Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Just as a point of interest, the restaurant where Guede ate his kebab is not called "kebap". That simply means "kebab". The restaurant is called "Il Cedro". Maybe the next time I go to McDonald's, I'll just say I'm going to Hamburger......

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, it's a lie to say that you were sleeping until 10:00 - 10:30 when you weren't. Either a person is asleep or not, it's that easy. What was the point of them telling that lie if all they were doing was just innocently hanging around the apartment that morning?

But here's the rub: what's the point in them lying about it if it only goes to show that at least one of them was in Sollecito's apartment in the early hours of the morning of the 2nd? What's so incriminating about waking up at 5.30am in your own apartment, far from the murder scene? I'll tell you: nothing whatsoever.

If there was evidence showing that one or both of them had been at the girls' house at 5.30am, when they both said that they were asleep at Sollecito's, then that would pose them a great problem. However, I signally fail to understand why they would choose to deliberately lie about one or other of them being awake in Sollecito's apartment at 5.30am, since it's not in any conceivable way indicative of their culpability if they were in fact awake at his apartment at that time of night.

We encounter the same issue here as with the 12.47pm Knox phone call to her mother. There can be no guilty inference drawn from her having made that phone call, so it makes no sense for her to deliberately lie about it. And, likewise, if Sollecito and/or Knox remembered being awake and active at 5.30am inside Sollecito's apartment, then why wouldn't they readily admit to that? After all, if anything, it's exculpatory, since it means that at least one of them couldn't have been at the murder house at that time.

Makes. No. Sense.

 

[Kaosium]

Unless the defense pulls out an exonerating rabbit out of their hat, the appeals court will confirm the guilty verdict. We have yet to hear the knockout argument to unravel the verdict's conclusions.

The forensic evidence is itself exculpatory. The lengths the prosecution went to try to tie those two to the scene is incriminating only to the state.

I ask again: how do you explain how Amanda and Raffaele could have committed the murder and left no trace of themselves at the scene, outside the knife that wasn't the murder weapon the prosecution claims has Meredith's DNA (but won't let anyone see the proof) and a bra clasp that they didn't find until weeks later that was littered with DNA from all sorts of people?

 

[LondonJohn]

According to Amanda's email to friends back home:



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.

There's no suggestion that the UK phone kicked into a voicemail message (or "answering service"). Knox says that the UK phone gave her an out-of-service message in English. That's a very different thing, and is almost certainly indicative of the police interrogating the SIM card at that time.

 

[LondonJohn]

The forensic evidence is itself exculpatory. The lengths the prosecution went to try to tie those two to the scene is incriminating only to the state.

I ask again: how do you explain how Amanda and Raffaele could have committed the murder and left no trace of themselves at the scene, outside the knife that wasn't the murder weapon the prosecution claims has Meredith's DNA (but won't let anyone see the proof) and a bra clasp that they didn't find until weeks later that was littered with DNA from all sorts of people?

But Piktor states with certainty that the appeal court will find them guilty! Isn't that something! If I had that sort of power, I'd make a fortune betting on horses......

 

[christianahannah]

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.

katy_did I don't believe Comodi was trying to give the jury a bad impression. "12" or "midday" was the general time frame of the phone call.
Comodi makes reference to the records for the information, so I assume those were readily available to the jurors.

MC: But from the records, we see that you called your mother -- not only from the records but also the pings [?] that you first called your mother at 12. At midday.

Comodi went on to clarify what had not yet happened:

MC: But at midday nothing had happened yet in the sense that the door had not been broken down yet.

At 12:47 p.m. the door had not been broken down yet (in fact, depending on one's perspective the postal police had not arrived at that time). From further questioning I believe Comodi may have been making a point concerning Amanda's confusion or forgetfulness (Massei also questioned Amanda during this time).

During this line of questioning I didn't see where Amanda's attorneys had objected to the time of the call (unless they clarified the time later during her questioning). Perhaps those in attendance understood what Comodi meant?

 

[LondonJohn]

(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.

Maybe at the same time we can get rid of this ridiculous myth that the bathmat partial print matched Sollecito's with "millimetre accuracy". This is extreme nonsense. The print was made with a dilute blood/water mixture onto an absorbent cotton towelling bathmat with a ridged pattern. Thus, the print would have spread after contact, and the ridges would have further distorted the print. The very suggestion that this print was measurable with millimetre accuracy is risible. And so is the prosecution "expert's" analysis of it.

 

[piktor]

But Piktor states with certainty that the appeal court will find them guilty! Isn't that something! If I had that sort of power, I'd make a fortune betting on horses......

Take it from the horse's mouth: horse races are unpredictable. Of that, I am 100% certain.

 

[Dan O.]

Raffaele's phone receives a phonecall after 9am where Raffaele's father talks to his son for over four minutes straight - 262 seconds. Try starting a stop-watch and then start reading something for over four minutes. It's an extremely long time not to recall.
The phone call finishes and Raffaele hits the finish call button or the call is interrupted
Less than a minutes later the phone rings again and there is another call for 38 seconds.
The phone call finishes and Raffaele hits the finish call button or the call is interrupted
Within seconds the phone rings again and it is Raffaele's father yet again.

