Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Malkmus]

In case anyone was wondering, summary of Meredith's phone activity that night:

20:56:?? 1sec Call MeredithUK Arline via della Pergola (Call didn't go through)
21:58:?? 1sec Call MeredithUK ans. serv. via della Pergola (Call didn't go through)
22:00:00 1sec Call MeredithUK Abbey via della Pergola ("Abbey" dialed without international prefix, didn't go through)
22:13:19 9sec GPRS Internet WAP MeredithUK via della Pergola (Aborted connection of undetermined type)

It's interesting that there were so many aborted calls. And it looks like all the calls could potentially have been "speed dial" numbers that would have just taken long-presses of one of the keys: her mom, voicemail, bank, internet access.

 

[Mr.D]

And all the while, each and every interview was tape recorded. In 1992..........

LondonJohn,

Let's not go down that road again. I think we can all agree that the Perugia police "ought" to have recorded the interviews on the 5th of Knox and Sollecito.

Unless the point is to propose a scenario wherein they purposely did not record the interviews, did but hid/destroyed the tapes, or discuss the competence of their procedures there is no useful discussion that can come of it.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Hi HB, Massei certainly seems to weave quite a lot around Quintavalle's testimony: it's supposed to show that AK lied about sleeping till 10, that she was in the shop hanging around the cleaning products aisle early in the morning, and that she then set off in the direction of the house, presumably to perform a clean-up. So it's quite an integral part of the narrative of that morning. It'll be interesting to see what happens if he's dismissed as unreliable in the appeal (especially if the same happens to Curatolo).

Though the computer usage between five-thirty and six, the turning on of the cellphone(s) (was it both or just Raffaele's?) at six, and Raffaele's phone conversation with his father at nine-thirty provide strong evidence against their claims that they slept in until ten or ten-thirty.

 

[Malkmus]

Though the computer usage between five-thirty and six, the turning on of the cellphone(s) (was it both or just Raffaele's?) at six, and Raffaele's phone conversation with his father at nine-thirty provide strong evidence against their claims that they slept in until ten or ten-thirty.

It is unknown what time Amanda turned her cell phone back on. The only reason we know about Raf's is because he had an sms message sent to him which wasn't received until he turned the phone back on. All we know from the computer and phone activity that morning is that Raf apparently woke up to turn his phone on at 6 and may have fiddled with his computer - but as has been pointed out, the computer activity is questionable and will be addressed upon appeal. It says nothing about what Amanda did that morning.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I was thinking about the phones a little while back. It seems significant to me that Meredith's Italian phone was switched off, while her UK phone was left on.

Interesting, given that Amanda only called Meredith's UK phone, and not her Italian cellphone, before she called Filomena. (She called both of Meredith's cellphones after talking to Filomena - she told Filomena that she would try to contact Meredith without mentioning that she had just a minute before called one of Meredith's cellphones. When she called Meredith's Italian cellphone, she was immediately routed to voicemail and hung-up right away, but she claimed that the Italian cellphone "just kept ringing".)

Just another one of those unlucky coincidences that doomed Amanda?

 

[katy_did]

Interesting, given that Amanda only called Meredith's UK phone, and not her Italian cellphone, before she called Filomena. (She called both of Meredith's cellphones after talking to Filomena - she told Filomena that she would try to contact Meredith without mentioning that she had just a minute before called one of Meredith's cellphones. When she called Meredith's Italian cellphone, she was immediately routed to voicemail and hung-up right away, but she claimed that the Italian cellphone "just kept ringing".)

Just another one of those unlucky coincidences that doomed Amanda?

If she'd called the Italian phone first, I have no doubt you'd have seen some sinister significance in that too. Probably that she didn't call the UK phone because she knew it was turned on and might lead to the phones being found, whereas calling the Italian phone would show she tried to reach Meredith but wouldn't risk attracting attention before she called Filomena.

What cunning plan do you think Amanda had by falsely claiming it was the Italian phone that 'just kept ringing', when in fact it was the UK phone? Wouldn't that mistake rather suggest she didn't pay much attention to which phone she was calling, and therefore wasn't aware which phone was turned on or off...or was that the cunning plan, to falsely convince the police that she didn't know which phone was turned off, and hence she couldn't have been the one to take them?

 

[RoseMontague]

Katy and Rose, thank you for all the info on Quintavalle, it is very eye opening. Do either of you know how much emphasis the judge put on this witness in the motivation doc?

Katy_did accomplished a great gift with that translation. I was getting very tired of trying to make certain of things via the Google translation. I agree that this witness testimony was important and was considered reliable and significant in the Massei report.

