Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Ampulla of Vater]

Posted by Sherlock Holmes 3) Why sleep in, thought she had a rather uneventful night, maybe checked her e-mail, a late supper and some sex, that shouldn't even take up from 9 til midnight, what did she sleep, 14 and a half hours?

I hope I am doing this correctly - I've never posted to this forum before; I've just been reading it for the past 2 months.

I can assure you, as the mother of a 21-year-old and a 23-year-old, sleeping for 14 hours is quite the norm. (Unless, of course, one must be at school or work early!)

 

[Kestrel]

Ah Rose. It is quite a step to say that Quintavalle is lying without more information. I realize this is your gut speaking, however, it is not fair to call someone a liar without evidence to back it up.

Blogs, journalists, posters, etc. do not always convey reliable information. The courtroom is the best place to determine the reliability and truthfulness of a witness.

The first indications we got that Quintavalle was weaving a tall tale came from the Perugia Shock blog report on his courtroom testimony. Reading the Massei report and the appeal documents for the suspects confirms that this blog report was accurate. When interviewed by a police officer a few days after the crime, Quintavalle said nothing about seeing Amanda the day after the murder. His employees who were in the store didn't see Amanda. But a year later Quintavalle started telling a different story.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

22.13.29 hours on 1 November 07, where the cell providing the coverage was ..30064 on Strada Vicinale Ponte Rio Monte la Guardia, whose signal, as the on-the-spot measurements carried out by Chief Inspector Latella prove, can be received both at the level of Meredith’s bedroom window and in the courtyard of the cottage on Via della Pergola 7.-Massei, p.327

The "10:13" registered time does not exist. It is 22:13, Nov.1, 2007 and the signal originated from Pergola 7.

This is weasel wording from Massei. It is one thing to prove that a signal could have been received from a given point, for a value of "could" solely determined by whether it's physically possible for a phone to reach that tower.

However it's another thing to prove that the signal was received from Meredith's bedroom, and in fact this is an incredibly unlikely hypothesis because her phone had never connected to that tower before, ever, as far as anyone can prove. It always connected to a different tower when it was used from Meredith's house.

Unless the laws of physics are conspiring to get Amanda and Raffaele off (perhaps the Inverse Square Law is a Friend of Amanda?) then the 10:13pm signal (or 22:13 if you think something vital hinges on the use of 24 hour notation) did not come from Meredith's house. It came from somewhere else with better reception for the new tower, meaning that her phones had already been moved from her house at that time.

This is what I refer to as hard evidence: The signal strength of Meredith's phone cannot lie, and the electronic records of her calls cannot misremember details. This is a matter of physics, not opinion, and the physics says that Meredith's phones were not in Meredith's house at 10:13pm.

You can believe if you will (as Massei did) that the earlier, anomalous calls from Meredith's phone were merely Meredith autodialling for fun. It's a matter of opinion whether or not you find that post hoc explanation ridiculous or not, and whether you think it far more likely that those calls were made by her murderer, Rudy, trying to turn her phone off. The 10:13pm event, however is not a matter of opinion, and along with the stomach contents it falsifies the prosecution narrative.

 

[Dan O.]

2. I don't have a very good picture of the mop outside the cottage, but I just uploaded the best one I have:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/cottage_with_mop.jpg

Charlie, do you have the date for that photo? I suspect that it was taken in March/April of the next year or later. Compared to the video from the Spheron files, there is new vegetation that was not there on Nov 3, 2007. Since the crime scene seal from the door has been removed, it may even be as late as 2009.

As much as this object looks like the standard custodial mop and bucket,
it was clearly there on the 3rd and clearly not an item of interest to the Perugia Flying Squids or the Instigators from Rome; it therefore cannot be a mop and bucket.

The compression artifacts are making the outer basket look like a milk crate with a broken side.

