Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Two possibilities: the paramedics washed up after verifying that Meredith was dead. They could not have needed to do this as they would be wearing disposable gloves. The other possibility is that "We washed the sink" is a generic phrase reffering to the perpetrators having washed in the sink.

If ther are already talking about using Luminol in the bathroom this first day, why do they spray the whole room in phenotheylin and turn everything pink?

In addition, one has to be extremely careful in transcription, since Italian declines verbs in a somewhat indistinct manner sometimes. In this instance, it's very hard to make out the audio clearly, and it's also mumbled somewhat. It's therefore entirely possible (in my view) that the forensic monkey is saying words to the effect that "they washed the sink", ie "the sink has been washed".

 

[Dan O.]

Gosh; so you believe the judges assigned to deliberate this case next week have been (are) wading through dossier after dossier reading letters from Dr Budowle or extracts from Dr Gill’s book?

No, they probably just kick back and relax in front of the tele like everyone else.

 

[Wannaknow]

Have a look at this. It's mentioned in the appeal. One of the stooges turned on the tap in the bathroom and washed away possible evidence within 2 hours of the body being discovered. Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSYSP8xR1vc

Perhaps I am wrong, but in my ears, the first words are:

si, il lavandino, propria lava il lavandino

I can't find a third person plural here, but my Italian is extremely poor.

There are some Italian speakers here, perhaps they can help.

Greetings

 

[Dan O.]

What I've found on parking in Perugia is that tourists can get a 24 hour parking token for €7.50 at various cash registers. The parking company isn't interested in who you are, only in getting their money. The parking tokens are likely a rechargeable anonymous card like many metro cards. More info is likely available in Italian but that is more work to search.

 

[toto]

Clarification about Amanda's knowledge of Guede

The poster called Ergon wrote on another site:

"Amanda Knox had been hanging out with him (Guede) 5 days."

Is just referring to when she and Meredith hung out with the boys downstairs. If he wants to throw her under the bus, could he at least do a half-assed job of it?​

I hope someone tells Ergon that the sentences as translated by someone on pmf:

I'm not the one who chose to hang out with Rudy Guede.
Whom I've never seen, and I don't know.
Amanda Knox had been hanging out with him 5 days.​

were retranslated, again by someone on pmf as:

"It's not as though I made my choices on the basis of Rudy Guede, whom I don't know in the least.
I had never in my life seen him nor...did I make my choices on the basis of...Amanda Knox, whom I hung out with, for five days. I made my choices for myself, for who I am, for the truth, for what I said...​

I don't think Ergon clarifies the fact sufficiently that the first translation was wrong but credit due to pmf posting a better translation.

 

[Dan O.]

...
CJ, in the parkade, and just before the electric barrier gate, on the driver's side, there is some kind of access control box. If the car went into the parkade, and if the driver is required to insert an identity card to to open the gate, it might still be possible to access the archived records using the timestamps on the video, to find out who owned the car (just like it might still be possible to find out who made the bomb threat phone call, or to find out exactly when the mechanic was called, or to retrieve the archived interrogations tapes, etc.).
.

There is another view of the gate control from camera 11 in the toe truck images. Compare that to the gate controls in the gate section of this site: http://www.parkit.it/apparati/

Another tourist blog talks about getting parking tickets validated at hotels. This would indicate the use of the magnetic stripe system.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

*sigh*
OK. Here's a thought experiment for you. Supposing that, tomorrow, a piece of evidence turned up for the first time which totally exonerated Knox and Sollecito. Suppose, for example, that there had been a CCTV camera covering the entrance to Sollecito's apartment building, which had been constantly recording on the night of the murder, and which showed that Knox and Sollecito had entered the apartment building at (say) 5.30pm on the night of the murder and that neither had re-emerged from the apartment building until the following morning (repeat: this is a thought experiment. I'm not suggesting that such evidence is going to turn up....).
If such evidence did turn up at this stage, do you think it would be irrelevant? Do you think that since it had not been entered into evidence in any of the trial, it would have no potential bearing on the outcome? And aside from any impact on the trial process, do you think it would have any bearing in the search for the actual truth as to what happened that night in Perugia?

Hypothetical scenarios, really!?

As previously stated Dr Gill was not called as a witness in the trial or subsequent appeals. Maybe you can provide an example of a trial judge taking into consideration an expert opinion of someone who was never called as a witness in court.
I would imagine that a legal summary of this case has already been prepared along with submitted appeals from both defence teams and this will form the deliberations of court of cassation judges, so no it is not set in stone, but I do believe it is absurd to believe Dr Gill appearance on Italian TV last week will have any impact on deliberations next week.

