Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

LJ

Did you also happen to catch the explanation you asked for.

How do you account for the contradiction between your ‘early and precise ToD’ and your explanation of RS’s latest interview i.e. ‘wasn’t sure if she slipped out while he was asleep’.

Have you dropped your ‘dead by 9.20 with a p value of 0.998’ theory? Thousands upon thousands of words and now you cast it off without a thought.

It seems such a waste.

No, you're confusing and conflating issues here.

Firstly, Sollecito is stating in essence that he cannot be 100% certain that Knox didn't leave his apartment at some point that night. He's not addressing the precise time of the murder at all.

Secondly, regardless of the time of the murder, if Knox DID leave at some point during the evening/night, she might still have been involved in some sort of criminal act related to the murder, even if the murder itself happened before 9.30. For example (and speaking entirely hypothetically) suppose Guede had contacted her while Sollecito was dozing/sleeping and asked her to come over and help him clear up the crime scene, she'd be guilty of a crime, no?

Thirdly, Sollecito (and Knox) is already battling a judicial decision that the murder took place at some imprecise time that might be as late as 11.40 (per Massei). Arguing against this is a different matter than stating what he knows about his and Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder.

Fourthly, I don't unfortunately think that Sollecito and his legal team (or Knox and her legal team) have ever really grasped the significance of the stomach/duodenum evidence, and its critical relevance to determining ToD (and, by extension, the way it provides significant support for Knox's and Sollecito's non-involvement).


It truly is simple to understand. Sollecito is stating that he knows he had nothing to do with the murder or anything associated with it. He knows he was in his apartment all evening/night of the 1st/2nd November 2007. But while he strongly believes Knox was with him all evening/night, he cannot state that with 100& certainty, and it's not his responsibility to do so either. It is Knox's responsibility to state that she too was in Sollecito's apartment all evening/night - and similarly she should not be able to state with 100% certainty that Sollecito was there all night too.

Sollecito only has a responsibility to defend himself, and he should not get tied up trying to defend Knox as well. That is her job. All Sollecito can do is state that he is innocent, and that in addition he knows a certain amount about Knox's actions too and believes her to be innocent as well. Which is exactly what he has done.

 

[codyjuneau]

These all seem to be possibilities. What is interesting, if shocking, is that no one seems to know what terms such as "beyond a reasonable doubt", "burden of proof", "presumption of innocence", and "reliability of evidence" mean in the Italian judicial system. All they have are "compatibility" and "osmosis" as standards.

.
Yes, besides that, jurors are not screened or sequestered, and a majority vote wins.

In other words, a crapshoot.

Cody
.

 

[Samson]

.
Yes, besides that, jurors are not screened or sequestered, and a majority vote wins.

In other words, a crapshoot.

Cody
.

One of the most interesting posts on this on PMF was Popper, who says the lay jurors vote first, youngest to oldest, and if the first 4, of 6 lay jurors and 2judges vote for acquittal, the process stops and the defendent is not guilty. This is treated with scepticism here, maybe Machiavelli could clarify.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am not certain how much of a real voice the lay judges really have. . . .How can a professional judge make a report on why if he is not the one really making the decision.

 

[Rolfe]

Hypothetically, the judges will have been party to the deliberations that led up to the verdict, so they should be capable of articulating the reasoning behind it, even if they themselves didn't necessarily agree.

 

[Desert Fox]

Hypothetically, the judges will have been party to the deliberations that led up to the verdict, so they should be capable of articulating the reasoning behind it, even if they themselves didn't necessarily agree.

I guess but I am skeptical cynical. . . .My thoughts is that the professional judge actually makes the verdict, bullies half the lay judges into agreeing, and then has creative writing practice.

 

[LondonJohn]

One of the most interesting posts on this on PMF was Popper, who says the lay jurors vote first, youngest to oldest, and if the first 4, of 6 lay jurors and 2judges vote for acquittal, the process stops and the defendent is not guilty. This is treated with scepticism here, maybe Machiavelli could clarify.

I believe that it is indeed formally done this way.

In practice, however, what almost certainly happens goes along the following chronological lines:

1) There is a group deliberation. The two professional judges make it abundantly clear which way they view the case (i.e. guilt or non-guilt).

2) With that thought implanted in the lay jurors' minds, they are then invited to vote for guilt or non-guilt before the professional judges.

So even though the lay jurors get to vote first, they almost certainly know how the professional judges feel. It would be astonishing if the views and intended verdicts of the professional judges didn't have some undue influence on the choices of the lay jurors. The only question is how much. In my opinion, it's highly likely to have a very high influence most of the time. Indeed, it would be very interesting indeed to find a criminal case in Italy where the two professional judges had voted one way, and the lay jurors had overturned them by voting the other way in sufficient numbers. I suspect there will be very few such cases, if any.....

