Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

So do you believe there was an extended violent struggle, based on the injuries to Meredith's torso, arms and hands reported at the autopsy?

There was an overwhelming force, causing a prolonged restraint, not an extended violent struggle.

 

[Dan O.]

You are telling me, based on that quote, that Dan was referring to someone Laura brought home???? No. And if he's wrong, then I don't see how it is "revealing that I came to the conclusion that it was Amanda". Again, it's called inference.

Chris may have been unfamiliar with that incident but he at least knew how to do the research and find the source. What he didn't do was jump to the conclusion that it was another piece to attack Amanda's character with and go off echoing it with added florishes.

I await to see when you actually read the blog entry if you will equally criticize Laura for doing what you thought Amanda did.


[and I really have no idea how that smiley got there on the top of my post but I chose to leave it as a warning that there might be something sneaky coming up]

 

[Machiavelli]

And that's where the paradox lies for me. This scream had to be incredibly loud to be heard by Nara from behind double glazing inside her apartment, some 50m from the girls' house, and completely opposite Meredith's own window. Yet this incredibly loud scream was missed by the myriad residents, plus anyone out walking anywhere in the vicinity (even as far as the Etruscan Arch, let alone the basketball court)

.

Is this your only argument against Nara?

 

[Chris C]

.

Is this your only argument against Nara?

Did she go to the police first or reporters? Also how long did it take for her to come forward and who contacted the police with her story. Was she given a hearing test? Was there a test done on her apartment to see if a scream could even be heard at that distance?

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course, if the judges came to the conclusion that Meredith's body was moved at the time of the attack (as I believe it was), then its probative value against Knox and Solecito (as opposed to Guede) is greatly diminished. But since there were arguments presented that the body was moved some considerable time after death, Massei should have noted that he either a) accepted these arguments and therefore believed that Knox and Sollecito were involved in a post-murder clean up after Guede went clubbing, or b) he did not accept these arguments and therefore the body-moving evidence was of very limited value in determining guilt.

In which trial hearing those argumets were presented?
Those arguments were simply not discussed in court.
The court of Assise decided to limit their motivation report to what discussed and submitted during court debate.
(Micheli is a pre-trial judge and works differently).

To say an argument was not discussed in debate or not included in the report, does not equate to say it does not exist.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a bit more on the handy man

Chris may have been unfamiliar with that incident but he at least knew how to do the research and find the source. What he didn't do was jump to the conclusion that it was another piece to attack Amanda's character with and go off echoing it with added florishes.

I await to see when you actually read the blog entry if you will equally criticize Laura for doing what you thought Amanda did.


[and I really have no idea how that smiley got there on the top of my post but I chose to leave it as a warning that there might be something sneaky coming up]

There is a portion of Amanda's MySpace entry for October 15th at the "In Their Own Words" section of Perugia Murder File (at the Amanda Knox subsection) that provides a degree of corroboration for this incident. Whoever commented at Perugia-Shock probably had just read this document. I cannot, of course, vouch for the authenticity of the document at this site.

 

[Machiavelli]

Did she go to the police first or reporters? Also how long did it take for her to come forward and who contacted the police with her story.

Those things were already discussed in court.
The first person to hear her testimony was her daughter. In the subsequent days she told some friends who live nearby.

Was she given a hearing test?

No as far as I know. She never had hearing issues.

Was there a test done on her apartment to see if a scream could even be heard at that distance?

You think you can’t hear somebody shouting at 40 meters?
A distance of 50 meters at average atmosphere would produce a drop of loudness between 30 and 35 db (-30db / -35db).
If a scream is 110 db, loudness would be 65 db at 50 mt. With a frequency of 3000 Hz, this sound is still loud for a human ear. If you add glazes and panes you would have a further drop. Much depends on these panes. Variants are great and in big number:
do you really think you could rule out something through this test?

If you think you can rule out completely the possibility that a sound was heard, why do you think the defence didn’t do the test at the investigation or the pre-trial? Why only at the end of the trial?
Ok, never mind, but: if the test comes out with a result inconclusive for the defence (impossibility to hear not proven) would you consider this result as evidence against the defendants?

 

[RoseMontague]

from SeattlePI:



Rudy's diary claims that there were people playing basketball in the plaza when he left.

