation;

So it looks as though the Milani report was not admitted but that Nencini may have glanced at it at some point and said 'so what, it makes no difference anyway'.

Well, he clearly didn't want to write an opinion that was contradicted by Sollecito's expert, because such a fraud would be too easily exposed. So, he goes with "about 9:20" (very odd, since we know the exact time). He also rounds off Curatalo's time (who does he think he's tricking, we know the exact time). The bottom line is that Naruto renders Curatalo inaccurate, and that's what Nencini is ham-handedly trying to cover up.

But, we see what he's doing there.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei and Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3

There is a bit where he announces a totally irrelevant gotcha that destroys their credibility utterly. It's the finding that Amanda was out and about when she got Patrick's 20:18 'don't come to work' message. [Aside to Dan - is it accepted that the cell tower evidence establishes this supposed fact?]. What that has to do with anything I have no idea because Nencini doesn't explain its significance, in the same way he doesn't explain why the lamp is undoubtedly important. It just means they lied about an irrelevant detail and are therefore guilty as charged.

anglolawyer,

I don't presume to speak for Dan, but my recollection of Massei is that he was inconsistent on this issue. The PI Wiki states, "20:18:12 Lumumba sends text message to Amanda saying she didn’t need to come to work. Cell Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3. Cell tower covers Raffaele’s apartment. Amanda and Raffaele are watching Amelie (129min) [18]" Massei seems to think otherwise (p. 322), but then he says something different on p. 323. Perhaps acbytesla can help.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, he clearly didn't want to write an opinion that was contradicted by Sollecito's expert, because such a fraud would be too easily exposed. So, he goes with "about 9:20" (very odd, since we know the exact time). He also rounds off Curatalo's time (who does he think he's tricking, we know the exact time). The bottom line is that Naruto renders Curatalo inaccurate, and that's what Nencini is ham-handedly trying to cover up.

But, we see what he's doing there.

I agree with you.

His reason for refusing the defence application to introduce new computer evidence, if applied even-handedly, should also have led him to disallow the meaningless (as it turned out) testing of 36I. He said:

4) With regard to the request for a technical examination of the MacBook-Pro owned and used by the defendant Raffaele Sollecito, the Court observes that the technical assessment has already been carried out under direct and cross-examination by all parties, such that in the trial proceedings there is a broad and articulated critical contribution of the technical consultant of the Defense, material that allows this Court to offer a full judgment of the relevance of the circumstantial evidence of the use of the aforementioned computer by the defendant, without any need to reopen the investigation;

My understanding is that no one was concerned about testing 36I until it became clear which way the wind was blowing when it then became absolutely critical and one of the many fundamental flaws in the Hellman verdict justifying wholesale review. But why didn't Stefanoni test there? She had the knife but she chose to go for the undetectable scratches rather than the more promising join between handle and blade.

What I would like to know is whether these defence applications were argued or simply presented to the court in list form. I would expect there to be supporting submissions explaining why previous findings were incomplete. If there were, Nencini does not waste any ink setting them out.

We end up with a strange result. Hellman rejected all sorts of defence requests for testing this and examining that, aimed at the fundamentals of the prosecution case, saw them for the crap they were and dismissed the murder count. Then, due to all the logical flaws, his verdict was overturned, whereupon you would think the defence could revive their applications as though Hellman never happened but no. It's too late. We already covered this. Here is a particularly specious rejection of one of the defence applications:

3) In relation to the request for an audiometric examination in order to verify the veracity or not of the testimony given in Court by witnesses Capezzali, Dramis and Monacchia, the technical assessment requested, without questioning the reliability of the witnesses statements, is not required for the evaluations that this Court will have to make as to the reliability of such statements, which must therefore be evaluated in correlation with the other circumstantial evidence;
I note that Nencini records Massei had also refused such a request, apparently made right at the end of the Massei trial (again, to be fair, possibly opportunistically when things seemed to be drifting away) - but what is Nencini saying here? Is it that, as the defence does not expressly challenge the reliability of the ear witnesses, they can't have their test? I don't think I need to check two appeals from Massei to figure out whether the probative value of those witnesses was challenged. I am sure it will have been.

The last words are likely a dark reference to Amanda's own reference to the scream in her (supposedly unusable but actually usable whenever an exception applies, which is always) 'confession'. That must be the clincher.

 

[Diocletus]

I note that Nencini records Massei had also refused such a request, apparently made right at the end of the Massei trial (again, to be fair, possibly opportunistically when things seemed to be drifting away) - but what is Nencini saying here?

Remember, though, that it wasn't until the very end of Massei that the prosecution came up with a new, late TOD. That is probably what brought the peeing old lady into the picture.

 

[anglolawyer]

Remember, though, that it wasn't until the very end of Massei that the prosecution came up with a new, late TOD. That is probably what brought the peeing old lady into the picture.