The appeal makes a valid point in that the Massei report chooses to go with statements that support this witness and ignore statements and testimony that do not support this witness. Personally, I do not consider Quintavalle or Curatolo to be reliable witnesses.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the prosecution's reconstruction

Ok. So, again, Raffaele and/or Amanda's DNA could have been on Meredith's body and just not found, or not been able to have been identified? Or does that only apply to Rudy?

To claim absence of Raffaele/Amanda DNA on Meredith indicates they were not involved in holding her down necessarily requires that the absence of Rudy's DNA on Meredith's body indicates that he was not involved in holding her down.

Similarly, this aspect of DNA evidence must be applied elsewhere in the cottage - the lack of Rudy's DNA in Filomena's room indicates he was never there, whereas Amanda's DNA in the spot on the floor indicates she was there while Meredith's blood was wet.

Or, are we going to get back to arguing generalized contamination/etc and discredit all DNA evidence from ever being used?

BobTheDonkey,

Inasmuch as I have answered all of these questions before, let me try a different approach, and use the prosecutor’s reconstruction. Barbie Nadeau described a portion of the prosecutor’s animation, “Amanda first grabbing Meredith’s throat [causing the bruising]…Amanda directs Rudy and Raffaele to hold Meredith’s arms back.” (Angel Face, p. 160). I find this scenario highly implausible, on the basis that they would have left their DNA on her skin, as I have discussed previously. This opinion is subject to the proviso that ILE swabbed Meredith’s neck or arms. If the attack was as Carlo Torre described, there would not have been restraint of Meredith’s arms, and it is not quite clear to me whether he believed that the bruising underneath Meredith’s chin was caused by the knife or by the assailant’s grabbing her.

The conclusions you make about Filomena’s room and Meredith’s blood do not in any way shape or form follow from the citation I gave on DNA transfer during simulated strangulation.

My position is that DNA forensics is on stronger scientific ground than most other forensic science. However, DNA cannot tell us when or how it was deposited, except in some limited ways. Clerical errors and contamination are documented concerns. A considerable fraction of DNA evidence presents itself as a mixture and/or as a partial profile. Therefore, any jury must evaluate DNA forensic evidence with the same critical faculties it applies to any other evidence.

 

[christianahannah]

Katy_did accomplished a great gift with that translation. I was getting very tired of trying to make certain of things via the Google translation. I agree that this witness testimony was important and was considered reliable and significant in the Massei report.

The appeal makes a valid point in that the Massei report chooses to go with statements that support this witness and ignore statements and testimony that do not support this witness. Personally, I do not consider Quintavalle or Curatolo to be reliable witnesses.

Rose I would disagree with your opinion concerning the reliability of Quintavalle and Curatolo based on news reports, partial translated appeals and forum conjecture. Those areas do not give as reliable evidence as court testimony - both questioning from the prosecution and defense and the answers given by both Quintavalle and Curatolo. Even with court testimony one can be subjective in how one interprets it, however, we have what was asked and what was answered in context and in a witnesses own words.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

Inasmuch as I have answered all of these questions before, let me try a different approach, and use the prosecutor’s reconstruction. Barbie Nadeau described a portion of the prosecutor’s animation, “Amanda first grabbing Meredith’s throat [causing the bruising]…Amanda directs Rudy and Raffaele to hold Meredith’s arms back.” (Angel Face, p. 160). I find this scenario highly implausible, on the basis that they would have left their DNA on her skin, as I have discussed previously. This opinion is subject to the proviso that ILE swabbed Meredith’s neck or arms. If the attack was as Carlo Torre described, there would not have been restraint of Meredith’s arms, and it is not quite clear to me whether he believed that the bruising underneath Meredith’s chin was caused by the knife or by the assailant’s grabbing her.

The conclusions you make about Filomena’s room and Meredith’s blood do not in any way shape or form follow from the citation I gave on DNA transfer during simulated strangulation.

My position is that DNA forensics is on stronger scientific ground than most other forensic science. However, DNA cannot tell us when or how it was deposited, except in some limited ways. Clerical errors and contamination are documented concerns. A considerable fraction of DNA evidence presents itself as a mixture and/or as a partial profile. Therefore, any jury must evaluate DNA forensic evidence with the same critical faculties it applies to any other evidence.

Here's the problem, Chris.

Your argument is that if Amanda and/or Raffaele had held Meredith down/strangled her, they would have left their DNA on her throat. Your contention, therefore, is that as their DNA was not found on her throat (or at least, not identified - a notable difference in interpretation of the results), they were not involved in the strangulation/restraining.