 

[Bill Williams]

No, you're confusing and conflating issues here.

Firstly, Sollecito is stating in essence that he cannot be 100% certain that Knox didn't leave his apartment at some point that night. He's not addressing the precise time of the murder at all.

Raffaele simply cannot know, and has no relevant testimony to offer as to time of death.

Secondly, regardless of the time of the murder, if Knox DID leave at some point during the evening/night, she might still have been involved in some sort of criminal act related to the murder, even if the murder itself happened before 9.30. For example (and speaking entirely hypothetically) suppose Guede had contacted her while Sollecito was dozing/sleeping and asked her to come over and help him clear up the crime scene, she'd be guilty of a crime, no?

This is, in essence, what Bongiorno is getting at with the "separation strategy". The Nencini court is saying that if a piece of evidence tends to incriminate one, it (judicially) incriminates both. In the hypothetical example you use here, the Nencini court would still hold Raffaele culpable.

Thirdly, Sollecito (and Knox) is already battling a judicial decision that the murder took place at some imprecise time that might be as late as 11.40 (per Massei). Arguing against this is a different matter than stating what he knows about his and Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder.

Thanks for putting it the right way. See comment below about lawyers without the stomach.

Fourthly, I don't unfortunately think that Sollecito and his legal team (or Knox and her legal team) have ever really grasped the significance of the stomach/duodenum evidence, and its critical relevance to determining ToD (and, by extension, the way it provides significant support for Knox's and Sollecito's non-involvement).

I disagree that the defense lawyers never grasped the significance of the science. They also grasped something else - that an Italian court (esp. Massei's and Nencini's) is simply going to believe the police-forensics regardless... and further, to place the burden of disproving back on to the defence if they griped about the science. And further, to demand this of the defence, while denying the defence the opportunity to see how the prosecution arrived at their conclusion! As they saw on many other issues this was a losing strategy - with Massei and Nencini, anyways.

For instance, in asking for independent DNA evaluation, Judge Massei denied the request saying, (paraphrase) "I can see no reason why Stefanoni would want to mislead the court." End of story.

It truly is simple to understand. Sollecito is stating that he knows he had nothing to do with the murder or anything associated with it. He knows he was in his apartment all evening/night of the 1st/2nd November 2007. But while he strongly believes Knox was with him all evening/night, he cannot state that with 100% certainty, and it's not his responsibility to do so either. It is Knox's responsibility to state that she too was in Sollecito's apartment all evening/night - and similarly she should not be able to state with 100% certainty that Sollecito was there all night too.

Right here is where the pro-guilt lobby misuses science. There is NO science discipline which seeks 100% certainty to begin with. The most basic of stats asks for a 95% tolerance, 19 times out of 20. For really important studies, sometimes that is bumped up to 99%, 19 times out of 20.

The pro-guilt lobby wants to turn "less than 100%" into, "Raffaele is obviously a liar."

Well, guilters need to know that all bridge engineering and airport communications/navigation is built on something less than 100% certainty. Yes, there is a high, high, level of tolerance, but just because someone says they are not 100% certain does not make them a liar. This is one of the biggest guilter canards there is.

Sollecito only has a responsibility to defend himself, and he should not get tied up trying to defend Knox as well. That is her job. All Sollecito can do is state that he is innocent, and that in addition he knows a certain amount about Knox's actions too and believes her to be innocent as well. Which is exactly what he has done.

However, there is a consequence to the court declaring Raffaele's innocence. It just so happens to be the second best thing (judicially) that could happen to Amanda. Therefore Nencini's instincts are quite correct if this wrongful prosecution is to continue past March 25. What convicts one, has to convict the other, even if it doesn't.

 

[Numbers]

One of the most interesting posts on this on PMF was Popper, who says the lay jurors vote first, youngest to oldest, and if the first 4, of 6 lay jurors and 2judges vote for acquittal, the process stops and the defendent is not guilty. This is treated with scepticism here, maybe Machiavelli could clarify.

Yes, the CPP (code of criminal procedure) calls for the youngest lay judges to vote first, followed by the other lay judges in order by age, then the pros.

But I suspect that the lay judges vote according to the opinions they have heard expressed by the pro judges prior to voting.

Qualification to be a lay judge is: 1) having completed middle school, for a first-level trial; 2) having completed high school for a second-level trial.

 

[Bill Williams]

I guess but I am skeptical cynical. . . .My thoughts is that the professional judge actually makes the verdict, bullies half the lay judges into agreeing, and then has creative writing practice.