The highlighted section refers.

 

[carbonjam72]

.
Another thought on the CCTV videos. We have seen frames from Telecamera 7 of people looking out towards the street from 21:44 to 21:52 (uncorrected CCTV time) http://amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/cctv-perugia.jpg

Do we have the video capture from Telecamera 11 for that same time period. It might give an indication of what the people are looking at.

Cody
.

Wouldn't this same camera view also provide an image of the man alleged to be Rudy walking out of the garage before the burglary? Doesn't that view show more of what's happening in front of the cottage, and Meredtith walking by?

I'm amazed to see this new camera view exists. Has everyone been aware of this? Is this a new development? Was any of this in evidence in court?

 

[carbonjam72]

As previously stated Dr Gill was not called as a witness in the trial or subsequent appeals. Maybe you can provide an example of a trial judge taking into consideration an expert opinion someone who was never called as a witness in court.

I would imagine that a legal summary of this case has already been prepared along with submitted appeals from both defence teams and this will form the deliberations of court of cassation judges, so no it is not set in stone, but I do believe it is absurd to believe Dr Gill appearance on Italian TV last week will have any impact on deliberations next week.

DR Gill going on national TV in Italy to explain that the judges in THIS case, have misunderstood the nature of DNA evidence presented, reversed the burden of proof, and that such a burden is impossible for any defendant to meet in any case ever - well yes, that could be relevant.

Courts often rely on outside expert opinion, even those not specifically called as witnesses in a trial. Courts often rely on published opinions and books by acknowledged experts in the field of whatever area they are looking into.

That expert opinion is so directly relevant to the only evidence in this case makes the judges taking notice of Dr Gill's views so compelling, and determinative of the final outcome.

No judiciary wants to make bad law based on a misunderstanding of science.

Your long term bias in the case is reflected in your concern that Dr Gill's views will make a difference. I think you can feel these convictions slipping away. What's sad is that you don't see these convictions as unjust, and having caused enormous suffering to the innocent and their families.

 

[MichaelB]

Here's the last batch showing the person at 8.20pm

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/cctv-images-8-20pm/

 

[Dan O.]

Wouldn't this same camera view also provide an image of the man alleged to be Rudy walking out of the garage before the burglary? Doesn't that view show more of what's happening in front of the cottage, and Meredtith walking by?

I'm amazed to see this new camera view exists. Has everyone been aware of this? Is this a new development? Was any of this in evidence in court?

Camera 11 is looking at the second level exit gate at the east end of the parking structure. Nothing important happened this far down the road.

The camera footage we want to see is from the camera inside looking at the well illuminated metal stair case at the back of the parking structure. You know, the one that the miracle ear lady heard somebody running up afteer the scream. This camera would be set to record pedestrians because few cars would be using those stairs. Why is it that we don't have video confirming Nara's story and fixing the time of this event? Could it be that the prosecution doesn't want us to see that data?

 

[Diocletus]

As previously stated Dr Gill was not called as a witness in the trial or subsequent appeals. Maybe you can provide an example of a trial judge taking into consideration an expert opinion someone who was never called as a witness in court.

What are you yabbering on about? This happens all the time.

Gill wrote a scholarly book. The book is cited in the defendant's brief. It wouldn't be unusual at all for the court to review or even refer to such reference material in its decision.

What is unusual is that that during the pendency of this trial, the world's foremost expert in the field wrote a book using this very case as an example of how not to do this science.

An intellectually rigorous court would be very concerned about these developments. However, I agree with what you are implying, which is that Cassation is a clown show where the judges are lazy, intellectually dishonest, and above all, quite happy to unjustly lock away innocent people in order to protect the reputation of the rotten "system". Thus, they won't care about Gill's thoughts.

 

[JREF2010]

No, they probably just kick back and relax in front of the tele like everyone else.

This is reality, for better or worse. The truth of Nencini's verdict is probably based off a quick "fast food drive through" glance of the information.

Maybe he read the Daily Mail and watched porta Porta, instead of the C&V report.

And in all fairness, the Judges are no more a DNA expert than most of us are. The Fake-Judges probably bob their heads to anything Nencini spewed out, assuming hes the expert because he wears the funny looking robe.

And then toss in snakes like Maresca, saying on tv "the victims DNA was found on the tip of the blade of the knife." Lying on tv, playing the role of the lying-snake.

And maybe the non-sequestered Fake-Judge takes this as the truth, maybe John Kercher assumes Maresca has been honest the entire time? Who knows?

 

[Diocletus]

This is reality, for better or worse. The truth of Nencini's verdict is probably based off a quick "fast food drive through" glance of the information.

