Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

Even if the court could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Amanda was not at Raffaele's apartment when she got the text message, the fact is that a witness saw her at his apartment, and spoke to her, less than half an hour later.

She wasn't a junkie on the prowl for a fix. She was a casual user of cannabis, which Raffaele had on hand.

The truth, most likely, is that Patrick realized early on that it was going to be a sleepy night, Amanda was at Raffaele's place, just as she said, and the repeater, which would not support a voice stream or even a single carrier bar, was nevertheless able to send a < 10 kb text packet.

This is like the Harry Potter book. Why would she lie about that? She didn't. It was right where she said it was, just as her clothes were lying on her bed, right where she said they were, even though the police told the media for months that they were missing.

Hi Charlie Wilkes,
Listing a few of the police mistakes above made me realize that I STILL can't get over the fact
that the police could not even count the rings correctly on Raffaele's Nike Airforce-1 sneakers!
They had 7, where as Rudy Guede's Nike Outbreak 2's had 11...

Thanks again to Candace Dempseys's "Murder in Italy" page 253+254...
RWVBWL

PS-Hey HumanityBlues, should I just save the cash?

 

[Draca]

Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto Sector 3 / 8:18pm SMS

Agreed. i thought that had been clarified. She received the text at 8:18 somewhere in the center of town. She read the text...somewhere, we don't know where.

The Motivation Report contradicts itself. It says that on one page that the tower does not connect with the Raffaele's Apt and on another it says it does. I see no reason to believe Amanda was not at Raffaele' Apt at 8:18 as she said.


FROM MASSEI REPORT PAGE 322: "− 20:18:12: Amanda receives the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic‛ pub on the evening of 1 November. At the time of reception the phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house.

....................

NOTE: The following summeriest the following four calls cell tower locations and all four calls were connected while the phones were at Raffaele's flat. This is the same cell tower that Amanda's phone connected with at 20:18:12

Cell tower location -------------- Serviced Raffaele's flat:
Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, YES, page 323
Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, YES, page 323
Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, YES, page 323
Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, YES, page 323

......................

FROM MASSEI REPORT PAGE 323:
"-12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena on number 347-1073006; the mobile phone connects to the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell (which covers Sollecito’s house)

"− 12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-4673711 belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated (cell used: Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 "

"− 12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)"

"− 12:12:35 (lasting 36 seconds) Romanelli Filomena calls Amanda Knox (No. 348-4673590); Amanda receives the call connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (still at Raffaele’s house)"

 

[Machiavelli]

On another note, I found it interesting that you were dismissing Candace Dempsey's well written book "Murder in Italy", for the other day when I was looking for info on the location of where Meredith Kercher's 2 cell phones were found, "Murder in Italy" gave me the most detailed information that I could quickly find...

Have a good day

Or really? That's a proof. An address is a really interesting piece information.
Even the Gospels contain many corret facts. So why am I an atheist?

 

[Machiavelli]

One has to wonder if you've actually read Darkness Descending after that comment. Wow.

I've read only some chapters of the Italian version, which I consider the original "final cut" by Luciano Garofano. I never read the English book and actully I don't know if the text is identical or if content edits were made.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I like the speculation, but now it's basis (Amanda was outside when receiving the SMS) looks not so strong to me anymore. It's a pity we have so little sources on Patrick's testimony. Especially the opening of the pub at 9 pm looks strangely late for me.

Yeah, I'm a little deflated, my speculation doesn't look so good right now. I don't know what to make of the 9:00 pm opening time. I'm not familiar with pubs in Perugia, specifically Le Chic. I'm just going by Patrick's testimony as reported in Darkness Descending.

 

[Malkmus]

The English speaking reports I consider fairly good factually are only two: one is Andrea Vogt, the only accurate English speaker daily reporter, and as a book giving a whole picture, the only factually (fairly) correct summary is "darkness descending" which is almost entirely based on information collected and analysed by Luciano Grarofano.
"Fairly good" report doesn't mean they are "sources".

Machiavelli, since you don't wish to cite specific reasons for why we shouldn't ever cite Candace Dempsey I took it upon myself to read up on your posts at PMF where you discuss your distaste with her. I was only able to find one clear instance where you disagreed with her translation of Amanda's text saying "Certo, ci vediamo a piu' tardi, buona serata." You state that it means something different, and hold that against her. What I find surprising about your claim however is that (A) Your translation is barely different in meaning, and implies the same thing more or less, and (B) Why do you hold Candace responsible for this "mistranslation" when it is verbatim what every other author translates it as?