 

[Justinian2]

Posted by Sherlock Holmes 3) Why sleep in, thought she had a rather uneventful night, maybe checked her e-mail, a late supper and some sex, that shouldn't even take up from 9 til midnight, what did she sleep, 14 and a half hours?

I hope I am doing this correctly - I've never posted to this forum before; I've just been reading it for the past 2 months.

I can assure you, as the mother of a 21-year-old and a 23-year-old, sleeping for 14 hours is quite the norm. (Unless, of course, one must be at school or work early!)

I find everything that Amanda did absolutely normal for a young attractive girl newly in love. Saw a group of five attractive people doing cartwheels and flips on their lawn the other day. They were having fun and all the passing people were watching. Amanda never had an enemy before. She was doing what she always did to get people to like her.

 

[RoseMontague]

22.13.29 hours on 1 November 07, where the cell providing the coverage was ..30064 on Strada Vicinale Ponte Rio Monte la Guardia, whose signal, as the on-the-spot measurements carried out by Chief Inspector Latella prove, can be received both at the level of Meredith’s bedroom window and in the courtyard of the cottage on Via della Pergola 7.-Massei, p.327

The "10:13" registered time does not exist. It is 22:13, Nov.1, 2007 and the signal originated from Pergola 7.

The 30064 does cover Meredith's home and courtyard but it was not the mast that handled the earlier calls that night when she was supposedly laying on her bed playing with her phone. The defense decided to test an area between Meredith's place and the garden where the phones were found and discovered that this mast covered that area quite well. It is not proof that the phones were on the way to the garden at 10:13PM (22:13) but it suggests a strong possibility that they were. Why did the 30064 mast pick up this call and not the others if the phone was still in the same location as the earlier calls that evening?

 

[RoseMontague]

Al gave some of the translation of that section of the appeal dealing with the defenses argument regarding Meredith's cell phone on the IIP General forum:

It is surprising that the ruling did not take into consideration the important results
of the measurements made by defense consultant (Mr. Pellero) inside the St.
Angelo Park, in spite of the fact that on page 352 the ruling acknowledges that: “the site [where the cell phone was located at 22:13] that is being proposed [by the defense] is inside
St. Angelo Park, opposite the famous Villa [in Via Sperandio 5bis], a
place that enjoys the best coverage of the cell Wind 30064, as
was found by appropriate instruments used by the engineer Mr. Pellero”, i.e. the cell
pinged by the 22:13:29 GPRS connection, crucial to determine the time of the crime. The information was therefore accepted and included in the ruling, however, [the Court] did not draw the necessary conclusions in order to identify a likely place where the phone could have been at that moment.
Overall, the above described fact (the dismissal by the court of those results) leads to a serious bias in the judgment.

Al gives some addition clarifying that I was unaware of:

T

he St. Angelo park is a park in Perugia where concerts are held in summer during Perugia's numerous festivals. It's right above the villa in via Sperandio (you can see it on Google Maps, and you can recognize the small amphiteather where the concerts are held). The defense is arguing that probably the phone was there in the murderer's hands when the GPRS connection occurred at 22:13 and the murderer decided at that time to throw it down below from the park, and the phone landed in the Villa's garden.

To me this raises the issue of reasonable doubt again and why the court cherry picks evidence to support a guilty verdict and ignores evidence that at the very least, raises a lot of doubt.

 

[christianahannah]

The first indications we got that Quintavalle was weaving a tall tale came from the Perugia Shock blog report on his courtroom testimony. Reading the Massei report and the appeal documents for the suspects confirms that this blog report was accurate. When interviewed by a police officer a few days after the crime, Quintavalle said nothing about seeing Amanda the day after the murder. His employees who were in the store didn't see Amanda. But a year later Quintavalle started telling a different story.

