Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

Platonov please note even Mach is trying to correct you on this.

Hey I said ‘Just let me know when you have proven that I agree with you'.
Not that Mach agrees with you.

And I don’t believe that Mach agrees that it was suggested in court (or that the court ever accepted) that the break-in was staged by ‘Hoofing the rock out through the window into the garden’
Get back to me when you find that argument outside of cartwheel world or some FOA site.

Numbers, you have not grasped Massei's solution to the glass breaking. Using his method you do get the embedded glass in the inner white shutter but you don't get the right glass pattern (which I now see Platonov deals with by pretending it's not the insuperable obstacle it is having claimed yesterday to have addressed it long ago).

I linked to/referred to posts where I dealt with the following issue; Various groupies, having been corrected on the mistaken belief that it was argued or accepted by the court that the break-in was staged by ‘Hoofing the rock out through the window into the garden’ - Then want to discuss ‘glass distribution’ or ballistics.
My response being, in a nutshell, AYFKM. [The glass distribution inside the room was addressed years ago but at no great length obviously given the confusion over simpler issues]

The distinction isn’t that subtle but it seems I didn’t get it across with sufficient clarity.

Let me try an analogy.
I engage in a game of Tic-tac-toe with a chicken which, even by the standards of that ‘sport’ is a complete mess i.e. much misplaced scratching, squawking and bird **** everywhere.
Once the shambles is at an end it is suggested by the chicken that perhaps we should go on to discuss the finer points of say opposite coloured bishops endgames or some such.
I would refuse along the lines of AYFKM and merely point out the chutzpah of said chicken(s)

Do you see.

And no amount of squawking, semantics or giant red type will change that

 

[anglolawyer]

Hey I said ‘Just let me know when you have proven that I agree with you'.
Not that Mach agrees with you.

And I don’t believe that Mach agrees that it was suggested in court (or that the court ever accepted) that the break-in was staged by ‘Hoofing the rock out through the window into the garden’
Get back to me when you find that argument outside of cartwheel world or some FOA site.





I linked to/referred to posts where I dealt with the following issue; Various groupies, having been corrected on the mistaken belief that it was argued or accepted by the court that the break-in was staged by ‘Hoofing the rock out through the window into the garden’ - Then want to discuss ‘glass distribution’ or ballistics.
My response being, in a nutshell, AYFKM. [The glass distribution inside the room was addressed years ago but at no great length obviously given the confusion over simpler issues]

The distinction isn’t that subtle but it seems I didn’t get it across with sufficient clarity.

Let me try an analogy.
I engage in a game of Tic-tac-toe with a chicken which, even by the standards of that ‘sport’ is a complete mess i.e. much misplaced scratching, squawking and bird **** everywhere.
Once the shambles is at an end it is suggested by the chicken that perhaps we should go on to discuss the finer points of say opposite coloured bishops endgames or some such.
I would refuse along the lines of AYFKM and merely point out the chutzpah of said chicken(s)

Do you see.

And no amount of squawking, semantics or giant red type will change that

You would have made a fine lawyer with obfuscation like that. It's very simple. The glass in the room is consistent only with the rock being thrown from outside. So modify your theory, if you have one, and we can all agree that throws from inside to out or from inside to inside (with window open etc) are out and, accordingly, that Massei is a total moron incapable of considering the simplest and most obvious facts.

And I used large red print to stop you running away.

 

[Desert Fox]

You would have made a fine lawyer with obfuscation like that. It's very simple. The glass in the room is consistent only with the rock being thrown from outside. So modify your theory, if you have one, and we can all agree that throws from inside to out or from inside to inside (with window open etc) are out and, accordingly, that Massei is a total moron incapable of considering the simplest and most obvious facts.

And I used large red print to stop you running away.

I have yet to figure out exactly what Machiavellian's position either.
Assuming that it is that the rock was thrown from outside, I am unclear the difference between staging and not staging.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have yet to figure out exactly what Machiavellian's position either.
Assuming that it is that the rock was thrown from outside, I am unclear the difference between staging and not staging.

It beats me why they don't just agree the rock was thrown from outside but the burglary was still staged.

 

[Desert Fox]

It beats me why they don't just agree the rock was thrown from outside but the burglary was still staged.

