Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

How is Knox not considered a suspect if they are wiretapping her phone?

Hasn't this already been covered - 'suspect' in Italian jurisprudence has a particular meaning which is not be confused with the generic term.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Which records on the second, exactly?

Now, could someone help me understand the morning of the 2nd? If you can do that - no joke - you could convert me.

SomeAlibi,

Would you please be specific as to exactly the pieces of evidence you find so compelling? I don't want to guess wrong and to go off on a tangent.

 

[Chris C]

Hasn't this already been covered - 'suspect' in Italian jurisprudence has a particular meaning which is not be confused with the generic term.

Ok whats suspect in Italian jurisprudence? Such as getting a judge to allow you to wiretap someones phone because you believe they faked a burglary. If you get a wiretap order from a Judge because you suspect someone of committing a crime are you not a Suspect according to italian jurisprudence?

 

[platonov]

Ok whats suspect in Italian jurisprudence? Such as getting a judge to allow you to wiretap someones phone because you believe they faked a burglary. If you get a wiretap order from a Judge because you suspect someone of committing a crime are you not a Suspect according to italian jurisprudence?

No.

 

[treehorn]

Kevin_Lowe,

it's been almost a week

did you miss my post?

page 251

post 10011

 

[treehorn]

Just one guy like me on an American jury, and it would hang and hang good... I would hang the jury forever.

Are you literally under the impression that a 'hung' jury ends the matter?

PS How do you intend to continue to qualify (ad infinitum) for the retrial???

 

[LondonJohn]

Fair enough, let me re-state: If there was a campaign of harassment going on against a former FBI agent I would not be the one to call his old employer and offer to keep track of everything he said about a certain issue. As you note, that in and of itself would not constitute harassment necessarily, however I just wouldn't be the one to do it lest someone else come to a different conclusion.

Plus it looks weird.

I did mean that as a friendly heads up and not an accusation, thus the smiley. My real point was that his argument was compelling and it wouldn't be derailed by ad-hominem attacks or semantics. Sure, in my mind saying 'beaten' is an overstatement, but it doesn't engage his points. No one that I've seen on your side of the issue ever does, no matter how many times I've witnessed it being asked. So one more time:

How do you explain the lack of forensic evidence of Amanda and Raffaele in Meridith's room, while Rudy's is all over it?

And why would the accuracy (or otherwise) of what Moore has had to say about Amanda Knox be of any relevance whatsoever in an employment law dispute between him and his former employer? The issue here is whether he breached his employment contract by speaking out publicly about the case, and whether his employer's disciplinary & termination procedures were correctly followed. Quite frankly, he could have been saying that Knox was innocent because a pink fairy appeared to him in the night and told him so - it has no bearing on the success or failure of an employment lawsuit.

 

[stilicho]

Yet you keep presenting your own opinions on matters pertaining to the case... why? If you genuinely believe that there is nothing to be said by those who were not present, because only first-hand experience of the courtroom events gives you any ability to make informed judgments, why do you comment on the case at all?

....

I maintain my previous statement that guilters only try out the "no one who wasn't there gets an opinion!" line selectively, when they run into evidence they cannot otherwise explain away. It's a replacement for the "Massei had access to secret evidence!" chestnut, which was the last line of defence before the Massei report was optimistically translated and turned out to be indefensible. Now the line is "Massei might have had access to super-secret evidence which he left out of the report for some reason, you can't prove he didn't!".

I think you're missing the point about commitment and honesty. It's not the job of the guilters to refute anything you present. The guilters assembled a peerless team of relevant experts (linguistic, medical, legal, forensic, etc) to provide a translation of the otherwise inaccessible Massei Report (along with translations of Knox's court testimony and other pertinent documentation).

This was done to offer those who cannot understand Italian to have a chance to "be there" as the judges and the accused were. This was done in a completely objective manner. There were no edits or opinions thrown in for effect.

The guilters' English language translation of the Massei Report has become the gold standard for journalists and interested parties (such as yourself) to understand what happened on 01 NOV 2007.

On the opposite hand, we have those protesting the convictions presenting peer-reviewed science establishing their doubtless innocence here on an obscure internet forum. Has it been provided to the Mellas family so they can have it translated into Italian for the lawyers? Have the legal experts posting here written to the Sollecitos and Knox/Mellases offering their services?

Knox and Sollecito are facing 25 and 26 year prison sentences. There's a possibility that could be extended once all their appeals are exhausted. The challenge to those convinced of their innocence is to spend the same time, effort, and money equivalent of the Massei Report translation to get that peer-reviewed science into the hands of the lawyers directly.

When is that going to happen? Or don't you care?