As I do not have access to the complete testimony transcripts of Quintavalle or Volturno it is difficult to assess whether their statements conflict with one another. What questions were asked of Quintavalle by Volturno? What was the conversation between Quintavalle and his journalist friend concerning sharing his recollection of Amanda? Did Quintavalle mention (and when) to his employees if they had seen a girl in the shop? Memory is a peculiar function. Have you not had an experience later in time which clicked and brought forth a memory which made things clear? I have. Also, better than the summary at Perugia Shock would be the actual court transcripts.

To Chris C and Kevin_Lowe:

Yes, the court/jury does determine the truthfulness and reliability of a witness. Quintavalle was found to be credible by the court. If the court has erred in its examination of the evidence and its decision that is what the appeal process is for. But to say that the court is complicit, negligent, or incompetent is not a place I am willing to go or think is correct.

Where did Amanda knowingly lie? Chris, I don't have that answer. I don't have access to her previous declarations or transcripts of the different hearings and courtroom testimony. I would imagine they were compared against each other for inconsistencies.

Where did the prosecution knowingly lie? I would hope as officers of the court the prosecution did not knowingly lie at all. Can you give an example?

 

[Justinian2]

I see the statistical theory you are applying here, and it has a certain amount of underlying validity. However, in this case I think that the length of elapsed time before the first body temperature measurements were made, coupled with a seeming lack of understanding of the ambient temperature in Meredith's room during the night of the murder and the following morning, mean that the time range quoted by the pathologist can't even be subjected to a meaningful bell-curve type analysis. There is SO much margin for error, and so many unquantified variables, that body temperature as a measure of ToD is virtually useless in this instance.

The stomach/intestine contents, on the other hand, tell a different and much more precise story...

From memory: The translation seemed to suggest that analyzing the stomach contents was less precise.

From memory: The prosecutor seemed to suggest that the ToD was 11:30 pm because he picked a point half way between the earliest and the latest Tod.

My ideas were that:
1) There is great uncertainty in the Tod.
2) The uncertainty probably follows the standard bell curve which would suggest that it's 70 percent likely that the murder happened between 9:30pm to 1:30 am. It's also 12.5 percent likely it happened between 7:30 and 9:30 pm and 2.5 percent likely that it happened earlier.

Data on the cell phone ping would suggest that the phone was in the garden at ten after it was discarded by the thief/murderer. Since testimony indicates the victim was alive at 9:00 pm, that places the ToD somewhere between 9:00 and 10:00. If we add the autopsy report data that it took the victim 15 minutes to die, that puts the attack somewhere between 9:00 and 9:45. This also corresponds to the ToD as determined by the temperature analysis.

 

[Alt+F4]

I would completely agree with everything you have written here. And if this timing is correct, then it's practically impossible for Knox and Sollecito to have been involved. Therein lies the conundrum.

There is no conundrum. They have no alibi. The closest I've heard to an alibi (but have seen no evidence of it) is that a video file turned on RS's computer around 9:45. How they heck is that evidence that they were both there? Is there another alibi I'm not aware of?

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt - you must of misunderstood what I'm saying..

I agree with you 100% that Amanda should have called the cell phones when she was going hysterical outside Meredith's door. My reply was to those who stated why didn't any of the others do the same, the reason is simple, the others knew Meredith's phones were at the police station..

Sherlock, it's my understanding that none of those involved knew where the phones were before 12:55 (when the Postal Police showed up with them). Amanda was the only one with the opportunity to stand outside Meredith's door, call the phones and listen for a ring. She didn't.

 

[Alt+F4]

I thought we had already whacked this mole? Amanda and Raffaele "lied" about events around the day of the murder. Filomena "lied" too. The police "lied" too. Yet when Amanda and Raffaele "lie" (get something wrong) the guilters turn backflips trying to find evidence of guilt in it. When anyone else gets something wrong, as far as the guilters are concerned they just got something wrong.

Hey, I think lots of people lied in this case but that doesn't diminish the fact that Amanda and Raffaele lied too.