As far as I can tell, there would be no difference as far as evidence between staged or not staged if the rock being thrown from out. Effectively, the argument "staged" can no longer be used.
It has to be obviously staged for them to argue guilt.

 

[anglolawyer]

As far as I can tell, there would be no difference as far as evidence between staged or not staged if the rock being thrown from out. Effectively, the argument "staged" can no longer be used.
It has to be obviously staged for them to argue guilt.

They can still argue about glass (or paper bags) on top of clothes, a real burglar not using that window etc.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What did Novelli see and where did he see it?

Now all your defensive complaints are nothing but complaints about documenting and providing documentation. That is what the defence decided not to do, every time when they were invited to do so.
The defence experts did not request to access Stefanoni's laboratory - thus did not come to access the raw data about the knife - not even when a phase of trial discussion (rinnovazione dibattimentale) was re-opened by Hellmann. Prosecution expert Novelli did go to Stefanoni's laboratory to read electronic data, the defence experts did not.
Not even Vecchiotti requested raw data, insofar we know she said she had obtained all what she had requested.

Machiavelli,

I wish I could say that any portion of what you wrote made any sense. The defense requested raw electronic data multiple times and was always refused. Can you document what you claim about Novelli? Why would Novelli (would that be the same Novelli who did not bother to stay for all of Conti and Vecchiotti's work?) need to go to Stefanoni's laboratory to read electronic data (raw or not)? If he had the appropriate software, he could have done so in the comfort of his own office. Can you document precisely what Conti and Vecchiotti said to the court?

 

[MichaelB]

Machiavelli,

I wish I could say that any portion of what you wrote made any sense. The defense requested raw electronic data multiple times and was always refused. Can you document what you claim about Novelli? Why would Novelli (would that be the same Novelli who did not bother to stay for all of Conti and Vecchiotti's work?) need to go to Stefanoni's laboratory to read electronic data (raw or not)? If he had the appropriate software, he could have done so in the comfort of his own office. Can you document precisely what Conti and Vecchiotti said to the court?

He makes a lot of claims but he never posts the actual testimony to show they're true.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

three possibilities with respect to the window

I linked to/referred to posts where I dealt with the following issue; Various groupies, having been corrected on the mistaken belief that it was argued or accepted by the court that the break-in was staged by ‘Hoofing the rock out through the window into the garden’ - Then want to discuss ‘glass distribution’ or ballistics.
My response being, in a nutshell, AYFKM. [The glass distribution inside the room was addressed years ago but at no great length obviously given the confusion over simpler issues]

platonov,

Sometimes your posts contain only a few falsehoods and are mildly amusing. This one contained an above average number of falsehoods, and more importantly wasn't amusing at all. I have clicked on enough of your links to know that when you claim to have dealt with an issue, you don't actually deal with that issue to anyone's satisfaction except perhaps your own, which is a pretty low bar. In this case, you claim that the distribution was dealt with but offer not one scintilla of proof. You do offer one pretty large strawman, but I prefer real arguments over strawmen.

After rereading Massei and Ann Wise's article, it seems to me that there are three possibilities with respect to what the prosecution had argued: a) that the rock was thrown from the inside and hit the inside face of the glass (but did not go outside); b) that the rock was thrown from the inside and hit the outside face of the glass (as Massei hypothesized); and c) that the rock was thrown from the inside but which face the rock hit was not explained. Of the three possibilities (b) seems least likely, but there is presently not enough information to discriminate among the three.

The defense's hypothesis was the only one that was tested. I had the displeasure of rereading Nadeau's account of Sgt.Pasquali's cross-examination last night. One would think that this former member of the carabinieri were on trial. I look forward to reading his actual testimony.

 

[Dan O.]

Sorry, but the article doesn't say anything except that a rock has flown through the glass and has impacted against the inner shutter.
This proves nothing.

What - surprisingly - the author doesn't seem to notice, is that the paper bag partly containing the rock has fallen on top of a piece of clothing.
This implies, that the cloth must have been thrown on the floor before the rock was thrown, not after.
Also points out that Filomena found her laptop had been moved, was fallen and lying on its side. Yet the glass was on top of it.

The rock was 3.8 kilograms as for the police report IIRC, but there was also a second smaller piece of rock (it had broken on impact).

