Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

With all due respect, you are the one arguing against the findings of experts who testified in trial, unless I am misunderstanding. I find it hard to believe that the average person can trump the judgment of experts simply by finding literature online. I'm not saying you are wrong, but it seems kind of unrealistic to assume any of us (myself, Sherlock Homes, or you) can sit another world away, and determine the time of death of a body as opposed to an actual coroner or expert studying the body.

That is my main problem with all this info, I see you guys have done a lot of research on this, and appreciate you taking the time to point it out to me (as opposed to saying google it you noob, or go back and read since we already posted it), but in the end Im not an expert, and it's hard for me to determine if the literature is enough evidence to disprove the findings of actual experts who were there and testified in court.

I think what many of us are arguing is that the defence failed to address this issue adequately during the trial, added to the fact that the prosecution apparently pushed back its time of death just before the end of the trial.

We also suggest that, essentially, the prosecution seemingly realised there were potential problems with the stomach/duodenum contents Vs ToD, and therefore introduced the notion of procedural failings during the autopsy, coupled with a general obfuscation over the accuracy of determining ToD from stomach/intestinal contents. Or, to put it another way, the prosecution's experts argued that one can't ever reliably tell ToD from stomach/intestinal contents, plus Lalli (the autopsy pathologist) messed up and Meredith's meal might have passed out of her stomach already anyhow.

We further suggest that Massei was more than prepared to uncritically accept the prosecution's expert witnesses in this area, and that the defence failed to adequately rebut the prosecution's witnesses with experts of their own. We believe, however, that the defence might be able to produce sufficient evidence in the appeal(s) - in the form of different expert witnesses and documentary evidence - to show that Meredith can't have died any later than 10.00pm at the very latest (and actually that her ToD was most likely before 9.30pm).

Now, of course it's true that none of us making these observations is a forensic pathologist or a gastro-intestinal specialist. However, many of us have scientific backgrounds and/or research capabilities. If the defence doesn't make a strong case in the appeal(s) along the lines we've discussed here, then we will accept that there are either factors which we have failed to appreciate or we're just plain wrong.

And, in passing, it's been remarked upon that since Knox and Sollecito are being represented by exactly the same attorneys as in the first trial, this refutes any suggestion that they performed inadequately in any way in the first trial. However, my view is that they did exhibit shortcomings in the first trial, but that they have hopefully identified and addressed these shortcomings for the appeal. And I believe that they have been helped in doing this by additional legal representatives, who may be giving advice and strategic direction from behind the scenes but who won't actually be standing up in the appeal court.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It isn't uncommon for someone to steal from someone they know. Especially when desperate for money. We know Rudy, just two days earlier, was busted in Milan with stolen goods he was trying to sell. When he returned to Perugia he was without money because he'd been busted.
We know from Rudy's own words that he 'd been hanging around the cottage a while before Meredith got home, so in essence he'd "cased" it to make sure no one was home.
The photo of the inside of the window shows that the glass was on one half of the sill.
When Rudy was caught he still had cuts on his hands.

[qimg]http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/6128/windowinside.jpg[/qimg]

I should mention this is from Bruce's site. Injusticeinperugia.org

This is nonsense. Rudy wasn't trying to sell the computer or anything else, where's your evidence for that?

Great shot of the window, it shows all the undisturbed glass on the exact spot he would have had to clamber over to get his arm through the window and then climb in...yet not a single piece on the ground below.

He cut himself climbing in through the window? Genius. Where's his blood?

 

[Fulcanelli]

A couple questions:

1) "R and A were "AT HOME" at that time"...

I assume you mean at R's home, yes?


2) I'm aware the time of death is debated.

OTOH, is it uncontested that R and A were at R's home at 21:05? Do both sides of the debate accept that as stipulated fact?

No, since the human computer activity up until about 21:10. They both 'may' have been there at that time, but the evidence proves for a fact only one of them was.

 

[Chris C]

Dr Lalli was fired from the case because he leaked information to the press and the journalists recorded him doing so and played it on TV! That would have got him thrown off the case no matter what case he was on.