Nice cite (at Fulcanelli's request). So this other person heard some folks arguing in Italian and then a scream and Nara is not even sure what night it was or if it was possibly a car wreck. Both were led to the police by journalists at a later date much like that slightly eccentric man in the Park and the shopkeeper with the amazing recall that helped Massei discover that he was not asked about Amanda previously. It sounds like one of them was practically dragged into the police station by a journalist. All of these witnesses considered perfectly credible and reliable in the amazing tome of reasoning called the Massei report.

I don't know about Fulcanelli but I appreciate the cite. Thanks.

 

[Chris C]

Those things were already discussed in court.
The first person to hear her testimony was her daughter. In the subsequent days she told some friends who live nearby.

When and who notified the police? Did she talk to the media before the police?

 

[RoseMontague]

There is a portion of Amanda's MySpace entry for October 15th at the "In Their Own Words" section of Perugia Murder File (at the Amanda Knox subsection) that provides a degree of corroboration for this incident. Whoever commented at Perugia-Shock probably had just read this document. I cannot, of course, vouch for the authenticity of the document at this site.

Another nice cite and maybe another Amanda myth busted. Thanks

 

[Chris C]

You think you can’t hear somebody shouting at 40 meters?
A distance of 50 meters at average atmosphere would produce a drop of loudness between 30 and 35 db (-30db / -35db).
If a scream is 110 db, loudness would be 65 db at 50 mt. With a frequency of 3000 Hz, this sound is still loud for a human ear. If you add glazes and panes you would have a further drop. Much depends on these panes. Variants are great and in big number:
do you really think you could rule out something through this test?

If you think you can rule out completely the possibility that a sound was heard, why do you think the defence didn’t do the test at the investigation or the pre-trial? Why only at the end of the trial?
Ok, never mind, but: if the test comes out with a result inconclusive for the defence (impossibility to hear not proven) would you consider this result as evidence against the defendants?

Who measured the distance? I've read on pro guilt sites where they have it at 70 meters. So whats the exact distance and who measured it. Also she claims to hear the trampling of leaves and rustling of gravel coming from the driveway. A driveway by the way that has a car parked in it that doesn't belong to Knox, Sollecito, or Guede. She can hear the trampling of leaves and rustling of gravel in a driveway that she can't see because there is a 2 story parking lot blocking the view of it.

Nara's Super Human Hearing Testimony

 

[RoseMontague]

If you think you can rule out completely the possibility that a sound was heard, why do you think the defence didn’t do the test at the investigation or the pre-trial? Why only at the end of the trial?
Ok, never mind, but: if the test comes out with a result inconclusive for the defence (impossibility to hear not proven) would you consider this result as evidence against the defendants?

I think the defense was pretty comfortable with the fact that they had discredited the reliability of her testimony. It was only at the end that they realized despite the problems with this witness that Massei was going to go with the reasoning that they could see no reason this witness would lie without considering the possibility that she just may have been mistaken and was shown to have been mistaken about several things she testified to. At the point they made this request, they must have understood that the judgment had already been decided.

 

[RoseMontague]

Who measured the distance? I've read on pro guilt sites where they have it at 70 meters. So whats the exact distance and who measured it. Also she claims to hear the trampling of leaves and rustling of gravel coming from the driveway. A driveway by the way that has a car parked in it that doesn't belong to Knox, Sollecito, or Guede. She can hear the trampling of leaves and rustling of gravel in a driveway that she can't see because there is a 2 story parking lot blocking the view of it.

Nara's Super Human Hearing Testimony

Here is a picture posted on another site that seems helpful.

http://img135.imageshack.us/i/ab7848bec728f858082485d.jpg/

 

[Machiavelli]

Who measured the distance? I've read on pro guilt sites where they have it at 70 meters. So whats the exact distance and who measured it.

I made my measurement, asking a friend (a topographer from Puglia) through the data of IGM (Istituto Geografico Militare). He told me that this is the geographical distance, not the real distance. The actual distance copuld be bigger of about 1 meter.
70 meters was a figure brought by the defence in the pre-trial hearing, and was akcnowledged as a defence claim (not assessed in the merit) by judge Micheli.

it is very easy to check roughly the distance of 40 meters anyway: on GoogleMaps the hgher resolution has a 10 mt scale (23 millimetres on my screen). I measure about 72-73 millimetrs the distance from Nara to the location of the small bathroom window, and 90 millimetres the distance from the bacony window. The scale and photo is imprecise, but the error is not significant for our purposes. So distance from Nara to the balcony is 39,4 metres (!). The distance from Nara's window to Filomena's bathroom window in GoogleMaps is an incredible 31,7 meters.

