Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Sherlock Holmes]

The rationale for this is mainly that it's not the defence's job to "prove" innocence, and that the jury (judicial panel) already knows that the defendant is denying the offence since he/she has pleaded not guilty (otherwise there would be no trial).

You know, you hear this all the time, not just in this case, that the defense does not have to prove their client is innocent, its up to the prosecution to prove he's guilty (or She).

Say Amanda's lawer had one piece of evidence that froved Amanda was innocent, but didn't show it because of the unwritten law above, the outcome of the trial would be the same and an innocent person would be sitting in jail.

I don't know about you, but if I'm ever on trial for anything, and I'm paying a ton of money for my defence, they better try to prove me innocent regardless if I am or not.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Imagine for a moment the situation of an innocent person who is accused of a crime in a country where the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is not embraced. What is an innocent suspect to do if they cannot prove they did not commit the crime they are accused of?

That can happen in any country - Scott petterson for one in the US -

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

From the link a post at Perugia-Shock I previously provided, "Professor Cingolani has been stressed by basically everyone about the relation between wounds and knife. He has been treating, even with surprising positions, all minor wounds.
Until Amanda Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova brought him to say something very clear about the main one: any single-edge knife is compatible with Meredith's larger wound." It is the other wounds that are not compatible with this large knife.

Despite your repeated attempts to put words into my mouth, I hold no final opinion on the question you asked.

Where was Rudy's DNA on Meredith's body? Should it not have been found on her neck where he strangled her?

 

[Malkmus]

What was the date that the medical examiner's report was completed? What was the date on which Amanda told one of Meredith's friends that Meredith had bled to death?

Your implication that Amanda could only have known that Meredith was stabbed and bled to death if she had either been there during the murder or read the examiner's report is wrong. It might be believable if Amanda hadn't been there when the body was discovered, but she was and it was a frenzy, with no real attempt by anyone to sequester any of the housemates upon discovery of the body.

Filomena's friends Luca and Paola were at Meredith's door when it was broken down. Luca testified that the officer then went inside and described the state of the body and that the victim had struggled. Amanda testified that after everyone was ushered outside they were all discussing what had been found in Meredith's room. Then Amanda and Raf were given a ride to the questura by Luca, where he then told them that Meredith had her throat slit.

Unless you can prove it was impossible for Amanda to have knowledge of how Meredith died then this is a moot point, and the fact that it was barely acknowledged at trial is notable. In fact, at trial she mostly asked about why she thought Meredith's body was in the closet, a strange thing to get wrong if she had been involved in the murder. It's also quite likely that Meredith died sooner due to strangulation. Had Amanda said Meredith was strangled to death I would find that suspicious, since at the time she was discovered this was not known to anyone.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I have been watching the video simulation of the brick through the window again. I still can't reconcile it with the reality of the situation.

1.In the video there does not appear to be a latch/lock on the interior shutters, whereas in reality the are and Filomena said they were locked. I they were not locked, could not the "burglar" just push them open rather than climbing up there to open the unlocked but wedged exterior shutters and then going back down to throw a rock through them?

2. There are pretty clear pictures of the lock/latch on the interior shutters in the pictures I have provided. They do not appear to be bent or damaged. So again why the rock if they were unlocked? I thought it was to break the window so the burglar could reach inside and unlock the latch, yet in the video they swing open through the impact of the rock.

3. What am I missing here?

http://video.sky.it/?videoID=28470121001#video

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/105.JPG

The video doesn't really help much. Filomena most likely left the outside shutters open and the inside shutters were not latched. Filomena stated that she opened the shutters for light and then left in a hurry. She did not remember for sure if she had closed the shutters or not.

The rock was thrown to break the glass so that the window itself could be opened, not the shutters.

If the inside shutters were not latched, the rock would have broken the glass, hit the shutter and pushed it opened. The rock has many edges and could have deflected very easily in any direction.

From the position the rock took on the floor, it appears that the rock knocked over a purse, caught the lip of the clothing bag and knocked it over and came to rest on the floor.

The rock was thrown from the outside. If the window was broken from the inside, the person who broke it would have had to take glass and place it on the ledge. This is not very likely.

The evidence provided suggests that the rock came from outside.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

You're each missing the point. Filomena's room is a part of the crimescene. There is no physical evidence of Rudy being in that part of the cottage.

Raffaele's DNA was found in the murder room, on Meredith's clothing, and Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's DNA elsewhere in the cottage. That's strong evidence by the criteria both of you have set by using Rudy as an example.