Good point. How late? Closing submissions?

 

[Machiavelli]

That's ******** Machiavelli. Naruto was presented in Micheli. The postal ****ups did a crap job analyzing the computer data and their work needs to be tossed in the rubbish bin and a competent computer consultant given the task.

But why didn't you know this? It was discussed back in October 2010 while Machiavelli mark1 was active in this thread.

Where are the transcript and the report? Let's read them then.
My knowledge is that Naruto popped up only in the second computer report, which the defence tried to submit only on appeal.
The appeal submission, as for the excerpts I could read of the report, basically contains as new information the Naruto interaction and the analysis of the screensaver logs. If there is more, what is that?

 

[Machiavelli]

What do you call that thing people do when they tell the police they haven't seen someone when just days earlier that same someone with the unforgettable blue eyes was at his shop door before opening looking for cleaning supplies?

It's something Quintavalle didn't do. It is basically an innocentisti invention. Both Quintavalke and inspector Volturno testified that he was not questioned about whether he saw them on Nov. 2.

 

[LondonJohn]

anglolawyer,

I don't presume to speak for Dan, but my recollection of Massei is that he was inconsistent on this issue. The PI Wiki states, "20:18:12 Lumumba sends text message to Amanda saying she didn’t need to come to work. Cell Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3. Cell tower covers Raffaele’s apartment. Amanda and Raffaele are watching Amelie (129min) [18]" Massei seems to think otherwise (p. 322), but then he says something different on p. 323. Perhaps acbytesla can help.

Numerous "learned" judges made an error on this issue. GSM cell site transceivers cover an area sweep of 120 degrees - i.e. one third of the whole circle of coverage. Thus, nearly all base stations have three transceivers each 120 degrees apart from the other, so that coverage extends out in an entire circle. These will be named "Sector 1", "Sector 2" and "Sector 3".

If the base station is in an urban area where additional capacity is required, it's usual for there to be multiple transceivers covering each sector. These will almost always be added in multiples of three (thereby increasing capacity over the whole coverage circle), and they are numbered such that Sector 4 points in the same direction as Sector 1, Sector 5 points in the same direction as Sector 2, and Sector 6 points in the same direction as Sector 3. If there's a third group of transceivers, they will follow the same numbering rule - i.e. Sector 7 points in the same direction as Sectors 1 and 4, and so on.

So in this particular instance, at the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto base station, Sector 3, Sector 6 and Sector 9 all point in the same direction, and all cover exactly the same geographic area. And all three sector transceivers provide coverage to Sollecito's apartment.

Therefore, it's entirely plausible and technically-feasible that Knox was within Sollecito's apartment when that 20.18 text message from Lumumba was received by her mobile phone. It's definitely incorrect to assert that Knox (or, more accurately, Knox's mobile handset) must have been outside Sollecito's apartment when this text message was received.

I'm afraid this is yet another example of incorrect conclusions and improper assertions on the part of the judges, and unfortunately it also (once more) speaks to the poor quality of the defence teams in their apparent failure to nail this down. They (the defence teams) should quickly and easily have been able to demonstrate in court that Sectors 3, 6 and 9 of this base station all provided coverage within Sollecito's apartment, and they should therefore have been able to comprehensively refute the accusation that Knox must have been outside Sollecito's apartment at that time.

 

[anglolawyer]

Where are the transcript and the report? Let's read them then.
My knowledge is that Naruto popped up only in the second computer report, which the defence tried to submit only on appeal.
The appeal submission, as for the excerpts I could read of the report, basically contains as new information the Naruto interaction and the analysis of the screensaver logs. If there is more, what is that?

How's this?

Il S. viene smentito dall’anzidetta P. sulle sue passeggiate del pomeriggio, e pretende di far credere di non ricordarsi se ed a che ora la K. fosse uscita di casa, financo se fece o meno sesso con lei (e, a 20 anni, certe cose non si scordano); quindi, dopo aver insistito a lungo sull’utilizzo del computer fino a notte fonda, poi sulla riproduzione del film di Amélie dalle 21:10 (quando in-vece era finita a quell’ora), ha infine ridimensionato il proprio stazionare davanti al monitor nella fascia tra le 21:26 e le 21:46, perché impegnato a guardarsi un cartone animato, così finalmente confermando che il film di cui sopra era finito davvero, sennò si sarebbe messo a guardare due co-se diverse contemporaneamente.
Allegazione che, in ogni caso, non offre un alibi vero e proprio perché dimostra in concreto interazione con il pc alle 21:26, e non sino alla fine: ciò a fronte di un’ora della morte che non può assolutamente indicarsi nei termini che la difesa ricava dal traffico telefonico cellulare.