Kinda like all the negative information the prosecution gave the press against Knox. Was the person that leaked Knox's diary fired?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I like that photo enlarged, it is very detailed. Thank you.

I am trying to imagine how the inner windows shut and latched and if they were shut and latched how easy or difficult it would be for someone to reach in through the broken glass, while balancing themselves on the window ledge, and unlatch them?

See this PowerPoint by Kermit, it shows how the window operated: Spiderman's Window

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think the key to the break-in is the concrete planter adjacent to the window. Someone standing on it could reach the overhanging roof and swing across to the window ledge, and not have to crawl over broken glass.

As for the "why" of Rudy's actions, if you're going to ask that, you might also ask why Amanda and Raffaele would get involved in a murder for which they had no motive, and which could only cause them problems even if they never became suspects. And once they were under suspicion, why didn't they implicate Rudy, who left bloody shoe prints, a bloody hand print, and DNA inside the victim's body?

Not unless Rudy was Super Rubber Man. See Thoughtful's recent photo of the wall, window and planter at the cottage on PMF. It's clear you can't reach the window from the planter.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The reason would be that they had a text which they mistranslated as meaning that Amanda went out that night to meet Patrick. When she insisted she didn't go out that night they assumed she was lying and became impatient. And they weren't as mean to her as they were to Patrick.

You're forgetting the bit about Raffaele also dropping her alibi.

 

[Fulcanelli]

They didn't file slander charges for her saying it. To the best of my knowledge the only thing they have filed charges against is the slap to the back of the head. Therefore if she wasn't a suspect what right do they have to detain her. If they are refusing food, water, attorney and bathroom break, plus they are saying she isn't a suspect till her statement. Then she is already being illegally detained.

No charges have been filed. It is not like in common law systems where the prosecution files charges. The prosecution can't file charges in Italy, only a court can file charges. That is what the upcoming hearing is about...the court will decide if they are to charge her or not. The same for her parents.

She became a suspect when she signed her statement at 1:45 am. Then they had the right to detain her. After her 5:45 am statement, she was formally arrested. Witnesses have fewer rights anyway. For example, a suspect has the right to remain silent, a witness does not.

Witnesses aren't given an attorney neither do they have a right to one. She could have insisted on having one...in which case she'd have immediately been arrested. That's SOP in the Italian system, especially in regard to violent sex crime.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I dont know if Guede was taped since his statements came after the signed statement which Knox retracted after she finally was able to use the bathroom, eat, drink and sleep. Filomena and Laura had taped conversations with the investigators. Knox had interviews after those taped conversations, yet even though she was interviewed for over 50 hours, none of those conversations where ever taped according Mignini. So you have 50+ hours of a girl speaking in American English and its not taped.

I guess its possible that after 50 hours of interrogation and a confessioin that someone probably said,

"Do you think we should have taped any of this?"

or

"Hey Joe, roll that tape back and lets hear it again." Joe responds, "What tape?"

Guede would have been taped, since he was formal suspect and was under arrest.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I very much wish they had taped them. I agree that doesnt help. I cant argue that.

I also hope they test that semen at the appeals. If there is one thing I think we can all agree on, is that we hope they test it!

Is there a picture of that lawyer on the window, showing the entire view from the ground? And Im assuming that metal grate was there when the murder took place?

It isn't semen. Until it's proven to be it isn't. Many other things glow under a black light...for example, make-up and Vaseline (Meredith used Vaseline lip balm on her lips), both of those things one would expect to find on Meredith's pillow.

 

[Fulcanelli]

When a pack of rampaging adolescents kill someone, which does happen occasionally, they usually admit being present but accuse their accomplices of actually doing the crime. The police know this, so they start by questioning the person they think is least guilty, and has the most to gain by pointing the finger. In this case, they probably realized Amanda didn't physically commit the murder, but they thought she knew something. So, they threw her and Raffaele in the can and held a big press conference at which they floated the "sex game" story.

They thought this would cause Amanda and/or Raffaele to cut their losses and come clean. But it didn't, because Amanda and Raffaele had no information with which to bargain. When it turned out Lumumba had an airtight alibi, and the physical evidence pointed to a completely different guy, the police in Perugia realized they had set themselves up to look like buffoons. They have been locked in mortal combat with the truth ever since then. But, as Hercule Poirot famously said, "la verite est en marche et rien ne l'arretera," which translates roughly as "Mignini is mean and fat, and he's gonna lose in the end."

