Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

The piece of undigested mushroom found in Mez' gullet most likely came from a punnet in the fridge. IOW it was not part of the meal with the English ladies.

Oh, this nonsense!

Time of death from digestion evidence is measured from the first intake of food, not the last. IIRC, based on a margin of error calculated from the time of the beginning of her meal, the latest possible time of death would be 9:45 pm. But the evidence points to a much greater likelihood of death before 9:30pm.

You have to collect the different strands of relevant evidence together - her arrival home between 9:01 - 9:05 - from Purton's testimony that she was tired and wanted to go to bed - evidence that she was dressed in her outdoor clothes immediately before she was attacked - the fact that she did not call her mother back having been able to connect her first call attempt at 9:56pm

All of the this evidence points very solidly indeed to Kercher being attacked within minutes of arriving home and dying within about 10 minutes of the attack.

 

[Kauffer]

If your hypothesis is true, then the cops would not have immediately released Patrick as soon as they realised he was innocent.

The idea the "police could not admit they were wrong" is without foundation.

They didn't release him until his alibi witness cane forward. But he should have been released when they found someone else's DNA in Kercher's vagina.

But then again, they shouldn't have arrested him in the first place after compelling Amanda's statements.

You do know they bugged his phone right?

 

[Vixen]

The time-stamped computer file update records in the computers she and Raffaelle were using that evening while at Raffaelle's place.

Aw, did that evidence get mysteriously destroyed while in police custody? In any fair and rational legal system that alone would be reasonable doubt and grounds to dismiss the case. In any fair and rational legal system, that evidence the police destroyed should be legally equivalent to an unassailable alibi.

Reality check. So now the police IT department are in on the "conspiracy".

The most sensible conclusion is human error and stupidity.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, this nonsense!

Time of death from digestion evidence is measured from the first intake of food, not the last. IIRC, based on a margin of error calculated from the time of the beginning of her meal, the latest possible time of death would be 9:45 pm. But the evidence points to a much greater likelihood of death before 9:30pm.

You have to collect the different strands of relevant evidence together - her arrival home between 9:01 - 9:05 - from Purton's testimony that she was tired and wanted to go to bed - evidence that she was dressed in her outdoor clothes immediately before she was attacked - the fact that she did not call her mother back having been able to connect her first call attempt at 9:56pm

All of the this evidence points very solidly indeed to Kercher being attacked within minutes of arriving home and dying within about 10 minutes of the attack.

In your opinion.

That's not the finding of the First Instance Court who assessed all the evidence. (Re TOD.)

 

[Grinder]

Her attire has little to no probative value without some information about her habits. It was a cool evening and it is likely the heat was turned down or off while the cottage was empty. Students are renown for skimping on heat.

She came home around 9 after eating no later than 7:30 and the phone activity plainly indicates she was dying by 9:45. It is ludicrous to think she was at home until 11:15 making odd calls etc. Even if Lalli was wrong about the chyme movements she was dead by 10 pm.

 

[Samson]

She volunteered to help police draw up a list of people known to be associated with the cottage.

Including Rudy Guede who would be a star prosecution witness. Was that the clever Amanda?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

No, she was not. She was subjected to a short attack (probably less than a minute in duration), culminating in the fatal stabs to the neck. Inflicted by one person, acting alone: Rudy Guede.

Since you are rehashing this...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2gMitBj7xeKVjlaNlBCT1lKaWM/view?usp=sharing

This is what the crime scene photos show. Here is the text that accompanies this presentation:

1. The killer is already in the cottage when Meredith arrives home. He attacks her in the area adjacent to her bed and nightstand. He positions himself behind her, gripping her with his left arm and hand while pressing the small knife in his right hand against her throat. He inflicts a puncture wound, possibly while making demands. Blood flows onto the floor and the slats of the bed (see inset). Meredith raises her hand to the wounds and then leaves bloody finger streaks on the wall.

2. The attack moves diagonally across the room as Meredith tries to break free of her assailant. Blood drops on the floor and under the desk, hair (see inset), and shoe streaks attest to the struggle at this location.

3-4. Meredith falls to her knees in front of the wardrobe, with the killer behind and on top of her. He clamps his hand over her face, hard enough to leave bruises on both sides of her jaw. He pulls her head back and plunges his knife into her throat. He then pulls the blade upward and from left to right, creating a large, gaping wound. Meredith collapses to the floor, then attempts to rise and crawls a short distance, holding herself up with her right arm and clutching her wounds with her left hand. She is gasping for breath, and she leaves a spray of aspirated blood drops on the door of the wardrobe. She quickly begins to lose consciousness and collapses on her side, facing the wardrobe (with her head near police marker L). With Meredith no longer capable of effective resistance, the killer drags her, face down, into a more open area where her feet will be clear of the desk so he can disrobe her. The dragging creates a broad circular arc of blood.