Even Machiavelli admitted upthread that Motivations Reports are inaccurate.

 

[sept79]

I guess but I am skeptical cynical. . . .My thoughts is that the professional judge actually makes the verdict, bullies half the lay judges into agreeing, and then has creative writing practice.

And if the lay judges have any thoughts of a public airing of any criticism against the professional judges, they must be ever mindful of charges being brought against them by said professional judges . . .

 

[Rolfe]

I guess but I am skeptical cynical. . . .My thoughts is that the professional judge actually makes the verdict, bullies half the lay judges into agreeing, and then has creative writing practice.

That's why I said, hypothetically.

 

[Samson]

No, you're confusing and conflating issues here.

Firstly, Sollecito is stating in essence that he cannot be 100% certain that Knox didn't leave his apartment at some point that night. He's not addressing the precise time of the murder at all.

Secondly, regardless of the time of the murder, if Knox DID leave at some point during the evening/night, she might still have been involved in some sort of criminal act related to the murder, even if the murder itself happened before 9.30. For example (and speaking entirely hypothetically) suppose Guede had contacted her while Sollecito was dozing/sleeping and asked her to come over and help him clear up the crime scene, she'd be guilty of a crime, no?

Thirdly, Sollecito (and Knox) is already battling a judicial decision that the murder took place at some imprecise time that might be as late as 11.40 (per Massei). Arguing against this is a different matter than stating what he knows about his and Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder.

Fourthly, I don't unfortunately think that Sollecito and his legal team (or Knox and her legal team) have ever really grasped the significance of the stomach/duodenum evidence, and its critical relevance to determining ToD (and, by extension, the way it provides significant support for Knox's and Sollecito's non-involvement).
It truly is simple to understand. Sollecito is stating that he knows he had nothing to do with the murder or anything associated with it. He knows he was in his apartment all evening/night of the 1st/2nd November 2007. But while he strongly believes Knox was with him all evening/night, he cannot state that with 100& certainty, and it's not his responsibility to do so either. It is Knox's responsibility to state that she too was in Sollecito's apartment all evening/night - and similarly she should not be able to state with 100% certainty that Sollecito was there all night too.

Sollecito only has a responsibility to defend himself, and he should not get tied up trying to defend Knox as well. That is her job. All Sollecito can do is state that he is innocent, and that in addition he knows a certain amount about Knox's actions too and believes her to be innocent as well. Which is exactly what he has done.

This is the most intriguing matter, because if I were Sollecito, I can imagine talking about little else in these interviews until people do this most basic of research. Despite the hard evidence of gastric emptying scans and the complete impossibility of emptying beginning much after 9 pm in a live Meredith, there are studies piling on one another to prove this.
I just read this one.

Abstract
The time of death estimation plays important role in solving both criminal and civil cases. The inspection of the gastric contents must be part of every postmortem examination because if the time of taking last meal is known, the approximate time of death can be made out indirectly. The rate of gastric emptying varies in man from 2.5 to 6 hours. The length of time required to empty the stomach is variable as it depends upon a host of factors like nature and consistency of food, motility of stomach, contents, environment, emotional/psychological factors and residual variations. The aim of this study is to determine approximate time of death by examination of gastric contents in deceased body brought to mortuary at Civil Hospital Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Present study was conducted on total 100 deceased persons (70 males and 30 females) whose time of death and time of last meal were known. Gastric contents were examined and divided in three categories; semi-digested identifiable food particles, semi-digested un-identifiable food particles, empty stomach. These findings were compared with time interval between last meal and time of death. In present study the identifiable semi-digested food particle were found more commonly in those persons who died 0-2 hours after last meal, un-identifiable semi-digested food particle were found more commonly in those persons who died 2-6 hours after last meal and empty stomach were found more commonly in those persons who died more than 6 hours after last meal. From present study we conclude that indirect estimation of time since death can be possible from examination of gastric content but due to variability of gastric emptying in different individuals we can’t exactly define time since death.

link : http://www.scopemed.org/?mno=40697

Clearly this is a text book case where before noting that empty duodenum, this study discussing identifiable food particles confirms someone must have been in the house ready to kill at 9pm after that six to seven pm last meal, and computer evidence and eyewitness testimony, Popovich, tell us this could not be Raffaele Sollecito.
In this matter all roads lead directly to Rome, Raffaele was unavailable for this crime. Let us consider the dna on the bra clasp, and the collection time and process in this light, Oh great judges in epic Italy. This is all you actually have, and it is discredited.

Oh, and platonov.

 

[Rolfe]

This is the most intriguing matter, because if I were Sollecito, I can imagine talking about little else in these interviews until people do this most basic of research.