The Holy Father is refuted by the above on his walks in the afternoon, and wants to pretend not to remember whether and at what time the K was out of the house express, even if you did have sex with her or not ( and , 20 years , some things you do not forget ) ; then , after having long insisted on using the computer until late at night , then the playback of the movie Amelie from 21:10 (when in - place was over at that time) , has finally reduced its stationed in front of the monitor in the range between 21:26 and 21:46 , it pledged to watch a cartoon, so finally confirming that the film above was done really , otherwise he would have to look different if two co- simultaneously.
Allegation that , in any case , does not offer an alibi real because it shows in concrete interaction with the PC at 21:26 , and not until the end : this in the face of an hour of death that absolutely can not be specified in the terms that defense derives from the cellular telephone traffic .

Micheli must have known about naruto because its twenty minutes long.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Machiavelli,
Is this the pair of Meredith's blue jeans that you claim were reversed?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9261[/qimg]

You seem to be saying that there was blood found inside of her pants, right?
Was blood also found on her black underwear too?

I recall the underwear was brown. No, there was no trace of blood on underwear as for what I recall. The drops are only in the inside of jeans.

 

[Dan O.]

Good point. How late? Closing submissions?

If it were any later it would be after the verdict was read.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Naruto in Sollecito's appeal

Naruto is mentioned in the main body of Sollecito's appeal on page 29: "5. Non viene menzionata una attività di apertura file multimediale “Naruto episodio 101” avvenuta giovedì 1° novembre 2007 alle ore 21:26." And on p. 30: "In verità, effettuando la ricerca con “Spotlight” nella versione 10.4.10, è stato individuato almeno un file “Naruto ep 101.avi” che non è presente nella consulenza della polizia postale, ma la cui data di ultima apertura risulta giovedì 1° novembre 2007 alle ore 21:26 (cioè nel periodo preso in esame dalla polizia postale: 1° novembre 2007 ore 18:00 – 2 novembre 2007 ore 8:00)."

 

[anglolawyer]

anglolawyer,

I don't presume to speak for Dan, but my recollection of Massei is that he was inconsistent on this issue. The PI Wiki states, "20:18:12 Lumumba sends text message to Amanda saying she didn’t need to come to work. Cell Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3. Cell tower covers Raffaele’s apartment. Amanda and Raffaele are watching Amelie (129min) [18]" Massei seems to think otherwise (p. 322), but then he says something different on p. 323. Perhaps acbytesla can help.

Numerous "learned" judges made an error on this issue. GSM cell site transceivers cover an area sweep of 120 degrees - i.e. one third of the whole circle of coverage. Thus, nearly all base stations have three transceivers each 120 degrees apart from the other, so that coverage extends out in an entire circle. These will be named "Sector 1", "Sector 2" and "Sector 3".

If the base station is in an urban area where additional capacity is required, it's usual for there to be multiple transceivers covering each sector. These will almost always be added in multiples of three (thereby increasing capacity over the whole coverage circle), and they are numbered such that Sector 4 points in the same direction as Sector 1, Sector 5 points in the same direction as Sector 2, and Sector 6 points in the same direction as Sector 3. If there's a third group of transceivers, they will follow the same numbering rule - i.e. Sector 7 points in the same direction as Sectors 1 and 4, and so on.

So in this particular instance, at the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto base station, Sector 3, Sector 6 and Sector 9 all point in the same direction, and all cover exactly the same geographic area. And all three sector transceivers provide coverage to Sollecito's apartment.

Therefore, it's entirely plausible and technically-feasible that Knox was within Sollecito's apartment when that 20.18 text message from Lumumba was received by her mobile phone. It's definitely incorrect to assert that Knox (or, more accurately, Knox's mobile handset) must have been outside Sollecito's apartment when this text message was received.

I'm afraid this is yet another example of incorrect conclusions and improper assertions on the part of the judges, and unfortunately it also (once more) speaks to the poor quality of the defence teams in their apparent failure to nail this down. They (the defence teams) should quickly and easily have been able to demonstrate in court that Sectors 3, 6 and 9 of this base station all provided coverage within Sollecito's apartment, and they should therefore have been able to comprehensively refute the accusation that Knox must have been outside Sollecito's apartment at that time.

Thanks both. Nencini certainly makes a big issue out of this stunning (yet seemingly almost completely irrelevant ) breakthrough.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you concede that Guede's second toe misses the alleged "mark" completely?

I will concede that the partial footprint on the bathmat is of such poor quality that it is useless for identifying anyone.
So, there you have it: one of two concessions granted. Never say I'm not a fair man.

The most full discussion of the bathmat foottrack I have read is in Massei's 2010 report. That discussion includes the view that it is impossible to consider the identity of the foot-owner from phtographs, mainly because of the composition of the material of the mat.

In short, as difficult as it is to i.d. the foot-owner on the bathmat from the actual bathmat, any discussion based on, "I saw it in a photo," is bogus.