 

[Matthew Best]

I asked you to ask a direct question. This answer doesn't do that. If you wish to ask me a direct question, please do and I'll answer.

Evasion noted.

 

[RoseMontague]

PDi - I personally think Quintavalle is the sort of witness you have to put down to court-experience. The reasons for him being credible are argued, the reasons for him not being credible are argued. In real life criminal trials, a huge amount of the jury's feel about a witness is as to how they come across. Quintavalle is a classic example of this and I think it's impossible to judge outside of that context. I do think that arguing the toss about Quintavalle is one of the less productive online conversations about this case: either side could be true - it's up the jury about who they believe.

What are the reasons for him being credible? Massei lists one and that one is in error. Form katy_did appeal translation:

Quote:
As is apparent from a reading of Chiriboga's testimony, the question Quintavalle posed to his assistant occurred around the time of a television interview which he gave after the witness statements of October 2008. In the transcript of Chiriboga's examination it reads:

<<PRESIDENT - And when did he recount this to you? WITNESS - I don't remember the exact date, but it was the day they went to interview them>> (transcript of hearing 26 June 2009, page 72).

It is therefore incomprehensible that Quintavalle's question to his assistant following the witness statements to the Public Prosecutor, almost a year after the episode itself and on the occasion of a television interview, could constitute certain and credible verification of the witness's story.

I could be forgetting the many other reasons the court finds him credible, maybe you can help me with this one.

 

[katy_did]

The importance of this point is another issue. I'd rate the original idea as probably a 1/10 contributory to the guilty verdict. There's a theory on the prosecution side about why she lied about it and her own mother contradicts her. Whatever the timing, you keep on ducking the point that Amanda says that there was no "first" phonecall and that Edda is extremely detailed on it.

Welcome to the thread, SomeAlibi. Good to see you here, and in an environment somewhat more hospitable to discussion than was the case during our last encounter. Very much looking forward to your discussion with LashL.

I do have a question for you, regarding Comodi's use of the phone call. Now, it seems clear that Comodi's tactic was to give the jury a bad impression of Amanda based on the false idea this phone call took place "before anything had happened", and taking advantage of the fact Amanda didn't remember it. To do this she lied and said the phone call took place "at midday". As a lawyer, what's your view of this sort of tactic? Is it something that surprises you, or that just seems normal in context? Would you do it yourself?

As a non-lawyer, I guess I'm just curious as to whether this kind of thing is the norm and only to be expected, or whether even within the profession itself it would be seen as unethical.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This case is about drugs and the kids being completely out of their heads.

What kinds of drugs were they taking, in your opinion?

 

[Alt+F4]

The image I posted clearly shows Amanda made the call to her mother at 12:47. After she had talked multiple times with Filomena and tried both of Meredith's phones. The issue is the prosecution claim that this call was before anything had happened.

Here's the list of Amanda's calls to her mother, Filomena and Meredith's phones:

12:07 – Amanda calls Meredith’s English phone (16 seconds)
12:08 – Amanda calls Filomena (68 seconds)
12:11 – Amanda calls Meredith’s Italian phone (3 seconds)
12:11 – Amanda calls Meredith’s English phone (4 seconds)
12:12 – Filomena calls Amanda (36 seconds)
12:20 – Filomena calls Amanda (65 seconds)
12:34 – Filomena calls Amanda (48 seconds)
12:47 – Amanda calls her mother (88 seconds)

Some observations:

1. In the 44 minutes between 12:07 – 12:51 (when Raffaele finally called 112) Amanda spent a total of only 23 seconds trying to phone Meredith though she stated she was “panicked” as to her whereabouts.

2. Amanda was back at her apartment by 12:34. The Postal Police didn’t show up for another 21 to 26 minutes with Meredith’s phones. Why didn’t Amanda stand outside Meredith’s door, call her phones and listen for rings?

3. Both Amanda’s mother and Filomena told Amanda to call the police based on what she told them, she didn’t. Why would Amanda's first thought be to get other people involved? Neither Amanda's mother or Filomena were there but even they understood the situation was serious enough to call the police, yet Amanda still didn't call them. Please don't go with her Italian was too poor - both her mother and Filomena (especially) knew her level of Italian.

 

[colonelhall]

SomeAlibi: "This case is about drugs and the kids being completely out of their heads."

Yes, I agree. It does appear so.

Charlie Wilkes: "What kinds of drugs were they taking, in your opinion?'

I would have thought that they were the kind of drugs that, by their own admission, caused memory loss.

 

[Matthew Best]

2. Amanda was back at her apartment by 12:34. The Postal Police didn’t show up for another 21 to 26 minutes with Meredith’s phones. Why didn’t Amanda stand outside Meredith’s door, call her phones and listen for rings?

