Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dan O.]

Serious question: did anyone ever vouch for the veracity of Popovic's claim she was there exactly at that time? (8:40.)

OK, her class finished 8:20. That sounds to me an estimate, based on what time her class finished.

Amanda answering the door could well indicate she was on her way out.

Amanda answering the door and Raffaele not is an indication that Raffaele is busy such as on the phone with his dad.

• 20:42:56 Raffaele is called by his father, talks for 3 1/2 minutes.

 

[Vixen]

I think the errors in your posts can most likely be attributed to your source. TJMK is not a credible source.

AIUI the phone records have been meticulously and scrupulously analysed by the posters on TJMK (and no, I am not one of them) and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy.

Here's more:

------
It is Certain that at 20:18:12 on Nov.1st, 2007 Amanda Knox’s mobile-phone received the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic? pub on the evening of 1 November.

Remember that mobile-phones are equivalent to convicts’ ankle-monitor bracelets, their use creates with Certainty a record of the Times of cell-phone activities, the Location of the corresponding transmitter-cell, and hence the general location of the mobile-phone, especially Ruling-Out particular Locations e.g. Proving whether the carrier of the phone was in or out of the range of their home transmitter-cell. Call Verbal-Content is not publicly available.

Here the mobile-phone Record proves that Knox’s mobile-phone was Certainly-Not in Sollecito’s lodging-house at 20:18:12 on Nov.1st, 2007:

At the time of reception, Knox’s phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house. Amanda Knox’s mobile phone, and therefore Knox herself, was therefore far [i.e. absent] from Corso Garibaldi 30 when the SMS reached her, as she was walking in an area which was shown to be served by the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell.

This point of her route could correspond to Via U. Rocchi, to Piazza Cavallotti, to Piazza IV Novembre, bearing in mind that Lumumba’s pub is located in Via Alessi, and that Amanda Knox would have had to travel along the above-mentioned roads and the piazza in order to reach the pub.

Knox was therefore Certainly Not at Sollecito’s Corso Garibaldi Lodging at that time, contrary to the allegation that she was, and Knox Certainly-Could have been at her Cottage.

------

Add that to the Italian video released and Rudy's claim of being there early (not that we can believe anything Rudy says); we can strongly suggest that at some point, Amanda and Mez' paths crossed in the cottage that night.

 

[Dougm]

AIUI the phone records have been meticulously and scrupulously analysed by the posters on TJMK (and no, I am not one of them) and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy.

Here's more:

------
It is Certain that at 20:18:12 on Nov.1st, 2007 Amanda Knox’s mobile-phone received the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic? pub on the evening of 1 November.

Remember that mobile-phones are equivalent to convicts’ ankle-monitor bracelets, their use creates with Certainty a record of the Times of cell-phone activities, the Location of the corresponding transmitter-cell, and hence the general location of the mobile-phone, especially Ruling-Out particular Locations e.g. Proving whether the carrier of the phone was in or out of the range of their home transmitter-cell. Call Verbal-Content is not publicly available.

Here the mobile-phone Record proves that Knox’s mobile-phone was Certainly-Not in Sollecito’s lodging-house at 20:18:12 on Nov.1st, 2007:

At the time of reception, Knox’s phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house. Amanda Knox’s mobile phone, and therefore Knox herself, was therefore far [i.e. absent] from Corso Garibaldi 30 when the SMS reached her, as she was walking in an area which was shown to be served by the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell.

This point of her route could correspond to Via U. Rocchi, to Piazza Cavallotti, to Piazza IV Novembre, bearing in mind that Lumumba’s pub is located in Via Alessi, and that Amanda Knox would have had to travel along the above-mentioned roads and the piazza in order to reach the pub.

Knox was therefore Certainly Not at Sollecito’s Corso Garibaldi Lodging at that time, contrary to the allegation that she was, and Knox Certainly-Could have been at her Cottage.

------

Add that to the Italian video released and Rudy's claim of being there early (not that we can believe anything Rudy says); we can strongly suggest that at some point, Amanda and Mez' paths crossed in the cottage that night.

You quote sources that have been proven wrong over and over. TJMK is not a reliable source, and posts mostly opinion, not fact.

TJMK is the same website that said this before the ISC ruling a few weeks ago:

Cassazione will probably merely announce that the affirmation of conviction by the Nencini appeal court is legitimate from the point of view of Italian law and there will be nothing significant said on the merits of the case.

 

[carbonjam72]

Seriously? You are a news anchor person, but you cannot interview anyone relevant unless you agree to airbrush your interview?