Unless you believe Meredith strangled herself, this argument is hogwash. If you believe, as it would appear, that Rudy acted alone - why was his DNA not found on Meredith's neck? Keeping in mind that any response for why you feel his DNA was not found is equally valid for why Amanda and/or Raffaele's DNA was not found.


Short and sweet:

If you claim that Amanda/Raffaele holding Meredith would result in their DNA being left, then the same applies to Rudy's DNA. As Rudy's DNA was not found on Meredith's neck, he must not have been the one to strangle her. Likewise, as Rudy's DNA was not found on the bra clasp, he did not cut the clasp off. His DNA was not found in Filomena's bedroom, therefore he was not there.

I do not find this a hard concept to grasp - it's very simple. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the prosecution's scenario might be hogwash

Here's the problem, Chris.

Your argument is that if Amanda and/or Raffaele had held Meredith down/strangled her, they would have left their DNA on her throat. Your contention, therefore, is that as their DNA was not found on her throat (or at least, not identified - a notable difference in interpretation of the results), they were not involved in the strangulation/restraining.

Unless you believe Meredith strangled herself, this argument is hogwash. If you believe, as it would appear, that Rudy acted alone - why was his DNA not found on Meredith's neck? Keeping in mind that any response for why you feel his DNA was not found is equally valid for why Amanda and/or Raffaele's DNA was not found.


Short and sweet:

If you claim that Amanda/Raffaele holding Meredith would result in their DNA being left, then the same applies to Rudy's DNA. As Rudy's DNA was not found on Meredith's neck, he must not have been the one to strangle her. Likewise, as Rudy's DNA was not found on the bra clasp, he did not cut the clasp off. His DNA was not found in Filomena's bedroom, therefore he was not there.

I do not find this a hard concept to grasp - it's very simple. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

BobTheDonkey,

Carlo Torre changed his opinion on whether or not Meredith were strangled based on the observation that her hyoid bone was cut, rather than broken. His scenario, as described at Perugia-Shock, implies contact with Meredith’s neck, but not necessarily her wrist. The prosecution’s scenario is that Amanda strangled Meredith, causing the bruising. I acknowledge the possibility that blood from Meredith’s neck wounds might make it impossible to swab there.

If Rudy passed through Filomena’s room without touching objects with his bare hands, it is unlikely he would have left much, if any, DNA there. Rudy did leave DNA on the bra itself; your conclusion that he did not cut the clasp off does not take this point into account.

Based on the citation I gave, my contention is that if any of the three had held Meredith’s arms, each would have left his or her DNA. If the forensic police swabbed Meredith’s arms and found nothing, it is the prosecution’s scenario that is hogwash. If the forensic police did not swab her arms, then all bets are off.

 

[RWVBWL]

Though the computer usage between five-thirty and six, the turning on of the cellphone(s) (was it both or just Raffaele's?) at six, and Raffaele's phone conversation with his father at nine-thirty provide strong evidence against their claims that they slept in until ten or ten-thirty.

Hi TellyKNeasuss,
This is not pointed specifically at you or any others in particular.
But I do find it strange when people ask questions of what you wrote of that I am responding to.

I myself am a bachelor, and I often fall asleep with my laptop playin' a movie, esh sometimes I forget and have it replaying all night and wake up temporarily and watch it before falling asleep again.
I sometimes wake up and check my phone messages too, and go back to sleep.
But I wouldn't consider that to mean I got out of bed to start my day...

An example:
Techniquely, I did wake up this morning around 5:30am, then I went outside, saw the June gloom in full effect here in Los Angeles this morning and so I decided against heading to the beach and then I crawled back under the covers, pressed restart on the movie I was watching last night, and went back to sleep.
But I awoke and crawled outta bed to start my day around 7:30 or so.
So if I was being asked questions from a cop what time I awoke today, I would say at 7:30am.
But wait, I just remembered that I awoke also around 3:00am to use the johnny and I checked something on my desktop computer too real quick. So I guess that messes up my overnight alibi...

Another quirk of mine, and I guess Amanda Knox's too, is that I also delete many, many, many of my incoming emails, but most of the time I keep my sent emails. Sometimes I go thru them and re-read thoughts I wrote 6 month or a year ago, it's kinda cool, like taking a trip back in time. Heck, I know I have some sent emails from back in 2002 even still on my computer. But I sometimes do go thru and delete the un-important sent ones. No big deal.

But yet many 'guilter's' find these simple quirks to be of a sinister nature, I believe. I don't...
Have a good one,
RWVBWL

PS-From what I have read, Miss Knox has ALWAYS been in the habit of writing down her thoughts and so she has many, many dairies back at her home. I bet that she might get a kick outta reading her old sent messages too, as I do also...