When I read that phrase it reads almost identical to the French way of saying the same thing which would be "Certainement. Je te verrai plus tard. Bonne soirée." (I am half French, hence why I'm using this example)

It seems apparent that you don't want us citing her because she takes a pro-innocent stance, and that your posts at PMF are rather nit-picky and not indicative of any true fallacies on her part, which explains your inability to specifically state here on this forum why don't respect her. If I am wrong, please explain why. Otherwise, I think we can all continue citing her over other authors who have clearly made factual errors (of which Darkness Descending is full of them).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Darkness Descending

Hi Charlie Wilkes,
Listing a few of the police mistakes above made me realize that I STILL can't get over the fact
that the police could not even count the rings correctly on Raffaele's Nike Airforce-1 sneakers!
They had 7, where as Rudy Guede's Nike Outbreak 2's had 11...

Thanks again to Candace Dempseys's "Murder in Italy" page 253+254...
RWVBWL

PS-Hey HumanityBlues, should I just save the cash?

RWVBWL,

"Darkness Descending" reads like a pastiche of tabloid articles strung together. There are some good bits, but there are also a number of errors. I seem to recall that the authors imagine a meeting between two of the principles that never took place (Charlie Wilkes probably remembers better than I do). Colonel Garofano's contributions are the best part. He has coauthored at least one paper on the forensic use of luminol, and his comments on its use were helpful to me. He also noted the fact that ILE did not disassemble the kitchen knife. I do not agree with all that he wrote on the DNA profiling, however.

 

[Malkmus]

I've read only some chapters of the Italian version, which I consider the original "final cut" by Luciano Garofano. I never read the English book and actully I don't know if the text is identical or if content edits were made.

Machiavelli, I didn't write that post. For future reference, when you want to quote someone, simply click the "quote" button at the bottom corner of the message itself.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Hi Charlie Wilkes,
I STILL can't get over the fact that the police could not even count the rings correctly on Raffaele's Nike Airforce-1 sneakers!
They had 7, where as Rudy Guede's Nike Outbreak 2's had 11...

Thanks again to Candace Dempseys's "Murder in Italy" page 253+254...
RWVBWL

PS-Hey HumanityBlues, should I just save the cash?

It's a case of seeing what you want to see, like seeing Sollecito's footprint on the mat, even though the big toe is exactly like Guede's and not at all like Sollecito's.

I can't find my copy of "Victims of Justice" by Frisbee and Garrett. I'd like to scan the shoe print made with dust on the Nicarico's screen door versus Stephen Buckley's boot. They are similar, with diagonal treads, except the direction of the tread on the door is exactly perpendicular to the tread on Buckley's boot. There is no way they can match.

And yet, the prosecution was able to hire an "expert" - Louise Robbins - to say that the vibrations of the kick that forced open the door had the effect of altering the direction of the tread on the print. It has got to be the single stupidest piece of junk science in the history of criminal justice. Robbins has been thoroughly debunked, but the guy who prosecuted Buckley will never admit there was a problem:

To this day, Robbins still has at least one supporter who backs her work unequivocally.

Thomas Knight, a former Illinois prosecutor who used Robbins as an expert in the case against Buckley, describes her as one of the least controversial experts he has ever encountered. The fact that she alone could do what she did, he says, is a testament to her ability, dedication and hard work.

"I would rank her credibility as a witness and her integrity as a scientist right at the top," he said.

Knight, who now has a private civil practice outside of Chicago, also contends that Robbins has been made a scapegoat by a collection of people with ulterior motives, primarily those who hope to discredit her testimony as a means of getting the convictions she helped secure overturned.

Bodziak [a Robbins critic] has his own ax to grind, Knight suggests, because Robbins was able to identify footprints that he couldn't identify, an assertion that the FBI expert flatly denies.

http://www.science.sjsu.edu/bio101/believe_it_or_not.htm

It is interesting that Lorenzo Rinaldi, the prosecution's footprint expert in the Kercher case, used the "grid of L.M. Robbins" in his analysis.

 

[Machiavelli]

It seems apparent that you don't want us citing her because she takes a pro-innocent stance, and that your posts at PMF are rather nit-picky and not indicative of any true fallacies on her part, which explains your inability to specifically state here on this forum why don't respect her

I never attacked Candace Dempsey on her blog, by my choice, nor I ever conceded she was right when she wasn't. Her fix idea on the sms message, as I recall it, was an interesting example of her peculiar hypocrisy, which consists in an irresistible penchant for twists on little details, straw men and dull rhetoric denials ("hilarious").

Candace Dempsey enjoys to introduce herself with assertions like, her interview when she told how she was able to understand better than other reporters witnesses speaking Italian with a peculiar "southern accent", because of her Calabrian origins. I don’t feel like making the full list of her boutades, in her blog and interviews, I can tell you it was enough for me to read her blog long before she published her book. In her book she says Piazza Grimana is "a 5-minute walk from the girls' cottage", and the cottage is in "Sant'Angelo” defined a “noisy street”, and "Developers had built a solid wall of modern apartments right across".

I never read the book. But I was given snippets and quotations by poster friends.