Hence, in the US we saw broadcasters being forced to hold Amanda's hand and make tutting noises.

It's little wonder Americans aliken prosecutor Mignini to Saddam.

This is grossly unfair. Saddam was quite competent at being a tyrannical despot.

Mignini is more like a cross between Torque Mada and Inspector Clousseau. (a Sadistic yet Klutzy Inquisitor)

 

[carbonjam72]

On this forum, unlike the pro-guilt only ones, people ask for documentation when you make claims of this type. Please provide one spec of evidence that this occurred, ever.

You are trying to claim that a small PR firm from Seattle was able to control what the major US TV networks and newspapers said and wrote. With no proof whatsoever.

Yes, but think of the alternatives: A majority of either the UK or the US media completely screwed the pooch on this story.

Somebody is in for a rude awakening at some point. Some sunny day...

 

[Dan O.]

Absolutely with you on the 20:51 time stamp.

Assuming we are talking about the same "not Amanda" figure in your second para, the time stamp I read is 20:53:51 as she passes across the camera. Therefore, this figure is recorded some 2 mins 15 secs after Kercher walking in the opposite direction of the cottage.

http://youtu.be/BH-5f8lJjCY

Have I got this right?

Yes, those are the CCTV time stamps as displayed at the bottoms of the full video frames. I have now added that clip to my wiki timeline since this confusion keeps coming up.

 

[acbytesla]

It was not my quote, it was a direct quote from the TIMES 12.11.2007.

AIUI when Raf had the 8:42 call from Dad, Amanda was not at his side.

IIRC telephone records picked up Patrick's ping about not coming in, circa 8:45 near the cottage.

Incidentally, no matter how tired you are, if you are under threat or in danger, you stay alert and vigilant. 9:00 is hardly that late.

Why do you keep referring to this Times article that was proven in court to be wrong about just about everything ?

 

[Dan O.]

AIUI the phone records have been meticulously and scrupulously analysed by the posters on TJMK (and no, I am not one of them) and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy.

Here's more:

------
<CUT AND PASTE ARGUMENT SNIPPED>
------

Add that to the Italian video released and Rudy's claim of being there early (not that we can believe anything Rudy says); we can strongly suggest that at some point, Amanda and Mez' paths crossed in the cottage that night.

Your habit of cherry picking arguments that only look at part of the evidence shows that you are not capable of debating this case yourself. Those of us that look at all of the available evidence dismiss your claim.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers comment has nothing to do with what I'm asking. As I responding to N I'm well aware of the records/files needed but my sole question was about the attendance of the defense at the test of the knife in Nov. of 2007.

I'm not doubting Potenza but the report of his does not say anything about witnessing the test.

As the quote from the trial report of Barbie indicates the defense wasn't at the test which is exactly what I remember.

What is the point of having an expert at the test? One would think that had he witnessed the way Stef did it he would have made that a very specific part of his report and that the PR Supertanker would have immediately gone ballistic and peppered the media with this outrageous testing.

It isn't a big deal and I was reminded of it by the comments about the defense never protesting that she found Mez's DNA. I don't believe the "too low" came out for years after the test. Also the dates of testing should have been known to the defense if they were there.

Grinder,

I am a little pressed for time, but I would like to make several quick points. One is that we will have to agree to disagree slightly about the quoted passages. I think that they imply his attendance, but I acknowledge some ambiguity. Two without full and complete disclosure, there is no way to know with certainty on which dates certain electropherograms were produced (I believe that this is what Numbers was implying, but I am open to being corrected). As you know, several of us have argued that disclosure has been far from complete. In other words Potenza may well have been present on 12 November, but that is no guarantee. And three, my reservations are even greater with respect to the bra clasp.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The highlighted sentences (first group) are exactly what I meant. In fact, I implied that one must view the claims from a forensic* lab which does not provide its raw data differently from those of one that does provide them. The honesty of such a lab is suspect.

Now, let's try to understand some dates. We must first recall that AFAIK the posters here were not eyewitnesses to the testing or the presence of the defense experts.

The highlighted sentence states that "Portenza may well have been present on 12 November". However, the information on the knife sample DNA testing shown on:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/

states that the quantification on samples 36 a, b, and c were extracted on November 13, 2007, and then quantified using the Qubit fluorometer and then DNA profiled. It is not clear if the quantification and profiling (which are separate activities) were each done on 13 November or one or both done on some later date.