Machiavelli doesn't dare show the photos to back his allegations. There is indeed a sweatshirt that is partially under the bag containing the rock. But a close examination of the photos reveals that there is a piece of glass that is partially under that sweatshirt.


The sweatshirt would most likely have been slung over the back corner of the chair and the chair would have been pushed against the bag giving access to use the chair to sit at the desk. The action of the rock pushes the bag into the chair pulling the sweatshirt off and to the floor allowing the bag to roll over it while the chair is pushed away.

 

[platonov]

An artful thesis

You would have made a fine lawyer with obfuscation like that. It's very simple. The glass in the room is consistent only with the rock being thrown from outside. So modify your theory, if you have one, and we can all agree that throws from inside to out or from inside to inside (with window open etc) are out and, accordingly, that Massei is a total moron incapable of considering the simplest and most obvious facts.

And I used large red print to stop you running away.

platonov,

Sometimes your posts contain only a few falsehoods and are mildly amusing. This one contained an above average number of falsehoods, and more importantly wasn't amusing at all. I have clicked on enough of your links to know that when you claim to have dealt with an issue, you don't actually deal with that issue to anyone's satisfaction except perhaps your own, which is a pretty low bar. In this case, you claim that the distribution was dealt with but offer not one scintilla of proof. You do offer one pretty large strawman, but I prefer real arguments over strawmen.

After rereading Massei and Ann Wise's article, it seems to me that there are three possibilities with respect to what the prosecution had argued: a) that the rock was thrown from the inside and hit the inside face of the glass (but did not go outside); b) that the rock was thrown from the inside and hit the outside face of the glass (as Massei hypothesized); and c) that the rock was thrown from the inside but which face the rock hit was not explained. Of the three possibilities (b) seems least likely, but there is presently not enough information to discriminate among the three.

The defense's hypothesis was the only one that was tested. I had the displeasure of rereading Nadeau's account of Sgt.Pasquali's cross-examination last night. One would think that this former member of the carabinieri were on trial. I look forward to reading his actual testimony.

What part of .....

And no amount of squawking, semantics or giant red type will change that.

........... Is unclear.

BTW That’s not a bishop – it appears to be an Action Man figure with the head covered in bird ****


ps Do you recognise the post title halides1?

 

[Numbers]

It is high time that you understood that "European HR law" is also Italian "HR law". The right of defendants to have speedy access to the evidence against them and to have disclosed to them that which is helpful to them and unhelpful to the prosecution, is an essential element in the convention and its case law supporting findings of Article 6 violations. There must be "equality of arms".

So, all "unused material" by the prosecution should be available to the defence to scrutinise should they wish to do so. The bulk of this material regardless of the reasons you might cite, has never been made available to the defence and Stefanoni's report omitted information, which, when disclosed, demonstratively weakened the prosecution's case.

You appear to be arguing in these threads variously, either that the defence could have had anything it wanted if only it had asked, or, that what the defence asked for it got and in a timely fashion. The transcripts do not support either position. Additionally, tests requested by the defence, in particular the putative semen sample, were refused.

Italian law, as far as I can discern, requires that all "investigatory material" must be handed to the defence; this would be in harmony with the requirements of Article 6. In other words, I do not see why the requirement to disclose is in any case, "request dependent".

If you wish to argue that Italian law does not impose this requirement on the prosecution, I would be interested to hear your argument from the code as to what is required. However, you should be aware that if the law is incapable of being applied in a convention compliant manner, then it must be unconstitutional.

It is axiomatic that the disclosure even now at this late stage of all the unused material in this case will be of a profoundly helpful nature in relation to the task of assessing the value of the evidence presented against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito. I fail to see how anyone actually interested in the truth would not be supportive of such disclosure.

Excellent discussion.
The guilters always forget (or neglect) that Italian HR law includes the Convention.
But they also forget (or neglect) the Italian Constitution and CPP articles that were violated in this case.

 

[Dan O.]

-


-

I didn't know that about the zaino. I've always had a backpack with me all the time and still do. I don't know if you could use it to carry a rock. Could you swing it around easily to the front or is it a back pack you wear in the front. That would be better. Keep the center of gravity towards your front. Worth thinking about.

Good catch and thank you,

I'm now just wondering if it's a good tactical idea to climb up to throw the rock through the window. How do you physically do that? I gotta find me a 4 kg rock and do some test. I'm wondering if you can get enough leverage to actually throw the rock, or maybe you wouldn't have to.