Maybe he read the Daily Mail and watched porta Porta, instead of the C&V report.

And in all fairness, the Judges are no more a DNA expert than most of us are. The Fake-Judges probably bob their heads to anything Nencini spewed out, assuming hes the expert because he wears the funny looking robe.

And then toss in snakes like Maresca, saying on tv "the victims DNA was found on the tip of the blade of the knife." Lying on tv, playing the role of the lying-snake.

And maybe the non-sequestered Fake-Judge takes this as the truth, maybe John Kercher assumes Maresca has been honest the entire time? Who knows?

Speaking of Maresca, whatever happened to that dirtbag? Haven't heard much from him recently.

 

[platonov]

Chris_Halkides

My point as ever is a simple one, namely Dr Gill did not appear as an expert witness in the trial or subsequent appeals and at this stage of the process I fail to see how his opinion can or will have any impact on proceedings next week. Judicially speaking Conti & Vecchiotti have been knocked into the deep rough and I do not recall Dr Budowle expert testimony.

I do find this all rather bizarre, it is almost though some folks believe experts such as Dr Gill and Dr Budowle transcend a judicial process.

Bizarre but explicable.

It’s seems to be a case of ‘The man on the TV said’ – a ‘You Tube’ form of argument from authority.
What’s even weirder is the lack of discrimination, at least Gill and Budowle have some pedigree.
[Although the UK courts for example don’t take their opinions as gospel, a fact lost on many here it seems]

Routinely here experts like C Dempsey (a food writer), Frank S!, S Moore!!, Waterbury!!! and recently an ITALIAN MAN!!!! are quoted in a quasi religious fashion as though their pronouncements were infallible.
It is weird, I will grant you that.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

DR Gill going on national TV in Italy to explain that the judges in THIS case, have misunderstood the nature of DNA evidence presented, reversed the burden of proof, and that such a burden is impossible for any defendant to meet in any case ever - well yes, that could be relevant.

Courts often rely on outside expert opinion, even those not specifically called as witnesses in a trial. Courts often rely on published opinions and books by acknowledged experts in the field of whatever area they are looking into.

That expert opinion is so directly relevant to the only evidence in this case makes the judges taking notice of Dr Gill's views so compelling, and determinative of the final outcome.

No judiciary wants to make bad law based on a misunderstanding of science.

Your long term bias in the case is reflected in your concern that Dr Gill's views will make a difference. I think you can feel these convictions slipping away. What's sad is that you don't see these convictions as unjust, and having caused enormous suffering to the innocent and their families.

Can you provide an example of where an Italian court has considered the expert opinion of someone who was not called as a witness in any of the various stages of their judicial process?

My opinion is that the Italian Supreme Courts function is the adherence and application of Italian law, some may argue that this has not been done in this case. No doubt if Raffaele and Amanda’s convictions are confirmed next week they will appeal to ECHR and a few years we’ll know in 2018\19 or so.

As I am sure you know, the third level trial does not examine or re-examine evidence.

Like you or anyone else posting on this thread, I do not have the slightest clue what the verdict will be next week. Maybe you are projecting your own anxieties on to others.

 

[Vibio]

Bizarre but explicable.

It’s seems to be a case of ‘The man on the TV said’ – a ‘You Tube’ form of argument from authority.
What’s even weirder is the lack of discrimination, at least Gill and Budowle have some pedigree.
[Although the UK courts for example don’t take their opinions as gospel, a fact lost on many here it seems]

Routinely here experts like C Dempsey (a food writer), Frank S!, S Moore!!, Waterbury!!! and recently an ITALIAN MAN!!!! are quoted in a quasi religious fashion as though their pronouncements were infallible.
It is weird, I will grant you that.

Add "Ron Hendry" to your list. Ever read his rèsumè?

Luca Cheli, BTW, has been referred to by Bill Williams as: "Italian author Luca Cheli...".

Now he's just referred to as an "Italian man". Funny.

I do like Peter Gill's new name however: "Shoebox guy"

 

[platonov]

Add "Ron Hendry" to your list. Ever read his rèsumè?

Let me guess - he is an AMERICAN MAN

 

[Diocletus]

Can you provide an example of where an Italian court has considered the expert opinion of someone who was not called as a witness in any of the various stages of their judicial process?

Is it your thought that Italian courts never consider reference material when they decide cases? What about all those references to ENSFI, etc?

If you're right, then maybe we've discovered part of the problem.

 

[Diocletus]

As I am sure you know, the third level trial does not examine or re-examine evidence.

Well, they did it last time around (remember: "Curatalo is credible!"). So, what's to stop them from just making up a bunch of new stuff this time?