If you cross-examined me long enough about exactly what I did and when last weekend and I made a good faith attempt to answer every question to the best of my ability, then you cross-examined everyone I knew and assumed that they all had perfect recall because they had no reason to lie, I bet you could catch me in all sorts of "lies" and "contradictions".

Long enough? I thought we wacked that mole about how long their interrogation actually was.

Yet when we examine Amanda and Raffaele's "lies" they always seem completely inconsequential. The guilter backflips are frankly often silly: "They lied about the phones so they could delay the discovery of the body by fifteen minutes!", "They lied to make the police chase a false lead and waste their time, which can make all the difference in a major murder investigation!", or the all-purpose "Lying about anything in a murder inquiry is in and of itself evidence of guilt - except if you are Filomena, the police or anyone else!".

A significant number of "lies" only get up in the first place because of prosecution witnesses of dubious reliability who appeared late in the day to miraculously support the prosecution's late time of death, or are based on the potentially flawed recollection of other witnesses.

However in the end the fundamental problem still remains: The stomach contents say Meredith died at a time when the computer records say Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's house. Amanda and Raffaele could have danced on Meredith's grave singing the Hallelujah Chorus and told the police they saw the Easter Bunny running from the scene with a bloody chainsaw, but if they weren't there, they still couldn't have done it.

You can try and spin it all you want to. The bottom line is they LIED. As I mentioned in a previous post, can you provide more information regarding the "computer records"? I've seen little other than a statement from Raffaele's lawyer. Thanks in advance.

 

[Dan O.]

The cottage had two mops I guess, one perhaps owned by Laura and one owned by Filomena. The red set looks exactly like a Vileda mop and bucket I have at home, must be sold worldwide.

I would say you are absolutely correct on the identification of the mop found inside and seized on Nov. 6th. [Massei Report pg 98]. <http://www.cleaningproductshop.co.uk/ViledaSupermocioFloorMopBucket&Wringer.htm>

There is however no indication that what is seen outside is a mop and bucket. And given that the authorities showed no interest in it is a pretty good indicator that it was not.

You seem to be the only one convinced of the precision of basing TOD on stomach contents.

This is something that could be verified without sending people to the farm.

So does Raffaele have to go outside his apartment to wait for his Dad's calls? or to make any calls at all?

I only said reception was better outside. That Raffaele also has a land line may be a clue that the cell phone reception is spotty inside the apartment.

 

[Justinian2]

The point that I was trying to make in post 4459 is that the murder happened within an hour of the witnesses placing Amanda and Raffaele at his place. Both had prior plans that were suddenly changed. It is absurd to believe that they would say to each other: "We have nothing better to do in the next hour, why don't we run over and kill your roomate?"

That's an absurd idea. I've been in madly in love in my 20's. I only had one thing thing on my mind. I was totally infatuated with my beautiful girlfriend for months.

 

[Rhea]

Hi, I'm new and believe in Raffaele's and Amanda's innocence. I apologize for my non perfect english.

There is no conundrum. They have no alibi. The closest I've heard to an alibi (but have seen no evidence of it) is that a video file turned on RS's computer around 9:45. How they heck is that evidence that they were both there? Is there another alibi I'm not aware of?

This is something I don't understand, not having an alibi isn't an indication of guilt, it just means you have nobody to confirm your whereabouts and therefore can't prove your innocence. Filomena for instance has the exact same Alibi as Amanda, she was with her boyfriend, nobody else to confirm it …

Not having an alibi is however the precondition to bring somebody to court. If Amanda and Raffaele had a provable alibi, they wouldn't have been brought to court, as they would have been capable of proving their innocence, the way Lumumba was.

But if we think, the fact they can't provide an alibi makes them guilty, following that logic, every person tried for murder is guilty, as the usually don't have an alibi. Therefore it's the court's task to detect if their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The lacking alibi is the precondidtion based upon which their guilt has to be established.