I need to think about this some more,

d

-

And you call yourself a burglar...

It defeats the purpose of throwing the rock as a means of testing for the presence of occupants if you climb up to the window with the rock. In other circumstances such as breaking into a law office after hours, stealth is more important so one would carry the rock up to the balcony and try to muffle the sound of breaking glass. In such a case we would expect to find the rock outside as it was at the law office and not inside as with Filomena's room.

 

[anglolawyer]

What part of .....

And no amount of squawking, semantics or giant red type will change that.

........... Is unclear.

BTW That’s not a bishop – it appears to be an Action Man figure with the head covered in bird ****


ps Do you recognise the post title halides1?

Meaningless piffle.

 

[Numbers]

-


-

I didn't know that about the zaino. I've always had a backpack with me all the time and still do. I don't know if you could use it to carry a rock. Could you swing it around easily to the front or is it a back pack you wear in the front. That would be better. Keep the center of gravity towards your front. Worth thinking about.

Good catch and thank you,

I'm now just wondering if it's a good tactical idea to climb up to throw the rock through the window. How do you physically do that? I gotta find me a 4 kg rock and do some test. I'm wondering if you can get enough leverage to actually throw the rock, or maybe you wouldn't have to.

I need to think about this some more,

d

-

If some are thinking/claiming the rock was thrown from a position next to the window - while Guede was perched on the top rung of the grill or the stone casement on top of the bottom window - that would be insecure in terms of footing. There were good spots to throw from outside, where the ground was higher a few meters (yards) away from the cottage exterior.

 

[Dan O.]

As far as I can tell, there would be no difference as far as evidence between staged or not staged if the rock being thrown from out. Effectively, the argument "staged" can no longer be used.
It has to be obviously staged for them to argue guilt.

Their argument is that it was staged backwards by first trashing Filomena's room and then breaking the window. But where is the evidence? The prosecutions own photographs don't show this.

 

[carbonjam72]

-


-

I agree about the paper bag.and the rock. I'm going to have to get a paper bag and a rock and see what happens to be sure though.

I'm sorry to use your post to ask this question again.

If you're not basing your decisions on confirmation bias, why would you believe non-evidence of Rudy in the break-in room helps prove his innocence of that crime, but Amanda's non-evidence in Meredith's room doesn't help prove her innocence of killing Meredith?
I don't get it. It just doesn't make any sense to me,

d

-

<snip>


The difference is the fact that in Meredith bedroom, there was a bloody violent murder in a small confined space. One would expect there to be more evidence left behind, and there was. Indeed, there was lots of biological traces from only Rudy Guede, and if other people were also present, it seems not just likely, but necessary that they would have left similar amounts of similar evidence of themselves in the room too. As further physical confirmation, there is only one set of footprints in Merdith's wet blood, which Rudy acknowledges are his own, and that he was there when Meredith bled to death. That not only didn't he call the police, but he further locked the door and then went dancing, and then fled the country before anyone was looking for him specifically. Morever, the defense expert took a photo of one of Rudy's footprints that appeared to show glass in his shoe, suggesting the glass was broken before Rudy stepped in Meredith's wet blood.

Dr Mark Waterbury (IIRC) wrote that it is a scientific impossibility that anyone else could have participated in the murder of Meredith, and not left any evidence of themselves behind. (I know that quote isn't exact, but it was something to that effect, others may jump in and correct - the point is, this was a violent bloody mess, and evidence of only one person - Rudy).

Filomena's Bedroom window -

So once we accept that Rudy was in Meredith's room when she died, and had stepped in glass before hand, what is the more scenario as to how Rudy entered the cottage? Rudy's story that he was on a date with Meredith? Or that he entered through the window, the same methodology he had used in previous break-ins?

Someone broke that window. You could suggest it wasn't Rudy because evidence of Rudy wasn't found in Filomena's bedroom. But someone upthread mentioned only 5 samples were taken. And separately, there was 'apparent blood' and hair samples found on the windowsill. (Chris mentioned the 'presumed blood' tested positive for TMB, but after improperly delayed for months, failed a follow-up test after the blood sample may well have lost its ability to respond to that follow-up test. AND, the hairs were (IIRC) somehow lost by Stef's lab.