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It is unknown what time Amanda turned her cell phone back on. The only reason we know about Raf's is because he had an sms message sent to him which wasn't received until he turned the phone back on. All we know from the computer and phone activity that morning is that Raf apparently woke up to turn his phone on at 6 and may have fiddled with his computer - but as has been pointed out, the computer activity is questionable and will be addressed upon appeal. It says nothing about what Amanda did that morning.

But Amanda claimed that they both slept in until ten. Since Raffaele was clearly up well before this (you didn't mention his father's phone call at around nine-thirty), Amanda's account of what happened that morning clearly is wrong. Period.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

If she'd called the Italian phone first, I have no doubt you'd have seen some sinister significance in that too. Probably that she didn't call the UK phone because she knew it was turned on and might lead to the phones being found, whereas calling the Italian phone would show she tried to reach Meredith but wouldn't risk attracting attention before she called Filomena.

So I guess that it was just one of those numerous coincidences.

What cunning plan do you think Amanda had by falsely claiming it was the Italian phone that 'just kept ringing', when in fact it was the UK phone?

Wrong. Neither phone rang at all. And neither phone call lasted more than a few seconds. The Italian phone went right to voicemail and the UK phone gave the "out of service" message.

Wouldn't that mistake rather suggest she didn't pay much attention to which phone she was calling, and therefore wasn't aware which phone was turned on or off...

No, because neither phone rang.

or was that the cunning plan, to falsely convince the police that she didn't know which phone was turned off, and hence she couldn't have been the one to take them?

Again, this makes no sense because neither phone rang.

Here's the lowdown as I understand it:
1) Amanda calls Meredith's UK phone and lets it ring for 16 seconds. This wouldn't have been long enough to get the voicemail.
2) Amanda then calls Filomena, though Amanda claims that she called Filomena before she called Meredith. Filomena wonders where Meredith is, so Amanda tells Filomena that she will try to contact Meredith. Though she had just tried to call Meredith, Amanda doesn't mention this to Filomena. Amanda also tells Filomena that she is going to go back to Raffaele's.
In his prison diary, Raffaele stated that Amanda made both calls from the cottage. Amanda claims that she made both calls from Raffaele's.
3) Amanda calls Meredith's Italian cellphone. She gets the voicemail and hangs up without leaving a message. Amanda claims that the phone rang and then there was a strange noise (I think that she used the word "disturbance").
4) Amanda calls Meredith's UK phone and gets the "out of service" message. This phone call lasted only a few seconds, but Amanda claims that the phone "just kept ringing".
5) The next phone call that Amanda made was to her mother (a call that she never mentioned in any of her statements). Amanda never called Filomena again. She not only did not call Filomena to tell her that she couldn't get in touch with Meredith, but she did not call Filomena after discovering the "break in". In Amanda's version of the events, as stated in her email, she called the police and then she called Filomena. Both points are wrong. Filomena called Amanda, not the other way around, and it was at least 15 minutes after this conversation that Raffaele finally called the police. Raffaele claimed that he called the police before the postal inspectors showed up, but there is plenty of evidence that shows that the postal inspectors had been there at least 20 minutes before Raffaele called the police.

I guess that college is a lot easier these days if someone with as lousy a memory as Amanda can be an honors student. Maybe a lot of open-book exams?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Next question:
13) If Rudi was in such a hurry to leave after the murder that he didn't even bother to close the cottage door, why did he take the time to lock Meredith's door?

 

[Matthew Best]

How do you know he was in such a hurry to leave that he didn't bother to close the door?

State your evidence for this conclusion.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

How do you know he was in such a hurry to leave that he didn't bother to close the door?

State your evidence for this conclusion.

13revised) Why did Rudi bother to lock Meredith's door but not bother to close the cottage door?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

How do you know he was in such a hurry to leave that he didn't bother to close the door?

State your evidence for this conclusion.

Revised 13) Why did Rudi take the trouble to lock Meredith's door but leave the front door wide open?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

How do you know he was in such a hurry to leave that he didn't bother to close the door?

State your evidence for this conclusion.

Revise 13) Why did Rudi take the trouble to lock Meredith's door but not bother to even close the front door?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Revise 13) Why did Rudi take the trouble to lock Meredith's door but not bother to even close the front door?

Firstly this has already been discussed, secondly this is another instance of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, and thirdly the idea that someone having just committed a murder might not shut the door properly is far from being so improbable that the prosecution case is more probable by comparison.