 

[Malkmus]

I never attacked Candace Dempsey on her blog, by my choice, nor I ever conceded she was right when she wasn't. Her fix idea on the sms message, as I recall it, was an interesting example of her peculiar hypocrisy, which consists in an irresistible penchant for twists on little details, straw men and dull rhetoric denials ("hilarious").

I don't see how Candace's translation of Amanda's text, which is the same as every other author who's written about it, is an example of hypocrisy. Perhaps you could elaborate. And would you also explain why the phrase "più tardi" does not mean "see you later". Is it not the same as "Plus tard" in French?

Candace Dempsey enjoys to introduce herself with assertions like, her interview when she told how she was able to understand better than other reporters witnesses speaking Italian with a peculiar "southern accent", because of her Calabrian origins. I don’t feel like making the full list of her boutades, in her blog and interviews, I can tell you it was enough for me to read her blog long before she published her book. In her book she says Piazza Grimana is "a 5-minute walk from the girls' cottage", and the cottage is in "Sant'Angelo” defined a “noisy street”, and "Developers had built a solid wall of modern apartments right across".

As I thought, your criticism of her has little at all to do with her coverage of the case and more to do with what you perceive as negative personality traits, while splitting hairs over minute details that hold little relevance to anything. Your request to not cite her seems rather petty.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your translation is barely different in meaning, and implies the same thing more or less, and (B) Why do you hold Candace responsible for this "mistranslation" when it is verbatim what every other author translates it as?

Candace Dempsey is not "guilty of mistranslation". To me, in that particular example, it is obvious that she is guilty of the hypocrisy of getting wrong the meanings. Candace systematically re-allocates facts and meanings in an order that would fit her rhetoric. Besides, she is able to distinguish some actually informed sources. Candace essentially had a “thesis- book” in preparation, she wanted to tell the story of a witch hunt, as a kind of local colour / travel book. What she wanted to assert on that particular topic was that the police “twisted”, in their reading, the meaning of Amanda’s sms message, or they lied about it.
To bolster this theory, Candace worked on the following assertions: 1) she emphasized a word -“subito” – which does not belong to the sms and attributed it to a police “claim”. In reality this is from Amanda’s spontaneous statement, but Candace re-allocates overlaps it to what the “police” says. 2) she asserted the message, after all, was an understandable salute, on the basis of various claims of hers: because it ended with “buona serata”, because - she claimed - could be read in both ways, and so on. So the “guilt” does not consist in the mistranslation itself, rather in the use of data and her love for the use of half truths.

 

[Machiavelli]

As I thought, your criticism of her has little at all to do with her coverage of the case and more to do with what you perceive as negative personality traits

If, for you, lying on the basics - like asserting you understand Italian (or southern "accent" (!!) ) - is a "personality trait" and not her coverage of the case, in that case you can say I dislike her for her personality trait.

I will maintain I simply hold her as a totally unreliable source for information on the case.

 

[Malkmus]

To bolster this theory, Candace worked on the following assertions: 1) she emphasized a word -“subito” – which does not belong to the sms and attributed it to a police “claim”. In reality this is from Amanda’s spontaneous statement, but Candace re-allocates overlaps it to what the “police” says.

I'm sorry, Machiavelli, but I have to agree with Candace on this particular notion. I have argued this before, and it is my belief that the 1:45 statement are the police's words, not Amanda's. For how could she mistranslate her own text? The word "subito" was written by the police, which Amanda only signed.

Ho riposto al messaggio dicendogli che ci saremmo visti subito. I replied to his message saying I would see him immediately.

That's not what Amanda wrote, either in her text to Patrick or the statement itself. The statement was written by ILE.

2) she asserted the message, after all, was an understandable salute, on the basis of various claims of hers: because it ended with “buona serata”, because - she claimed - could be read in both ways, and so on. So the “guilt” does not consist in the mistranslation itself, rather in the use of data and her love for the use of half truths.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. What is your exact problem with how Candace translates "Buona serata"? How does the way one translates those two words change anything?

 

[Machiavelli]

while splitting hairs over minute details that hold little relevance to anything.

About your reading of things, I can't see how you can se a "minute details" assertions like Piazza Grimana is a 5-minutes walk from the cottage, while time minutes can be essential in the case, or you feel as an acceptable quality description one where the cottage is flanked by modern buildings across a noisy road.
Moreover, you may better understand the meaning of this "minute details" if you consider they are not casual. The "apartment buildings" that becomse "modern" in a literary embellishment by Candace, is coincident with a description found in Amanda's diary: descriptions are always 100% compatible with Amanda's diaries, not always with reality. The street becomes "noisy" by the time when Paul Ciolino makes his show to discredit Nara's memory of hearing a scream. This could be the sub-conscious of Candace on work. However it is obviously undermining the quality and professionalism (also ethical) of a coverage: do you think Andrea Vogt would have mistaken Sant' Antonio with Sant'Angelo?
And what do you think about Dempsey's total ignorance of Italian language, culture and law, and her stunning claim of the opposite?