Is the appeal really going to argue that, since neither Amanda's nor Raffaele's DNA was found on Meredith's arms, the medical examiner was mistaken about there being multiple assailants? How successful do you think this would be?

There is no DNA evidence of anyone being in Filomena's room. You are the one missing the point. The violent struggle did not take place in Filomena's room. Dozens of samples were taken in Meredith's room. There was far less investigating done in Filomena's room.

Experts also testified at trial showing a single attacker. There is obviously a disagreement. If the prosecution's experts were always correct, there would be no need for appeals.

I know you like to use "mountain" in reference to the evidence. If you actually took time to look at the actual facts you would see that your "mountain" description is not very accurate.

 

[Mary_H]

I agree - but really if you think about it, both Amanda and himself could not both take the stand without doing major damage to themselves. I'm guessing they thought Amanda was the better talker and actor, and maybe less likely to break down.

What I really can't see, is how a 23 year old man, who took kickboxing for several years and weight trained in a gym, could not kick down Meredith's door, when I'm positive, my 13 year old son, who also takes kickboxing could do it. I would like to see a picture of Filomena's boyfriend that did kick down the door.

Raffaele didn't try to kick down Meredith's door; he tried to push it open with his shoulder. He and Amanda were in a concerned but not panicked state, and probably decided it was better to consult with the police before forcing anything. When the police arrived, they, too, were reluctant to kick open the door, but finally consented to allowing Luca to do it, probably at Filomena's insistence.

 

[Mary_H]

You know, you hear this all the time, not just in this case, that the defense does not have to prove their client is innocent, its up to the prosecution to prove he's guilty (or She).

Say Amanda's lawer had one piece of evidence that froved Amanda was innocent, but didn't show it because of the unwritten law above, the outcome of the trial would be the same and an innocent person would be sitting in jail.

I don't know about you, but if I'm ever on trial for anything, and I'm paying a ton of money for my defence, they better try to prove me innocent regardless if I am or not.

As I understand it, it is a written, not unwritten law.

Saying that the defense doesn't have to prove their client not guilty is not the same as saying they shouldn't prove their client not guilty if they have the means to do so. It would be ridiculous to withhold any evidence helpful to their client's case.

We don't know whether or not Amanda and Raffaele have anything except each other to prove their innocence, but it should be a moot point, because the prosecutor has not proved they are guilty.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The video doesn't really help much. Filomena most likely left the outside shutters open and the inside shutters were not latched. Filomena stated that she opened the shutters for light and then left in a hurry. She did not remember for sure if she had closed the shutters or not.

The rock was thrown to break the glass so that the window itself could be opened, not the shutters.

If the inside shutters were not latched, the rock would have broken the glass, hit the shutter and pushed it opened. The rock has many edges and could have deflected very easily in any direction.

From the position the rock took on the floor, it appears that the rock knocked over a purse, caught the lip of the clothing bag and knocked it over and came to rest on the floor.

The rock was thrown from the outside. If the window was broken from the inside, the person who broke it would have had to take glass and place it on the ledge. This is not very likely.

The evidence provided suggests that the rock came from outside.

Could Amanda or Raffaele have thrown the rock from outside?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Unless you can prove it was impossible for Amanda to have knowledge of how Meredith died then this is a moot point, and the fact that it was barely acknowledged at trial is notable. In fact, at trial she mostly asked about why she thought Meredith's body was in the closet, a strange thing to get wrong if she had been involved in the murder. It's also quite likely that Meredith died sooner due to strangulation. Had Amanda said Meredith was strangled to death I would find that suspicious, since at the time she was discovered this was not known to anyone.

Unless you can prove that it is impossible for Amanda to have testified incorrectly about what part of the room Meredith's body was found in, your point is moot. You seem to have no problem in reconciling the many things that Amanda said that clearly weren't true. Why is this specific issue different?

Your concept of what seems reasonable differs from mine. For instance, I don't find it at all reasonable that a young woman (actually, a man or woman of any age) would come home after being away for the night, find the door ajar but no one home, find blood splattered in the bathroom, find a window broken out and a bedroom ransacked and not even think about calling the police. Or even try to contact the roommate whom she expected to have spent the night in the apartment (no, dialing cellphone numbers and hanging up after 3-4 seconds doesn't constitute trying to contact someone). And I don't find it reasonable that a woman who has just learned that someone was murdered in their home would go shopping for sexy underwear with her boyfriend. But maybe that's just me.