What did Knox hear when she phoned Kercher's phone? Did it ring, or go straight to voicemail?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Here's the list of Amanda's calls to her mother, Filomena and Meredith's phones:

12:07 – Amanda calls Meredith’s English phone (16 seconds)
12:08 – Amanda calls Filomena (68 seconds)
12:11 – Amanda calls Meredith’s Italian phone (3 seconds)
12:11 – Amanda calls Meredith’s English phone (4 seconds)
12:12 – Filomena calls Amanda (36 seconds)
12:20 – Filomena calls Amanda (65 seconds)
12:34 – Filomena calls Amanda (48 seconds)
12:47 – Amanda calls her mother (88 seconds)

Some observations:

1. In the 44 minutes between 12:07 – 12:51 (when Raffaele finally called 112) Amanda spent a total of only 23 seconds trying to phone Meredith though she stated she was “panicked” as to her whereabouts.

2. Amanda was back at her apartment by 12:34. The Postal Police didn’t show up for another 21 to 26 minutes with Meredith’s phones. Why didn’t Amanda stand outside Meredith’s door, call her phones and listen for rings?

3. Both Amanda’s mother and Filomena told Amanda to call the police based on what she told them, she didn’t. Why would Amanda's first thought be to get other people involved? Neither Amanda's mother or Filomena were there but even they understood the situation was serious enough to call the police, yet Amanda still didn't call them. Please don't go with her Italian was too poor - both her mother and Filomena (especially) knew her level of Italian.

I believe the calls made at 12:11 were probably to phones that had been turned off. You know how when you call an "off" cellphone it goes straight to voicemail? I believe the reason these 2 calls were so short is because they most likely went straight to v.m. It was around this time the postal police were looking at the SIM card of the English phone in an attempt to identify the owner so it was surely turned off.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei on the disputed second toe of the bathmat print

(Massei, p. 355 of the English translation)
“Finally, there is a piece of data which the Court has uncontrovertibly adopted: the same images of the bathmat, shown in deepened colours by the lighting equipment of the Crimescope, do actually increase the impression of solidity of the size of the big toe (and also of the metatarsus), and augment the perception of the unity with the rest of the small mark whose detachment was suggested.”

Massei is discounting Vinci’s claim that the second toe is responsible for the mark near the big toe, and this is his second reason (the first is on p. 354). Is there any expert testimony to suggest that using the crimescope as Massei does is valid?

I would defer to expert opinion, but I find it problematic. The bathmat print is fuzzy in that it looks as if bloody water has seeped away from the main print. Also the material is not flat. The crimescope is sensitive to compounds not visible to the naked eye, partly because it can detect compounds that absorb light in the near UV region.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Hello, SomeAlibi, and welcome to the JREF forum.

I am interested in your posts because you say that you are a lawyer and you are clearly advocating the "Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito are guilty" position, but as a lawyer myself, I do not find the evidence against Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito compelling enough to warrant convictions beyond reasonable doubt.

I'd like to discuss this further with you, from one lawyer to another. And I'd like to start with this: What is it from the evidence adduced at trial that convinces you of their guilt?

Hello LashL

When I came to the case, I had a lot of questions about the conviction which saw me get a rough ride at the beginning of posting on PMF. I came to a very firm conclusion on the case after a fairly long time. It is, without doubt a tragic set of circumstances for four young people whose lives have been wrecked.

The parts I find most compelling are the "issues" I raised in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6446896&postcount=10933

to which I will also add what does look to me fairly clearly like a staged break-in and the absolute tangle and mass of contradictions that come across in the diaries of Amanda and Raffaele and the multiple contradictory alibis which were serially changed in very short order.

There are also a number of "tells" in the case which work very badly against defendants when they are caught out on them. Amanda said under oath that she had *one* joint that night. It is plainly untrue given that they both speak in their diaries and witness statements of their utter confusion and inability to remember details of the night of the 1st. When you have a defendant on the stand perjure themselves that way - and it is absolutely a slam dunk - then juries start wondering why they are doing it. The diaries are a toe-curling set of evidence which I've found many proponents of Raffaele and Amanda's innocence have not read. But they are evidence in the case and they are awful from an evidential perspective. We have the "pricking" with the knife story from Raffaele which sounds frankly just like rubbish. We have the extremely weird scenario by which he relates his father is delighted that they have caught the "real" perpetrator of the crime in Rudy Guede but instead of giving thanks to God (since Raffaele is religious) and celebrating wildly in terms "thank God my nightmare is over, I'm going home, I'm so happy", instead Raffaele's immediate response is that he is worried about that "strange stories" this guy, he says he doesn't know, may "make up".