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm sorry, Machiavelli, but I have to agree with Candace on this particular notion. I have argued this before, and it is my belief that the 1:45 statement are the police's words, not Amanda's. For how could she mistranslate her own text? The word "subito" was written by the police, which Amanda only signed.

But this text (that by the way was reporting her admission, not just signed) is - we know - a false statement given by Amanda. You want to see it as a text written by the police, but in fact it is minutes of the false account of facts given by Amanda. On why she gave this false testimony, the defence and advocates have tehir theories. But even Amanda herself never denied having released this false information. Amanda is not mistranslating hersel: Amanda is telling a false witness report.
This is the police transcript of a false information given by the witness, not a "police report of the sms". Candace (and apparently you too) instead consider it as "the wrong police transcript of the sms text". It is not the police transcript of the text message, it is the police transcript of Amanda's interrogation, an interrogation where she told false information, by her own admission.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is very humble, said by someone who didn't directly hear a single word from withesses and experts and didn't put a single qustion to them.
All your knowledge of the case comes trough the court's opinion documents and through the defence's opinion documents. There is no direct knowledge of the people involved and of the context, no systematic analysis of items of evidence (like pictures), and not even a scientific background in the literature fields before searching and assessing scientific topics.

As I said to Solange earlier, you can try all you like to bait me to talk about identifying details. I do not plan to do so. My arguments stand or fall on their own merits and do not rely in any way on personal authority.

If you place such absolute faith in the pronouncements of court officials who didn't know or didn't understand the relevant facts, there is nothing to talk about. Go believe as you will: We will never convince you otherwise. By the same token, we are well aware here that appeals to authority are fallacious at the best of times, and appeals to authorities who are provably ignorant of relevant facts or incapable of scientific reasoning are even more worthless.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What lawyers can and perhaps cannot say

capealadin,

Andrea Vogt wrote about the access to the movie Stardust,

“Specifically, a computer engineer who analyzed Sollecito's computer and Internet provider records testified that his review indicated someone navigated on Sollecito's computer while he and Knox were being questioned by police. Specifically, the computer revealed that the movie "Stardust" had been downloaded, and then a few hours later, at 1 a.m. and 2:47 a.m., someone surfed the Web twice and viewed a story about Kercher's killing on the Italian wire service news agency ANSA.

"We aren't saying who it was, but you can imagine," said Sollecito's attorney, Luca Maori during a break in the trial, noting that Sollecito left his computer at home and went into police headquarters 21:40 p.m. on November 5 for questioning, leaving the keys to his house with police. He has been in jail ever since…First, defense lawyers claim that the computer interactions while he was at police headquarters may have canceled out important data showing the last known access to files that could have proven he was on his computer the night of the killing.”

The police were at Raffaele's when the file was accessed on the morning of the 6th of November. Yet, Luca Maori won't come right out and say it. Perhaps he was afraid of crossing a line. And we know that this report is accurate, coming from Andrea Vogt, don't we?

 

[Malkmus]

If, for you, lying on the basics - like asserting you understand Italian (or southern "accent" (!!) ) - is a "personality trait" and not her coverage of the case, in that case you can say I dislike her for her personality trait.

I will maintain I simply hold her as a totally unreliable source for information on the case.

I'm assuming you refer to this statement by Candace:

I can speak and read Italian, but not like a native. I relied on trial transcripts, not my notes, when I was writing Murder in Italy. I usually sat with the Italian reporters and even they had trouble at times understanding testimony. Witnesses have different accents and dialects depending on where they’re from in Italy. My family comes from the South of Italy, so I could understand Meredith’s Italian boyfriend, Giacomo Silenzi, pretty easily. Some of the Italian reporters found him incomprehensible.

Seems like a rather honest and humble assertion of her understanding of the Italian language. How is this a "lie"?

 

[Machiavelli]

What is your exact problem with how Candace translates "Buona serata"? How does the way one translates those two words change anything?

"buona serata" in Italian can roughly mean "have fun". It is not "buona ser" nor "buona notte". In French, I think, thre is a similar distinction although I'm not sure 100% of its use.
The essence is, it is not true - as Candace says - that "buona serata" implies they won't see each othr again that evening. Buona serata is not like "good night", it is a salutation open (or ambiguous) on the possibility that you meet each other again later in the night. The police interpreted the message by its correct Italian meaning: we will see each other later, have fun. (have a niche evening meanwhile, than later we weill meet). The message sounded suspicious, in fact it is, it looks as if Amanda and Patrick are arranging something very late in the evening. It has been ascertained that the message was innocent and simply badly written. But it was not read wrongly by the police.