Which leads to 2 more questions:
1) Where was Amanda when she phoned Meredith's cellphones and Filomena?
2) Which did she do first: call Meredith's cellphones or call Filomena?

 

[Bob001]

You know, you hear this all the time, not just in this case, that the defense does not have to prove their client is innocent, its up to the prosecution to prove he's guilty (or She).

Say Amanda's lawer had one piece of evidence that proved Amanda was innocent, but didn't show it because of the unwritten law above, the outcome of the trial would be the same and an innocent person would be sitting in jail.

I don't know about you, but if I'm ever on trial for anything, and I'm paying a ton of money for my defence, they better try to prove me innocent regardless if I am or not.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is a misunderstanding of the concept. In a criminal trial the prosecution has to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt, in the U.S.) that the defendant committed the crime. He does so by presenting witnesses, security camera footage, evidence of motive and opportunity, fingerprints and other scientific material, etc. A defense lawyer doesn't have to prove that his client is innocent (and proving a negative is always difficult-to-impossible), but he does have to actively challenge and raise doubts about the prosecution's evidence. If the prosecution produces a witness that says Smith was at the scene of Jones' murder, his lawyer might produce witnesses that say Smith was somewhere else at the time, or work records that show he punched a time clock across town, or tape from a security camera that shows he was buying gas 100 miles away, or he might challenge the witness's credibility by asking whether the witness was wearing his glasses, what the lighting was like, was he sober that day, was he a convicted criminal, etc. If the prosecution claims Smith hated Jones, the defense might show that a lot of people hated Jones even more. If the prosecution says Smith was seen with a fat bankroll the day after the crime, the defense might show that he won a lottery. If the prosecution introduces scientific evidence, the defense will ask how it was collected, how it was stored, how it was tested, what qualifications the technicians had, what the margins of error were, etc.

The defense can't leave the prosecution's evidence unchallenged because that would mean all the jury would know about the case is what the prosecution says. Juries are usually given instructions to the effect that if the defense and the prosecution present equally likely explanations for a particular item of evidence, the jury must consider it in the light most favorable to the defense. But the defense has to offer its explanation. When a jury finds a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it means, in large part, that the defense did not discredit the prosecution's evidence to the jury's satisfaction. But that's not the same as failing to prove that he is innocent.

In the situation you cite, it's hard to believe that the defense would not present any and all evidence that would support his client, unless there was something about it that would cause other problems ("I couldn't have committed that murder because I was across town robbing the bank!"). Anything the defense presented would be subject to challenge by the prosecution, who might be able to raise doubts about what the defense claims as "proof" and might even be able to use it against the defendant. There is basically nothing that isn't subject to challenge on some ground or another. Maybe you could "prove" that you were on the other side of the world when the crime was committed, with airline and hotel records, passport stamps and more. Then maybe the prosecution would claim that you paid someone to masquerade as you to give you an alibi. (Pretty far-fetched, but you get my point.) Sometimes a defense lawyer will not even present his own witnesses and evidence if he feels that he has sufficiently discredited the prosecution's case during cross-examination, and he might fear that anything he could offer might distract the jury from what he hopes they will already see as weaknesses in the prosecution's case. But the defense can never just sit back and say, "I'm innocent, prove otherwise," because the prosecution usually will.

 

[RWVBWL]

Your implication that Amanda could only have known that Meredith was stabbed and bled to death if she had either been there during the murder or read the examiner's report is wrong. It might be believable if Amanda hadn't been there when the body was discovered, but she was and it was a frenzy, with no real attempt by anyone to sequester any of the housemates upon discovery of the body.

Filomena's friends Luca and Paola were at Meredith's door when it was broken down. Luca testified that the officer then went inside and described the state of the body and that the victim had struggled. Amanda testified that after everyone was ushered outside they were all discussing what had been found in Meredith's room. Then Amanda and Raf were given a ride to the questura by Luca, where he then told them that Meredith had her throat slit.

Unless you can prove it was impossible for Amanda to have knowledge of how Meredith died then this is a moot point, and the fact that it was barely acknowledged at trial is notable. In fact, at trial she mostly asked about why she thought Meredith's body was in the closet, a strange thing to get wrong if she had been involved in the murder. It's also quite likely that Meredith died sooner due to strangulation. Had Amanda said Meredith was strangled to death I would find that suspicious, since at the time she was discovered this was not known to anyone.