Just like the alleged striations on Raffaele's kitchen knife. On that one, even Stefanoni conceded that attempts to photograph the striations were useless.

 

[anglolawyer]

Naruto is mentioned in the main body of Sollecito's appeal on page 29: "5. Non viene menzionata una attività di apertura file multimediale “Naruto episodio 101” avvenuta giovedì 1° novembre 2007 alle ore 21:26." And on p. 30: "In verità, effettuando la ricerca con “Spotlight” nella versione 10.4.10, è stato individuato almeno un file “Naruto ep 101.avi” che non è presente nella consulenza della polizia postale, ma la cui data di ultima apertura risulta giovedì 1° novembre 2007 alle ore 21:26 (cioè nel periodo preso in esame dalla polizia postale: 1° novembre 2007 ore 18:00 – 2 novembre 2007 ore 8:00)."

Well, you can't expect them to remember every little detail. Come on.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's something Quintavalle didn't do. It is basically an innocentisti invention. Both Quintavalke and inspector Volturno testified that he was not questioned about whether he saw them on Nov. 2.

Oh please. So what exactly DID Volturno question Quintavalle about? What Quintavalle's favourite flavour of Gelato was?

Volturno was interviewing local shopkeepers with the specific intention of finding out whether any of these shopkeepers had seen Knox and/or Sollecito buying things like cleaning products. And the only time period during which any such sighting might be relevant to the investigation would be the time between the murder itself (say 9pm on 1st November) and the time the Postal Police arrived at the cottage (say 1pm on the 2nd). After all, it would be utterly irrelevant to the police investigation of the murder if some shopkeeper had seen Knox or Sollecito buying something on (say) 29th October or 3rd November.

It's therefore utterly, totally inconceivable that Volturno would not have explained to Quintavalle that the relevant time period was the night of the murder and the morning after it. He showed Quintavalle the photos and must (logically) have asked whether either Knox or Sollecito was in his store - particularly if they were buying cleaning products - in the narrow time window in question. It would have been of zero value to Volturno if Quintavalle had remembered seeing either Knox or Sollecito in his shop at any other time other than 9pm on 1st November to 1pm on 2nd November. And therefore Volturno must have referred to the relevant time period in his discussion with Quintavalle. One or both of them may deny it now, but they must be either lying or mistaken.

I suppose next you're going to assert that Volturno didn't show Quintavalle a photo of Knox (or Sollecito)......?

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks both. Nencini certainly makes a big issue out of this stunning (yet seemingly almost completely irrelevant ) breakthrough.

This, plus the (bogus and unreliable) Quintavalle sighting, played - in my opinion - a significant role in Massei's and Nencini's decisions to find Knox (and by extension Sollecito) guilty.

I believe the judges reasoned as follows:

"We have (or at least we believe we have....) solid proof that Knox was outside Sollecito's apartment at 8.18pm on 1st November, and that she was in Quintavalle's shop at around 8am on 2nd November. Yet Knox claimed - and continues to claim - that she was definitely inside Sollecito's apartment at both these times.

"We judges do not accept that someone could be honestly mistaken as to their whereabouts in this fashion - we believe that Knox must have remembered being outside Sollecito's apartment at some point on the evening of the murder, and that similarly she must remember getting up to go to Quintavalle's shop early on the morning after the murder.

"Therefore, we judges believe that Knox is deliberately choosing to lie about her whereabouts on these two occasions - occasions on which we have solid proof that she was not where she claimed to be. And what reason could there be to lie if Knox had nothing to do with the murder? Therefore we view these lies by Knox as significant evidence of her participation in the murder."


Of course the truth is that Knox very probably was within Sollecito's apartment at 8.18pm on 1st November (and it's certainly false to claim that the phone evidence proves she must have been elsewhere), and Quintavalle's claims are laughably unreliable. Therefore there's every likelihood that Knox was exactly where she claimed she was at both these times: inside Sollecito's apartment.

 

[LondonJohn]

I recall the underwear was brown. No, there was no trace of blood on underwear as for what I recall. The drops are only in the inside of jeans.

But the jeans were not turned inside out. We can all agree on that, right.....?

(BTW, in my opinion, the most likely way in which Kercher's jeans were removed is as follows: Guede started to unbutton Kercher's jeans at the waist with one hand while he had her on all fours with him on top and behind her with his knife at her throat with the other hand. I think that this is what caused Kercher to resist and call out, and that this in turn caused Guede to inflict the neck wounds with his knife. I think that as Kercher fell down bleeding and choking, Guede turned her over onto her back and moved down to her feet where he grabbed her jeans at the ankles and swung her body round slightly clockwise (as is clearly seen by the blood arcs on the floor), then completed the removal of the jeans by pulling from the ankles.)