Innocent people don't do that. They really don't. Is it remotely credible? I really think it isn't. It's another big "tell" which are very important when juries are deciding on the credibility of the accused.

Other bits like the "bathmat shuffle" also ring extremely hollow to a jury in a real-life scenario imho. Mignini's astonishment when Amanda raises it with him on the 12th of December would be comic if it wasn't such a tragic case.

Other matters: Raffaele said on four different occasions that Amanda left the flat on the night of the 1st. The cellphone data places her near Via Aquila when she receives Patrick's call. She repeatedly stresses she didn't leave her flat in her testimony you can watch on youtube. Repeatedly. Yet neither her co-accused nor the cellphone data, nor her written admissions of the 6th agree with that. Again, there's a reason for it.

Another area is Amanda's extraordinary email home written at about 3 o'clock in the morning when she writes down the events of the 1st according to her in micro-detail saying she is going to recall it "slowly". To me, it looks a pretty crystal clear attempt to set down a highly detailed alibi because she knew she was under pressure already on her version of the story. She writes 1,900 words on the events of her going to the flat on the 2nd and absolutely no words whatsoever about the emotional trauma of having her next-door room-mate murdered in terms of feelings of bewilderment or grief. This is not a question of being "close" to someone: in normal circumstances, a person who has had that happen in their flat will talk at length about how they themselves feel upset, bewildered or threatened. Instead she is dealing with tiny minutiae, all written in the early hours. It really doesn't add up.

Most of these areas have an answer in the case for the defence of course. The most promising avenue for the defence will be the DNA arguments by which I don't raise a personal issue with the evidence, simply that it is relatively low count and therefore it must be challenged. However the bathmat is a case-closer and I have yet to see anyone deal with that on the basis of measurement and proportion which, unless it can be done, clearly show it is Raffaele's footprint to a millimetre in several parts and also that the proportion of the length to width cannot make this Rudy's footprint however you scale up or down the measurements. That's terribly damning.

The other very damning area is the story of the 2nd. I have been asked this question directly so I am going to answer it in my next post. The sheer number of events in computer and cellphone records mean that it is simply impossible Raffaele simply picked up a phone and went back to sleep - there are many many more interactions which require him being out of bed and for some time. Again, in real jury environments, if you have an area of the case which has a manifest untruth being told by a defendant, the jury will start looking at that person very dimly.

Lastly, and this you may consider a little fluffy, I thought her testimony - the parts of it we can see on youtube etc was weak. We have to watch out for confirmation bias of course here but I showed the video to a number of colleagues and said "how do you think she comes across?" with no preamble. It's a valid exercise because we are perpetually trying to get clients arranged so they will give themselves their best shot in the box if they have to go in. From junior to senior solicitors, the answers ranged from "not terribly well - looks like she's hamming it up" to "car-wreck, bloody awful". This stuff really matters with juries. She simply doesn't look or sound credible and she gets snarky with the prosecutor which is astonishingly foolish. I've also tried it with lay people, also with no preamble and the reaction is universally the same. The smiling, singing, laughing and 'dancing' she did at times in the courtroom is also extremely foolish and makes you wonder where on earth her head was at.

I firmly believe the only reason there is so much doubt about this case in the english speaking world is simply because the case was conducted in Italian and therefore the primary facts have been obscured to most of us. The PR campaign is a very interesting lesson. We discuss it a lot. I think it's been extremely badly handled *at points* and I don't think it's in any doubt that it's hurt Amanda's chances in the only place it matters - in Italy - but we can learn from it.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

SomeAlibi: "This case is about drugs and the kids being completely out of their heads."

Yes, I agree. It does appear so.

Charlie Wilkes: "What kinds of drugs were they taking, in your opinion?'

I would have thought that they were the kind of drugs that, by their own admission, caused memory loss.

Herein lies the problem with this drug-caused memory loss. There is no way someone cannot remember what s/he did last night insofar as whether s/he was at place A or s/he left place A at some point, no matter what drugs you were on. The only possible exception is falling-down drunk. Then you caould possibly have such memory problems. Even bong hits on top of valium aren't going to make you forget going somewhere.

 

[Alt+F4]

What did Knox hear when she phoned Kercher's phone? Did it ring, or go straight to voicemail?

According to Amanda's email to friends back home:

i called both of merediths phones the english one first and last and the italian one between. the first time i called the english phone is rang and then sounded as of there was disturbance, but no one answered. i then calle the Italian phone and it just kept ringing, no answer. i called her english phone again and this time an english voice told me her phone was out of service.

However, according to the phone records in the Massei Report (page 323) it was the call to the Italian phone, not the English one that activated an answering service. There is no mention of a English answering service.