This is something that's intriguing me too. The stomach contents are the absolute clincher that makes sense of the entire scenario. Once you know Meredith died not long after nine (I'll stretch to 9.20 as that's when Rudy said she screamed, but probably a bit earlier) it gives you a framework to fit the rest of it round. And fit it does.

And yet none of the high-profile commentators want to talk about this. Nobody is trying to hammer it home. It's the narrative that makes sense, and would make sense of any account of the murder, but they'd rather witter on about mops and bleach receipts and people hearing running feet. The accused themselves don't seem to understand the importance of it.

It seems to me that too many people have just heard "alimentary tract findings are an unreliable guide to time of death" and dismiss it. It's too complicated to get your head round the explanation of why, in this case, unusually, alimentary tract findings give an extremely precise time of death.

I'm getting the same kind of thing with the Lockerbie evidence, though I think the reasons might not be quite the same. I've proved, boringly, that the police were entirely wrong about where and when they thought the crime happened. The commentators only want to talk about whether evidence was planted.

 

[JREF2010]

I guess but I am skeptical cynical. . . .My thoughts is that the professional judge actually makes the verdict, bullies half the lay judges into agreeing, and then has creative writing practice.

I agree, and even just human nature in general outsiders, inexperienced common folk would look for direction from the Judges and those in the system.

IN Italy even worse because everyone has to live in fear if they say anything bad about the system they can be tossed in prison, and if you say they roughed you up or anything, they can add a 6Yr prison term for Crap-ullunia.

 

[Dougm]

I have always wondered why the defense has never made a bigger issue of the stomach contents/TOD argument. All I can think of is that they think that it will be handwaived away by the judges, just like the guilters do.

It is my understanding this type of science used to be considered unreliable because it varied too much, but, in this case, even the estimated range of timing makes it very unlikely that Amanda and Raffaele could have committed the crime. That, combined with the lack of clear evidence to prove they were even present at the cottage that night, would be a slam dunk acquittal in most trials.

I just wonder why the defense has not used this point more aggressively?

 

[platonov]

The Cheshire Cat has finally disappeared..

I didn't see it, I still don't understand Italian. Raffaele's position doesn't confuse me at all, it never has. He doesn't think Amanda went out that night, he doesn't remember anything suggesting she killed someone and came back to him, but he doesn't want to get convicted of murder just because he's an alibi. He cannot be certain she didn't sneak out at some time when he was sleeping or unaware of her leaving so he's hoping that if they feel they must convict Amanda to leave him out of it.

Regarding a previous comment of yours that others found obscure but I thought I understood, if Raffaele just had to account for Amanda's whereabouts until 9:30 PM, by which time the murder had almost certainly occurred, it would be one thing. However the prosecution has managed to place the ToD as late as 11:45 PM and their reality is what he must account for, not 9:30.




I like your use of habitué. I have no idea why you think there's a connection between the one and the other.

OK Kaosium.

You want to leave cartwheel world and discuss stuff from the real world. That is my preferred domain.
You obviously aren’t familiar with AK’s courtroom testimony, or what the court that convicted them found/ruled.
Why would you be - Nov 5th, DNA/Forensics, Fenestration, ballistics, Human rights, Internalised false confessions and the Law are your areas of expertise.

But if you were familiar you would note that AK testifies about - in chronological order -a late dinner (fish&salad), then washing up, the broken pipe[ which AK places ‘around 11’], discussions about mops, going together to his room, smoking a joint, making love and falling asleep together.

And Raffy can’t vouch for any of that!

The convicting court, Massei has, them entering the flat at 11 [ignoring Curatolo] and ToD at a few minutes after 23.30.

So this recently resurrected ‘wasn’t sure if she went out after he fell asleep’ doesn’t work in the real world.
It’s strictly cartwheel world stuff. Do you see.
So have another go.

If you prefer the short version – He is withdrawing the alibi he never gave her. It’s the TV version of his defence teams April 2008 legal move.
Presumably a precursor to his Cassation submission as Mach has it. Which will be a continuation of the request to Nencini to split the defence?

 

[Rolfe]

I have always wondered why the defense has never made a bigger issue of the stomach contents/TOD argument. All I can think of is that they think that it will be handwaived away by the judges, just like the guilters do.

It is my understanding this type of science used to be considered unreliable because it varied too much, but, in this case, even the estimated range of timing makes it very unlikely that Amanda and Raffaele could have committed the crime. That, combined with the lack of clear evidence to prove they were even present at the cottage that night, would be a slam dunk acquittal in most trials.

I just wonder why the defense has not used this point more aggressively?