So the police didn't look as hard for evidence in Filomena's room, and lost or mishandled evidence they did find that may well have directly linked Rudy to that room. So its not a fair comparison of 'apples to apples' as they say, to suggest that zero evidence of Amanda in Meredith's room is equally exculpatory of the lack of evidence of Rudy in Filomena's room. Amanda lived at the cottage, her traces could have been found and been there innocently. Rudy did not live there, and his presence anywhere in the house is already a violation of that domicile. Guilters like to say 'the whole cottage is the crime scene'. In regards to Rudy's crime of B&E, that statement is true. With respect to Amanda's traces of her presence in her own home, it most certainly is not).

I would say, the fact that there is glass in Rudy's shoe print in Meredith's wet blood, puts Rudy in Filomena's room when the window was broken, contrary to the story he has told. Maybe that's the best I can do.

But let's try it the other way around. If Rudy didn't break the window, then who did? Why pick Amanda and Raf over anyone else in Perugia at the time?

The fact that the witness Popovic verified Amanda and Raf at Raf's apartment at 840pm, ought to be confirmation of their alibi that they spent the entire night at Raf's apartment. I think its unsupported, and indeed false conjecture, to suggest they ever left Raf's apartment. It's literally only Mignini's allegation that the question of Amanda and Raf's whereabouts are even being discussed. (the only witness who claims to have seen them outside that night, is the serial Mignini witness, and homeless heroin addict Curatolo, who gave contradictory testimony, and let's face it, should never have been allowed into court.)

At some point, you have to call a spade a spade. There may be people who never quite reach that point in this case and others, but the standard is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I'm past that point on Rudy's guilt, and Amanda and Raf's innocence.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 11 (at request of user).

 

[Numbers]

Alex_K on IIP/IAF provided the following quote from the ruling by the UK (Northern Ireland) judge who acquitted Sean Hoey of bombing charges in 2007.

The Defence submit, correctly in my judgment, that it is for the prosecution to establish the integrity and freedom from possible contamination of each item throughout the entirety of the period between seizure and any examination relied upon. They contend, and I accept the contention, that the court must be satisfied by the prosecution witnesses and supporting documents that all dealings with each relevant exhibit have been satisfactorily accounted for from the moment of its seizure until the moment when any evidential sample relied upon by the prosecution is taken from it and that by a method and in conditions that are shown to have been reliable. This means that each person who has dealt with the item in the intervening period must be ascertainable and be able to demonstrate by reference to some proper system of bagging, labelling, and recording that the item has been preserved at every stage free from the suspicion of interference or contamination. For this purpose they must be able to demonstrate how and when and under what conditions and with what object and by what means and in whose presence he or she examined the item. Only if all these requirements have been satisfactorily vouched can a tribunal have confidence in the reliability of any forensic findings said to have been derived from any examination of the item.

I will point out the ECHR may also go to rulings by domestic courts to look for precedents regarding standards for reliability. Of course, they offer the ECHR position after consideration of other information and precedents.

ETA: In the quote, note: At every stage of handling, the prosecution must demonstrate that for each item of the evidence (item with potential DNA material) "that the item has been preserved at every stage free from the suspicion of interference or contamination"." ...it is for the prosecution to establish the integrity and freedom from possible contamination of each item throughout the entirety of the period between seizure and any examination relied upon."

This was not done by the Italian police and prosecution in this case, in particular for the bra clasp, but also for the knife.

 

[anglolawyer]

Alex_K on IIP/IAF provided the following quote from the ruling by the UK (Northern Ireland) judge who acquitted Sean Hoey of bombing charges in 2007.



I will point out the ECHR may also go to rulings by domestic courts to look for precedents regarding standards for reliability. Of course, they offer the ECHR position after consideration of other information and precedents.

ETA: In the quote, note: At every stage of handling, the prosecution must demonstrate that for each item of the evidence (item with potential DNA material) "that the item has been preserved at every stage free from the suspicion of interference or contamination." This was not done by the Italian police and prosecution in this case, in particular for the bra clasp, but also for the knife.

That is the law. Where is that handclap emoticon?

 

[Numbers]

That is the law. Where is that handclap emoticon?

I searched the smilies for one in response to your message. This may have to do.