Except they weren't adolescents, they were all adults. We aren't talking about thirteen and fourteen year olds.

 

[Chris C]

It isn't semen. Until it's proven to be it isn't. Many other things glow under a black light...for example, make-up and Vaseline (Meredith used Vaseline lip balm on her lips), both of those things one would expect to find on Meredith's pillow.

Can't have it both ways. Luminol reacts with many things other than blood. Except the footprints where tested and oh guess what. No blood.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Just a reminder -- this was a long holiday weekend in Perugia. Rudy was friends with the boys downstairs, so may very well have known they were all going out of town for the weekend. If he noticed the house was completely dark, he may have concluded the girls had done the same thing.

Someone posted recently -- I'm sorry, I can't remember where or who it was -- an excellent, if speculative, explanation of why Rudy was in a spot where he needed money fast, and that this might just have been an opportunity that presented itself. That is, if he did climb in the window, with the goal of burglarizing the house.

If they'd told home they were going away, one would have thought that would have been heard in the trial...don't you think?

The house was dark because all the shutters were closed. Amazing thing, shutters.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, they didn't. None of the witnesses were recorded.

But some of the "witnesses" had their private conversations and telephone calls recorded by the police, didn't they?

 

[LondonJohn]

Dr Lalli was fired from the case because he leaked information to the press and the journalists recorded him doing so and played it on TV! That would have got him thrown off the case no matter what case he was on.

I wonder why Perugia Police Chief Arturo de Felice wasn't fired for doing the same thing then? And while Mignini was at it, he could have fired himself too

 

[Fulcanelli]

And finally, some posters want to claim that a real burglar would have chosen to enter through the kitchen window off the balcony as indeed real burglars did while the cottage was still a sealed crime scene. What they don't consider is the consequences of waking a resident by the act of climbing to the balcony and breaking the window and then being exposed with no easy retreat if the resident should look out that window or the balcony door.

Umm...jump off the balcony?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have always thought he came in through the front door. I personally think the rock was only thrown threw the window to see if anyone was home. When no one responded he entered through the front door.

That's what door knockers and doorbells are for...amazing inventions those.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's lawyers at the supreme court

You're forgetting the bit about Raffaele also dropping her alibi.

Fulcanelli,

Raffaele's lawyers' argument before the Supreme Court was that ILE made an unjustified assumption that the two were together. That is an argument about the act of assuming, not an argument about the fact of where they were. In other words, his lawyers were not dropping Amanda's alibi, though I have often seen their nice legal argument misunderstood to that effect elsewhere. They were saying that a putative clue that puts Amanda elsewhere than his apartment does not also put Raffaele elsewhere.

 

[LondonJohn]

Except Patrick said on National television that he never made those comments in the paid human interest article. As you know very well.

I wonder why he hasn't sued the Daily Mail & General Trust for libel then? After all, these were direct quotes (i.e. within quotation marks) attributed explicitly to him, Patrick Lumumba, and they contained very serious allegations of physical, verbal and racial abuse against him by the Perugia police and prosecutors. If he hadn't said these things, I suspect that he could make an awful lot of money in a libel action in the UK courts, not to mention helping his reputation. And since his business failed (no thanks to the Perugia police), then I'm sure the money could come in handy.

Or........the alternative is that the Daily Mail has him on tape saying these exact things (papers like the Mail generally record interviews of this nature).

 

[quadraginta]

It's written by Michael Scaddron. He's a well known FOA.

I'm loving the logic here! He's identified with a campaign which believes Knox to be innocent, so the value of his opinion is somehow diminished or invalidated?

There has been no hesitance here to disparage the conclusions of certain lab experts simply because their results appear to reflect upon the guilt of the defendants ("She sat at the prosecution's table."), even though their position could have as easily had their testimony benefiting the defense if the results had been different.

Why is that okay, but questioning the motives of someone whose chosen, voluntary alignment is with a clearly biased group is somehow not?