Hi Malkmus,
I had read that Luca Altieri was the guy who broke down the door to Miss Kercher's room that day.
I had also read that later on, while in court, Mr. Altieri disagreed with the testimony of Postal Police officer Battistelli when he said that he did notenter Miss Kercher's room. It is written that he "merely stood in the doorway and observed the scene, which was enough to tell him that the girl's throat had been slit."
But yet Mr. Altieri was certain that he saw officer Battistelli enter Miss Kercher's room that day and lift the duvet to see if she was alive.

Now when I read of this, I thought that this would make sense, the first police officer on the scene checking to see if a woman, whose foot was found sticking out under a blanket, was still alive.

But yet Officer Battistelli appears to state in court that he did not enter Miss Kercher's room.
I wonder why?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

As I said in my last post, I think Amanda ---by November 5th--- strongly suspected that evidence would emerge placing her at the scene of the crime. So it was then best for her to just admit it................so long as she was seen as an innocent bystander.

Usually when kids are in that situation, they admit being there but blame someone else for the actual crime. If Amanda was there, she'd have known that Guede was there. She'd have known that he left the bloody shoe prints, and presumably she would have known that he had intimate contact with the victim. She could have said, "I was there, but Guede did it." Instead she said "I was there but Lumumba did it." Why? You can come up with whatever artful reasoning you like, but the obvious answer is that she wasn't there and had no clue who did it, but she was pressured to make a false statement, like Christopher Ochoa, like the Norfolk Four, like Michael Crowe, like Kevin Fox, like Gary Gauger, like a hundred other innocent people who "buckled" when the police put the heat on them. Who used that word, "buckled"? Wasn't it Arturo de Felice? But maybe the reporter translated it wrong.

So, in conclusion, Charlie..........was Raffaele lying?
///

I don't know. How likely is it that Amanda would propose that he tell the police she went out alone around the time the murder took place?

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

About Jason Gilder you also wrote (message 260), “He is a computer scientist.” The first statement is false, and the second is at best misleading. His Ph.D. comes from the computer science and engineering department at Wright State University under the supervision of Dr. Michael Raymer. And yet his research was chiefly directed by Dan Krane, who is a biologist. Drs. Krane and Raymer coauthored a textbook on bioinformatics
http://birg.cs.wright.edu/textbook
Thus he has training in both biology and computer science.

He is a computer scientist.

 

[Fiona]

Italian law certainly does have the concept of innocent till proven guilty. And like any system which adopts that principle it holds until there is evidence of guilt presented which displaces the assumption. At that point it is for the defence to undermine that evidence.

In the UK once the first trial convicts the burdern of proof reverses. That is not true in Italian law. It has better safeguards for the accused than the UK (and I think the US as well) for that reason.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Raffaele didn't try to kick down Meredith's door; he tried to push it open with his shoulder. He and Amanda were in a concerned but not panicked state, and probably decided it was better to consult with the police before forcing anything. When the police arrived, they, too, were reluctant to kick open the door, but finally consented to allowing Luca to do it, probably at Filomena's insistence.

Sorry, I was only going by what Raffaele said himself:

In the end I think that the only thing to do is kick in the door of
Meredith's room. We try, but I don't succeed

Amanda in her own e-mail says this:

In the living room Raffael told me he wanted to see if he could break down Meredith’s door. He tried, and cracked the door, but we couldn’t open it.

No mention of shoulder in those, personally, I'ld try both but really, if Raffaele really wanted to break that door down, I'm pretty sure he could of.

 

[stilicho]

Fiona,

About Jason Gilder you also wrote (message 260), “He is a computer scientist.” The first statement is false, and the second is at best misleading. His Ph.D. comes from the computer science and engineering department at Wright State University under the supervision of Dr. Michael Raymer. And yet his research was chiefly directed by Dan Krane, who is a biologist. Drs. Krane and Raymer coauthored a textbook on bioinformatics
http://birg.cs.wright.edu/textbook
Thus he has training in both biology and computer science.

Has Gilder been called in as an expert in DNA forensics? If you read your own sources more carefully you'll see that Dr Krane is the expert. Gilder is a computer scientist at Krane's firm.

Is Krane being called in by Amanda's defence team for this case?

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry, I was only going by what Raffaele said himself:

In the end I think that the only thing to do is kick in the door of
Meredith's room. We try, but I don't succeed

Amanda in her own e-mail says this:

In the living room Raffael told me he wanted to see if he could break down Meredith’s door. He tried, and cracked the door, but we couldn’t open it.

No mention of shoulder in those, personally, I'ld try both but really, if Raffaele really wanted to break that door down, I'm pretty sure he could of.