Sample 36a (knife handle) was quantified as 0.08 pg/microL. Samples 36b and 36c (from the knife blade) were "too low", meaning that the fluorometer signal was below the level of detectability in relation to the calibration and background noise - in other words, there may have been no DNA present in either sample. Additionally of interest, the DNA profiles were the results of retests according to the lab's numbering system (Plate 365-bis for samples 36b and 36c; sample 36a is apparently derived from Plate 365-bis and Plate 366). The DNA profile results were: Sample 36a - knife handle - Knox; Sample 36b - knife blade - Kercher; Sample 36c - missing (= suppressed).

Now which defense expert consultants were present on November 13 and/or 14 I don't know. Were the defense experts given sufficient notice of when each test, including the apparent retests, were run, in order to attend?


*The same concerns would apply to a scientific lab, with issues of patent protection excepted.

 

[acbytesla]

I already quoted Richard Owen of the TIMES 20th Nov 2007. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Obtuse is thinking a newspaper article is RVIDENCE!! Get a clue. It is not!

 

[acbytesla]

I have already told you, journalists in the USA, had to go through Gogeety Marriott, the firm Amanda PAID for to do PR for her within days of being arrested, and then agree as part of the contract to speak to lawyers, Amanda or the family, that their article or broadcast would be vetted by Gogerty Marriott before being released.

Do you honestly believe that journalists in the US actually have their stories vetted by PR firms? Why do you believe that?

 

[Numbers]

Have the link handy?

Why spend the money to have the expert there at all?

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The attendance of defense experts during testing is an Italian legal procedure, part of the incidente probatorio (special evidentiary hearing), covered under CPP Article 392. Many of the provisions of CPP Article 392 apply to examination of witnesses who cannot attend the trial, for example, due to illness or other serious impediment, or will be subject to violence or threat at the trial, and similar concerns. CPP Art. 392 para. 1f provides that the judge may proceed by means of a incidente probatorio in the case that for an expert report or a judicial simulation, the evidence concerns a person, an object or a place subject to unavoidable modification.

I am not aware that defense experts attend forensic lab testing of DNA in the US. Apparently in the US the defense relies on complete disclosure of all relevant information by the lab, including but not limited to test methods, all negative and positive controls, raw data, and QA/QC procedures. This information was not provided by Stefanoni.

I would like to reiterate that what an expert can tell from watching another expert perform a test will not necessarily provide complete confidence in the test result. If the actual test used against the defendant is actually done at a time when the defense expert is not there to observe, that lack of confidence may be even stronger.

 

[anglolawyer]

Did I miss Vixen's monumental deconstruction of Hellman that she promised Carbonjam or are we still waiting for that?

 

[Grinder]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The highlighted sentences (first group) are exactly what I meant. In fact, I implied that one must view the claims from a forensic* lab which does not provide its raw data differently from those of one that does provide them. The honesty of such a lab is suspect.

Which is all well and good but has nothing to do with my question/point.

Now, let's try to understand some dates. We must first recall that AFAIK the posters here were not eyewitnesses to the testing or the presence of the defense experts.

sorry but duh!

The highlighted sentence states that "Portenza may well have been present on 12 November". However, the information on the knife sample DNA testing shown on:

No it doesn't. It does not say he was in the lab. Or the actual snip from his report does not say it.

Now which defense expert consultants were present on November 13 and/or 14 I don't know. Were the defense experts given sufficient notice of when each test, including the apparent retests, were run, in order to attend?

Yes we don't know when or if experts were there, which was my sole question/point.

 

[carbonjam72]

Did I miss Vixen's monumental deconstruction of Hellman that she promised Carbonjam or are we still waiting for that?

I only asked for one paragraph from Hellman's acquittal that Vixen felt wasn't well reasoned. And surprise, surprise, we're still waiting.

Also, I may have to apologize to Mach, if he ever returns. Apparently the masons do seem to get around:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...fraternal-police-officers-20150507-story.html

 

[Numbers]

I have already told you, journalists in the USA, had to go through Gogeety Marriott, the firm Amanda PAID for to do PR for her within days of being arrested, and then agree as part of the contract to speak to lawyers, Amanda or the family, that their article or broadcast would be vetted by Gogerty Marriott before being released.

Where is your citation for this absurd statement-and are you referring to news articles or interviews?

 

[Grinder]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The attendance of defense experts during testing is an Italian legal procedure, part of the incidente probatorio (special evidentiary hearing), covered under CPP Article 392. Many of the provisions of CPP Article 392 apply to examination of witnesses who cannot attend the trial, for example, due to illness or other serious impediment, or will be subject to violence or threat at the trial, and similar concerns. CPP Art. 392 para. 1f provides that the judge may proceed by means of a incidente probatorio in the case that for an expert report or a judicial simulation, the evidence concerns a person, an object or a place subject to unavoidable modification.