Her entire meal was still in her stomach, and recognisable. Even if there had been some peculiar reason why gastric emptying was delayed, things like pizza and crumble don't remain recognisably pizza and crumble indefinitely.

I had to do a post mortem on a cat a month or two ago. His duodenum was empty, but he had two separate meals of cat food in his stomach. The pyloric region had mashed-up paste, ready to head for the duodenum, while the cardia had dry cat food pellets that had scarcely had time to moisten. This chap had died very suddenly, while possessed of a good appetite, very shortly after having tucked into his food dish, and also having eaten a meal perhaps three hours previously. It was of minor importance, as he turned out to have died of a sudden asthma attack, but it was possible to tell the owners that he hadn't been lying around in agony for hours.

It's the same with Meredith. A reasonably fresh meal still in the stomach means a fairly short time since she ate. End point of probability, not long after nine. She was seen alive shortly before nine. What's so hard about that?

 

[Samson]

This is something that's intriguing me too. The stomach contents are the absolute clincher that makes sense of the entire scenario. Once you know Meredith died not long after nine (I'll stretch to 9.20 as that's when Rudy said she screamed, but probably a bit earlier) it gives you a framework to fit the rest of it round. And fit it does.

And yet none of the high-profile commentators want to talk about this. Nobody is trying to hammer it home. It's the narrative that makes sense, and would make sense of any account of the murder, but they'd rather witter on about mops and bleach receipts and people hearing running feet. The accused themselves don't seem to understand the importance of it.

It seems to me that too many people have just heard "alimentary tract findings are an unreliable guide to time of death" and dismiss it. It's too complicated to get your head round the explanation of why, in this case, unusually, alimentary tract findings give an extremely precise time of death.

I'm getting the same kind of thing with the Lockerbie evidence, though I think the reasons might not be quite the same. I've proved, boringly, that the police were entirely wrong about where and when they thought the crime happened. The commentators only want to talk about whether evidence was planted.

I understand the importance of parallels in these cases, and they should be able to be discussed without being perceived as derails of a thread.
I am now fascinated to see we are in day 4 of the Mark Lundy retrial here, and the prosecution have incredibly moved time of death for the two victims from 7 15pm to early morning, and they ate MacDonalds before 6pm. And yet they have scheduled a 3 month trial and 150 witnesses. They have some sort of a pathologist's report,

quote:

Pathologist Dr James Pang examined Christine and Amber Lundy's stomach contents and "gastric smell" during a post mortem, and testified at Lundy's 2002 trial that they had died within one hour and 10 minutes of eating their last meal.

The pair had bought McDonald's from the Rangitikei Street outlet at 5.43pm on the night of their death, so Dr Pang placed their time of death between 7pm and 7.15pm. end quote.

There must be something easy to bring to this party!

 

[platonov]

..... not even the smile remains.

No, you're confusing and conflating issues here.

Firstly, Sollecito is stating in essence that he cannot be 100% certain that Knox didn't leave his apartment at some point that night. He's not addressing the precise time of the murder at all.

Secondly, regardless of the time of the murder, if Knox DID leave at some point during the evening/night, she might still have been involved in some sort of criminal act related to the murder, even if the murder itself happened before 9.30. For example (and speaking entirely hypothetically) suppose Guede had contacted her while Sollecito was dozing/sleeping and asked her to come over and help him clear up the crime scene, she'd be guilty of a crime, no?

Thirdly, Sollecito (and Knox) is already battling a judicial decision that the murder took place at some imprecise time that might be as late as 11.40 (per Massei). Arguing against this is a different matter than stating what he knows about his and Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder.

Fourthly, I don't unfortunately think that Sollecito and his legal team (or Knox and her legal team) have ever really grasped the significance of the stomach/duodenum evidence, and its critical relevance to determining ToD (and, by extension, the way it provides significant support for Knox's and Sollecito's non-involvement).


It truly is simple to understand. Sollecito is stating that he knows he had nothing to do with the murder or anything associated with it. He knows he was in his apartment all evening/night of the 1st/2nd November 2007. But while he strongly believes Knox was with him all evening/night, he cannot state that with 100& certainty, and it's not his responsibility to do so either. It is Knox's responsibility to state that she too was in Sollecito's apartment all evening/night - and similarly she should not be able to state with 100% certainty that Sollecito was there all night too.

Sollecito only has a responsibility to defend himself, and he should not get tied up trying to defend Knox as well. That is her job. All Sollecito can do is state that he is innocent, and that in addition he knows a certain amount about Knox's actions too and believes her to be innocent as well. Which is exactly what he has done.

It truly is

See my response to Kaosium.