Oops, I guess I misinformed myself on that one.

I agree, though; Raffaele could have broken down the door if he really wanted to.

 

[Malkmus]

Unless you can prove that it is impossible for Amanda to have testified incorrectly about what part of the room Meredith's body was found in, your point is moot. You seem to have no problem in reconciling the many things that Amanda said that clearly weren't true. Why is this specific issue different?

Move the goalposts much? I thought we were talking about whether Amanda could have known how Meredith died. Instead, you decide to misrepresent my position on the subject and somehow generalize it as if I'm continuously hand-waving the evidence against Amanda. Why don't you give me a list of all the things I've "reconciled". So far from you I've only seen tired talking points that are easily refuted, yet you keep listing them. There's very good reasons for Amanda to have known how her roommate died, and my mention of the "corpse in the closet" and "strangulation" were simply peripheral to the point. The problem with your assertion that she couldn't have known how her roommate died unless she was involved in the murder is that you took it as fact. It doesn't have to be proven whether she indeed believed the body was in the closet because it doesn't change the overall point, that she knew how Meredith died from word-of-mouth.

Your concept of what seems reasonable differs from mine. For instance, I don't find it at all reasonable that a young woman (actually, a man or woman of any age) would come home after being away for the night, find the door ajar but no one home, find blood splattered in the bathroom, find a window broken out and a bedroom ransacked and not even think about calling the police. Or even try to contact the roommate whom she expected to have spent the night in the apartment (no, dialing cellphone numbers and hanging up after 3-4 seconds doesn't constitute trying to contact someone). And I don't find it reasonable that a woman who has just learned that someone was murdered in their home would go shopping for sexy underwear with her boyfriend. But maybe that's just me.

So much hyperbole and misinformation here. Let's go down the list:

"find the door ajar but no one home":
The door was known to swing open if it wasn't locked. Thinking that someone had forgotten to lock the door might be unusual, but not alarming.

"find blood splattered in the bathroom":
What a droplet of blood in the sink? A dark, soggy footprint on the mat? Sounds like you've been looking at the old photos of the "blood-spattered bathroom" caked in Luminal. Look at the bathroom for yourself and you'll see that there was nothing alarming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n71ZJPBq8uk&feature=player_embedded#!

"find a window broken out and a bedroom ransacked and not even think about calling the police":
Wrong. They called the police once they saw these things the second time she went back with Rafaelle. She would have had no reason the first time to go looking in her roommates' rooms.

"Or even try to contact the roommate whom she expected to have spent the night in the apartment (no, dialing cellphone numbers and hanging up after 3-4 seconds doesn't constitute trying to contact someone).":
Wrong again. Here are the cell phone records. Amanda called Meredith's cellphones three times, and each time received either an "out of service" message or her voice mail.

12:07:12 16sec Call Amanda MeredithUK corso Garibaldi (Ringing no answer)
12:11:02 3sec Call Amanda MeredithIT corso Garibaldi (Voice mail)
12:11:54 4sec Call Amanda MeredithUK corso Garibaldi ( Automatic voice saying "out of service")

"And I don't find it reasonable that a woman who has just learned that someone was murdered in their home would go shopping for sexy underwear with her boyfriend.":
You know that the cottage was quarantined, right? And that Amanda couldn't access any of her belongings, meaning she would be wearing the same underwear for the next two years unless she bought a pair. Whether it was "sexy" is completely subjective and irrelevant.

Which leads to 2 more questions:
1) Where was Amanda when she phoned Meredith's cellphones and Filomena?
2) Which did she do first: call Meredith's cellphones or call Filomena?

Thoughtful over at PMF has made an excellent post on the cellphone activity. http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=223&p=43061&hilit=cell+phone+records#p43061

That should answer your questions.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Mary: Raffaele and Amanda may wish they had ACTED differently, but it wouldn't have changed the fact that they lied, and the evidence would prove that they were lying. Strange that only they were so confused, and yet could remember what they ate, what movie they watched, etc. They only get confused memories when their stories don't match up.Raffaele hasn't accused the police of beating him (what? were the police afraid he'd hit them back?) or co-ercing him. Not a word. And yet, he was the first to break.

This is exaggerated online all the time.

"Raffeale was the first to break"

"Raffaele turned on Amanda"

Actually, Raffaele agreed with the interrogators that he couldn't possibly know for sure if Amanda left when he was sleeping.

The police exaggerated this to Amanda to try and get her to buckle. this is a common police tactic.

Why do you continue to exaggerate this?