I am not aware that defense experts attend forensic lab testing of DNA in the US. Apparently in the US the defense relies on complete disclosure of all relevant information by the lab, including but not limited to test methods, all negative and positive controls, raw data, and QA/QC procedures. This information was not provided by Stefanoni.

I would like to reiterate that what an expert can tell from watching another expert perform a test will not necessarily provide complete confidence in the test result. If the actual test used against the defendant is actually done at a time when the defense expert is not there to observe, that lack of confidence may be even stronger.

I'm telling you their lack of adequate notice and not attending was a big at the time. If experts don't get to see the machine spew out "too low" or notice how many amplifications are done then it seems a waste of time and money.

No one specifically me has said or implied that an experts attendance would give complete confidence.

I see no reason this discussion goes to CPP 692 - this has nothing to do with Italian code.

It has only to do with the attendance or lack of it by the defense experts.

 

[RWVBWL]

$$$

Hi, Sonia, according to the TIMES 20th Nov 2007:

--------
Even when Mr Guede left for Milan the family had offered him a job as a gardener at a farmhouse bed and breakfast (agriturismo) when he came back. He had preferred drugs and night life however, and had been sacked in August.

-------

It is said Rudy took on landscaping and bar jobs.

Please advise how you came to believe Rudy had no money and therefore had to be a cat burglar.

His best friend with a Russian name, a student from Seattle with a family allowance, said Rudy never once asked him for money.

A week before the crime Rudy had borrowed £10 from someone.

As you can see above, he didn't lose his job in Spring, it was in August, so he had been unemployed for a whole two months.

Greetings,
Must have sucked for Rudy Guede to not have had a job in the middle of an Italian summer and not have too much spending cash on him when he went out to the bars to dance +try to pick up girls, which most guys, who do not have a girlfriend try to do...

Sucks too that "Poor Rudy" paid someone $20 Euro to stay at The Nursery School, heck a spare $20 Euro must have been in tight supply after being a fella without a job for a coupla months. From what I recall, Rudy only had some change on him when the cops arrived at the school. He shoulda went to his Aunt's flat to stay the night, or just slept on the train station floor, I mean, come on, who spends their last $20 Euro to sleep in a little kids school?

Hey Vixen,
do you recall that when Rudy was busted inside The Nursery School,
he also had on him some stolen keys?

I wonder how the cops knew they were stolen?
Whose keys were these? And from where did Rudy steal them?

Rudy also had a womans gold watch with him when busted inside the little kids school.
But he did not have a girlfriend and Valentines Day + Christmas were still far away.
Do you think he bought this womans gold watch too when he bought the lawyer's computer,
where was it, Milan?

A dude has to work to survive, right?
Might you too wonder what Rudy Guede was doing with a bunch of computers inside his bedroom,
when from what I recall, the flat did not have internet?
Please correct me if I am wrong. Was he buying and fixing them? Or possibly, (just sayin', because he was caught with someone else's stolen computer on him), stealing them?

Lastly,
where do you think that Rudy Guede got the $$$ to purchase the drugs that Italian law enforcement found on him just 2 days after The Nursery School sleep-over +cookout?

Have read of this Italian newspaper accout:
http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...meredith-preso-il-quarto-uomo-sono-stato.html

Have a great day Vixen,
RW


PS - Heck,
it's too bad the Italian Supreme Court did not believe in your posts Vixen,
for heck, they shoulda sent Raff back to prison, right?

 

[Numbers]

....

1. No it doesn't. It does not say he was in the lab. Or the actual snip from his report does not say it.
2. Yes we don't know when or if experts were there, which was my sole question/point.

1. I quoted Chris's statement.

2. Dr. Gino requested the real time q-PCR results for the knife test, IIUC. I suspect she would not have requested those if she knew about the actual Qubit fluorometer being used for quantification and it was in the court record at that point, unless she was seeking to show that Stefanoni had committed perjury.

 

[Numbers]

I'm telling you their lack of adequate notice and not attending was a big at the time. If experts don't get to see the machine spew out "too low" or notice how many amplifications are done then it seems a waste of time and money.

No one specifically me has said or implied that an experts attendance would give complete confidence.

I see no reason this discussion goes to CPP 692 - this has nothing to do with Italian code.
It has only to do with the attendance or lack of it by the defense experts.

{Highlighting added.}
CPP Articles matter if there was a violation of one by Stefanoni. (And it's Art. 392.)