So it's not Raffaele and Amanda's task to prove their innocence or present an alibi, the court has to prove they were at the cottage at the time the murder occured, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that yet.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie, do you have the date for that photo? I suspect that it was taken in March/April of the next year or later. Compared to the video from the Spheron files, there is new vegetation that was not there on Nov 3, 2007. Since the crime scene seal from the door has been removed, it may even be as late as 2009.

As much as this object looks like the standard custodial mop and bucket,
it was clearly there on the 3rd and clearly not an item of interest to the Perugia Flying Squids or the Instigators from Rome; it therefore cannot be a mop and bucket.

The compression artifacts are making the outer basket look like a milk crate with a broken side.

The video that accompanied the Spheron files included a brief glimpse of the mop and bucket...

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/frame_from_walkaround_showing_mop.jpg

Many people have done their utmost to spin a sinister tale around the fact that Amanda carried a mop to and from Raffaele's apt. on the morning of Nov. 2. But it doesn''t make sense. The crime scene was not at Raffaele's place. Plus, the authorities interviewed the landlady and the plumber who serviced the building. They confirmed that there was a problem with the drainpipe under Raffaele's kitchen sink, just as he and Amanda said.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Judge Massei wrote that Amanda and Raffaele thought they threw the phones off a cliff so they would not be found. If that were true then the phones would have both been smashed into inoperable debris and calling the phones would not have given any indication as to whether the phones were found or not (or so they would believe). So why does Massei say that Amanda's call to Meredith's phones was to determine if they had been found? The answer is that Massei is grasping for straws to justify the conviction. None of it holds together.​

This is indeed a bizarre twist in Massei's reasoning. He writes:

Once they had that reassurance (the phones not being answered by anyone), they could raise the alarm...

Why would they seek the reassurance of knowing that the phones hadn't been found? Massei's premise is that everything they did on the morning of Nov. 2 was a ruse aimed at deflecting suspicion. If that were true, and they were worried that someone (the police?) might answer Meredith's phone, then obviously they would avoid calling that number until after they had put themselves on record as having raised the alarm.

The whole theory is ridiculous. Everything Amanda and Raffaele did that day is fully consistent with a couple of innocent people who had stumbled onto a murder scene without knowing it.​

 

[Alt+F4]

This is something I don't understand, not having an alibi isn't an indication of guilt, it just means you have nobody to confirm your whereabouts and therefore can't prove your innocence. Filomena for instance has the exact same Alibi as Amanda, she was with her boyfriend, nobody else to confirm it …

Not having an alibi is however the precondition to bring somebody to court. If Amanda and Raffaele had a provable alibi, they wouldn't have been brought to court, as they would have been capable of proving their innocence, the way Lumumba was.

But if we think, the fact they can't provide an alibi makes them guilty, following that logic, every person tried for murder is guilty, as the usually don't have an alibi. Therefore it's the court's task to detect if their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The lacking alibi is the precondidtion based upon which their guilt has to be established.

So it's not Raffaele and Amanda's task to prove their innocence or present an alibi, the court has to prove they were at the cottage at the time the murder occured, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that yet.

Hello new person

I'm not saying that they are guilty because they have no alibi, I'm saying that calling some sort of short "computer activity" on RS's laptop an alibi for two people for at least a two hour window is ridiculous.

 

[Alt+F4]

I only said reception was better outside. That Raffaele also has a land line may be a clue that the cell phone reception is spotty inside the apartment.

According to the report his home received very strong cell phone signals.

 

[Justinian2]

Anybody read my reply #4459.

It was from the translation, but I inserted the times of probable death to show how unlikely the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele was from the element of time.

Furthermore, Raffaele was worried about a leak under the sink, helping someone with their suitcases and listening to a movie his father saw. Amanda thought she would be working. Are we to believe that suddenly their minds would shift to murder and actually rush to do so in the next hour???????

Ridiculus, absolutely ridiculus!