 

[Machiavelli]

When and who notified the police? Did she talk to the media before the police?

I don't know. To me, this doesn't matter at all.

 

[Machiavelli]

At the point they made this request, they must have understood that the judgment had already been decided

.

This could be re-formulized as: they must have understood they were losing.

 

[Machiavelli]

was going to go with the reasoning that they could see no reason this witness would lie without considering the possibility that she just may have been mistaken and was shown to have been mistaken about several things she testified to.

In fact, she didn't mistake several things. She didn't make any mistake, but she didn't remember date and time. Which is normal, because dates and times are not objects for the memory, people often don't know what date is today (they may ask it) and often don't take note of the time.
But she remembered very well the scream. It is not reasonable to assume she had mistaken the scream. Sorry, but this is really not reasonable. You have infinite occasions to be uncertain about the date, but you won't make a mistake on hearing the desperate scream of a woman. I'm not talking of a "mistake" on time like Amanda's, who says "the only thing I am certain about is that we had dinner late". Nara a is really uncertain on the date number (1..2..), and about things happened in days around, but not on the day: that scream was on the night of the murder.
I wonder how you could even figure out this "mistake" of hearing a terrifying scream that dosn't happen.
Moreover, I wonder why you forget to put weight on Antonella Monacchia's testimony who speaks about the same night, to draw your conclusions.

 

[Chris C]

I made my measurement, asking a friend (a topographer from Puglia) through the data of IGM (Istituto Geografico Militare). He told me that this is the geographical distance, not the real distance. The actual distance copuld be bigger of about 1 meter.
70 meters was a figure brought by the defence in the pre-trial hearing, and was akcnowledged as a defence claim (not assessed in the merit) by judge Micheli.

it is very easy to check roughly the distance of 40 meters anyway: on GoogleMaps the hgher resolution has a 10 mt scale (23 millimetres on my screen). I measure about 72-73 millimetrs the distance from Nara to the location of the small bathroom window, and 90 millimetres the distance from the bacony window. The scale and photo is imprecise, but the error is not significant for our purposes. So distance from Nara to the balcony is 39,4 metres (!). The distance from Nara's window to Filomena's bathroom window in GoogleMaps is an incredible 31,7 meters.

And whats the distance to the driveway where she hears the gate open, the trampling of leaves and rustling of gravel? Because I seriously doubt that people can run on gravel and leaves and make noise louder than someone can scream.

 

[Chris C]

In fact, she didn't mistake several things. She didn't make any mistake, but she didn't remember date and time. Which is normal, because dates and times are not objects for the memory, people often don't know what date is today (they may ask it) and often don't take note of the time.
But she remembered very well the scream. It is not reasonable to assume she had mistaken the scream. Sorry, but this is really not reasonable. You have infinite occasions to be uncertain about the date, but you won't make a mistake on hearing the desperate scream of a woman. I'm not talking of a "mistake" on time like Amanda's, who says "the only thing I am certain about is that we had dinner late". Nara a is really uncertain on the date number (1..2..), and about things happened in days around, but not on the day: that scream was on the night of the murder.
I wonder how you could even figure out this "mistake" of hearing a terrifying scream that dosn't happen.
Moreover, I wonder why you forget to put weight on Antonella Monacchia's testimony who speaks about the same night, to draw your conclusions.

When Did she tell the police? Who notified the police? Did she talk to the press before the police? How can she here someone running on leaves over 50 meters away while she was inside. How does someone stab a person 3 times, then leave the residence, open the gate, and cover a distance over 100 meters in less than 60 seconds? Then to top it all off, they are running in the opposite of Sollecito's or Guede's residences. What was the distance given by the prosecution from nara's to Amanda/Meredith's apartment?

 

[Amazer]

I do not Blame Massei, he had no choice in this matter. It would have been political suicide to overturn the conviction. Instead he had to make everything fit and thats why that report is the way it is.

You are aware that the post of Judge is not a political post? So why do you think that it would have been political suicide? It's not like Massei would have lost his job, even if he would have returned a 'Not guilty' verdict.