5. Meredith makes a last attempt to rise from the floor and leaves bloody finger streaks on the inside of the wardrobe side panel. The killer begins to disrobe Meredith while she is still face down. He pulls her zippered jacket off and leaves it turned inside-out. He then rolls Meredith onto her back. Aspirated blood drops on the outside of the wardrobe side panel, adjacent to where her head lay when she was found, show that the she was still alive when she was dragged to this spot and rolled over. The killer pulls her layered sweatshirt and tee shirt above her bra, then rotates her onto her side and pulls the bra apart with brute force. He tosses it at her feet.

6. Police find a fine spray of blood drops on the bra cups and on Meredith’s breasts, showing that she was still gasping for breath when the bra was removed.

 

[Kauffer]

[/HILITE]


In your opinion.

That's not the finding of the First Instance Court who assessed all the evidence. (Re TOD.)

Informed opinion, supported by the evidence.

It's becoming a tedious pattern now.

1) You make a false claim
2) Someone corrects you with real evidence
3) You dive for cover behind Massei or Nencini

Since you have been diving for cover behind Massei and Nebcini so often when confronted with real evidence, it should tell you something about the quality of the two judges.

Massei, for example misunderstood the testimony on the digestion question.

 

[Grinder]

In your opinion.

That's not the finding of the First Instance Court who assessed all the evidence. (Re TOD.)

Really all the evidence. What did they find when they tested the possible "semen" stain.

How did they assess the fact that the disco buses weren't running?

Next, as regards the point: until what time did Curatolo see Amanda and Raffaele that night? It should be noted that Curatolo, in the course of his examination, with special regard to this aspect said he could see these people until before midnight. He also said that about when he left Piazza Grimana, this happened before midnight, the two young people were not there anymore.
So we have the same expression, ‘before midnight’, repeated twice but with a meaning that is necessarily not coincident but that can be derived, on the basis of the same statements by Curatolo. If in fact as Curatolo left – and that happened before midnight - he didn’t see the two young people any more, the last time he saw them was - albeit indicated with the same expression ‘before midnight’ as well - at an earlier time. That could be thus about 23:00 or 23:30. Moreover during the same testimony (page 18) Mr. Curatolo provides right such an indication: it was "before eleven, eleven and a half, the last time I saw them". It is also possible to further restrict the range on the basis of additional elements. Mr. Curatolo said he remained on the bench until he saw the buses driving young people to a disco and witness Maurizio Rosignoli (see page 131, hearing of 19.6.2009) reported that from Piazza Grimana buses depart to the disco and at a time between 23.00 and 23.30 they are already there. Based on these elements it is therefore considered that the Curatolo left the bench in Piazza Grimana between 23.00 and 23.30 (where he could see the buses leaving for discos and that Rosignoli has located precisely in that time frame) and when he left the bench the young couple were gone. Therefore at about 23:00 pm (minute by minute) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were no longer in Piazza Grimana where Curatolo had seen them several times starting from 21:30 pm to 22:00 pm of that November 1st.

Massei moves time for imaginary disco buses.

Hellmann's verdict and motivations are as valid as Massei's

 

[Kauffer]

Reality check. So now the police IT department are in on the "conspiracy".

The most sensible conclusion is human error and stupidity.

So what if you're right? The net result is the same - a destruction of alibi evidence that should have pointed to an early acquittal.

 

[Antony]

We are none the wiser as to Amanda's cast-iron alibi. Please can you remind us.

Apart from the computers, Raffaele was Amanda's alibi. What's the easiest way to eliminate an alibi when you can't admit you're wrong? Oh yes, just arrest him and charge him with the same crime.

That Swiss professor is a lucky individual.

 

[Vixen]

Informed opinion, supported by the evidence.

It's becoming a tedious pattern now.

1) You make a false claim
2) Someone corrects you with real evidence
3) You dive for cover behind Massei or Nencini

Since you have been diving for cover behind Massei and Nebcini so often when confronted with real evidence, it should tell you something about the quality of the two judges.

Massei, for example misunderstood the testimony on the digestion question.

Of course judges are fallible. However, in England & Wales, at least, you generally need at least seven year's barristers experience, and each vacancy is highly competitive, so one has a system that it is the creme de la creme who end up at the top courts. These are judges who have shown themselves to be truly objective, follow correct procedure and above all to have superb and outstanding reasoning skills.

So yes, I prefer the opinion of a judge who has sat through the entire trial to someone who's merely studied a few secondhand images on a laptop and harbours weird conspiracy theories about a top Italian prosecutor, the entire Italian police force and the entire forensic department being bent and crooked, fiddling forensic results on some bizarre theory they wanted to victimise the American girl (of which there are literally thousands, in any year, there to study).

 

[Antony]

[/HILITE]


Wrong thread. Darwins Theory is very elegant, but it's still only just that. A theory.

"Only a theory"? You appear to have a misconception about what the term "theory" means in a scientific context.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

apple crumble for desert

The piece of undigested mushroom found in Mez' gullet most likely came from a punnet in the fridge. IOW it was not part of the meal with the English ladies.

Vixen,

There is no proof, only conjecture, that it was mushroom. I think it may have been apple from the apple crumble.

 

[Antony]

[/HILITE]


In your opinion.

That's not the finding of the First Instance Court who assessed all the evidence. (Re TOD.)

The Massei rationale for finding TOD is ludicrous. Massei actually did know about the digestion evidence, but disregarded it in favour of:

arbitrarily selecting the mid-way point in the 10-hour-plus range provided by the body temperature.

Vixen, over and over again you cite conclusions made by Massei (and even Nencini) as though they had any meaning after the latest ISC ruling. They are ANNULLED. When are you going to talk about the actual evidence?

 

[Vixen]

The Massei rationale for finding TOD is ludicrous. Massei actually did know about the digestion evidence, but disregarded it in favour of:

arbitrarily selecting the mid-way point in the 10-hour-plus range provided by the body temperature.

Vixen, over and over again you cite conclusions made by Massei (and even Nencini) as though they had any meaning after the latest ISC ruling. They are ANNULLED. When are you going to talk about the actual evidence?

Depends on the reason for the annulment. We can be sure it won't be based on sound legal reasoning.

 

[Vixen]

"Only a theory"? You appear to have a misconception about what the term "theory" means in a scientific context.

This is a sceptics forum. ISTM ppl mindlessly believe all sorts of things without any critical thought. Calling it "science" doesn't make a person exempt from false premises.

 

[Antony]

...

So yes, I prefer the opinion of a judge who has sat through the entire trial to someone who's merely studied a few secondhand images on a laptop and harbours weird conspiracy theories about a top Italian prosecutor, the entire Italian police force and the entire forensic department being bent and crooked, fiddling forensic results on some bizarre theory they wanted to victimise the American girl (of which there are literally thousands, in any year, there to study).

The problem you have, is that Judge Hellmann also sat through an entire trial, and his motivations stand up far better to scrutiny than those of the 2 judges you favour. And no, it's no good pointing out that Hellmann's verdict was annulled, because your 2 favourite judges now have the same status.

 

[Kauffer]

Of course judges are fallible. However, in England & Wales, at least, you generally need at least seven year's barristers experience, and each vacancy is highly competitive, so one has a system that it is the creme de la creme who end up at the top courts. These are judges who have shown themselves to be truly objective, follow correct procedure and above all to have superb and outstanding reasoning skills.

So yes, I prefer the opinion of a judge who has sat through the entire trial to someone who's merely studied a few secondhand images on a laptop and harbours weird conspiracy theories about a top Italian prosecutor, the entire Italian police force and the entire forensic department being bent and crooked, fiddling forensic results on some bizarre theory they wanted to victimise the American girl (of which there are literally thousands, in any year, there to study).

Why are you posting about British judges? They have nothing to do with the Italian legal system.

The evidence I presented to you about TOD is not "a few secondhand images on a laptop" and nor do I have any conspiracy theories. This is the evidence in the case. That's what we do here - we discuss the evidence in the case and reach conclusions from it. What we don't do, on the whole, is disregard the evidence and make fallacious appeals to authority, particularly when those authorities have been superseded.

If you think the TOD was later, then argue from the evidence. You cannot possibly maintain, surely, that a referral to Massei and Nencini's difference of opinion with us trumps an argument from evidence?

So, please, do everybody the courtesy of making reasoned alternative argument in your responses here, if indeed you are capable of doing so. If you think you have a case to make, then make it. Right now, you're not making it.

Otherwise, we can just agree that your response will always be along the lines of: "Massei and Nencini said something else and they're busy important judges with robes and things like that and everybody knows they're really important and they studied hard for their qualifications and their jobs aren't easy to come by and so we need to listen to them".

That way, you won't need to bother posting any responses at all.

 

[Kauffer]

This is a sceptics forum. ISTM ppl mindlessly believe all sorts of things without any critical thought. Calling it "science" doesn't make a person exempt from false premises.

Do you mean like the way you just believe in whatever opinions Massei and Nencini had, on the basis that they are judges and it's hard to become a judge?