That's interesting. I see that listed in the Massei report but in Raffaele's cell phone record only the third call is listed.

 

[christianahannah]

Are you really that naive that you consider asking for a lawyer as evidence of guilt?



Laura and Filomena both lawyered up on the day the body was discovered. Amanda was the only one of the three surviving roommates that didn't have a lawyer.

I don't believe if Amanda had lawyered up after Meredith's body was discovered that it would be an indication of guilt. I would, however, have found it odd if Amanda had asked her mother during the 12:47 p.m. call if she should seek an attorney (since nothing had happened at that time with the exception of the break-in).

Do you have a reference for Laura and Filomena lawyering up on the day Meredith's body was discovered?

 

[Kestrel]

What happens if all this amounts to is them not thinking it relevant or simply forgetting the first time? Then they would be accused of 'changing their story,' wouldn't they?

It has little to do with the murder, Meredith was long dead at this point.

According to the prosecution theory, Amanda and Raff could not have slept in because they had to be at the cottage removing the trace evidence in Meredith's room that links them to the murder.

There is no evidence that trace evidence was removed in Meredith's room, but that doesn't seem to bother the prosecution. They had already declared the case as solved when the lack of physical evidence became apparent. So they invented a magical clean up that left no traces of cleaning. Where somehow the defendants were able to recognize their own trace DNA and remove it from the murder room while leaving the DNA pointing to Rudy.

This isn't the first time the ego of prosecutor Mignini has led to injustice. He imprisoned innocent people in the Monster of Florence case. Even after the courts declared his theory of that crime to be nonsense, Mignini stuck to his guns. Claiming that the crime was too complex for the judges to understand.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's a really good question which I don't think we will ever know. I am convinced that Guede was facilitating or dealing directly for them that night and that Amanda and Rudy came across each other opportunistically and that she decided to try and get a treat for Raffaele since she was no longer working that night.

The cellphone data places Amanda right by where Rudy was by his own diary at about 8.30pm - between "Kebap" and the basketball court. We also know that Raffaele said in his earliest statement that he and Amanda went out between about 6pm and 8pm but he can't remember why. I believe they were looking for more supplies. Amanda said that Raffaele had used coke and acid previously. When Amanda met Rudy, she arranged to meet him once he had scored for them. Her written statements say that she met "Patrick" at the basketball court around 9pm. Most alibis contain as much truth as is possible because remembering made up stuff is extremely hard. I think she merely relayed what had happened in meeting Rudy. Amanda and Raffaele didn't know Rudy terribly well, but I'm pretty sure he managed to get himself invited back for the sort of smoke / toke that you get where a dealer himself participates. It took place at the cottage because it was 100m from the court.

They both talk of their profound memory loss on that night. In the pictures the next day, they both look bombed out and pasty faced in a way that you can't see in other pictures of them. It could have been alcohol and dope (see Amanda's story of Marie Pace although that also refers to harder drugs) or it may be that they also took some coke which would explain the sheer level of out of control behaviour when in *conjunction* with the other stimulants. That memory loss is by their own admission and both of them independently make hugely regretful statements about how they will never touch drugs again in their diaries. Both of them - independently. I don't think there's any doubt that they were completely out of their heads and that those are genuine expressions of a feeling of total regret that they were. To which you juxtapose Amanda's "one joint". Completely untrue.

You must realize this is speculation. You are "convinced that Guede was facilitating or dealing directly for them that night," but there is no evidence of that. Nor is there any evidence that they used any drugs other than cannabis. Their dazed appearance in photos can easily be explained as shock and distress after learning of the murder. Did anyone - Filomena, the police, anyone else - say that Amanda and Raffaele seemed to be "bombed out" on drugs? We have all listened to Raffaele's call to the emergency number. Did he sound like he was "bombed out" on drugs?

I understand that extreme intoxication is the only conceivable way to explain why two people like Amanda and Raffaele would collaborate with Guede on a murder, but the need for such an explanation does not make it factually true.

 

[LondonJohn]

The police claimed to have clear video evidence from a car park camera proving Amanda went to the cottage on the night of the murder. Neither Amanda nor Raff remembered this happening. This could indicate they both had a memory loss. But the real explanation is that the police were lying.

And the police claimed that the Postal officers arrived by 12.35pm, thereby making the 12.47-12.55pm phone calls by Knox and Sollecito to relatives and the police seem extremely incriminating. The Postal Police officers even testified to the time of their arrival on the stand. But the police knew full well that the CCTV camera recording their arrival had an incorrect timestamp. And the police didn't actually arrive until just before 1.00pm.

Frankly, I'm not sure I even fully trust the Postal Police evidence on Sollecito's laptop's activity on the morning of the 2nd. They seem to me to be serially incompetent. I wonder what the defence technical experts made of the Postals' assertion that Sollecito must have interacted continuously with his laptop between around 5.35am and 6.00am - their response is curiously not mentioned in the Massei report.

And another thing about this morning of the 2nd. Sollecito decided to exercise his right to silence by the 6th November 2007. Has his defence team maintained his position that he was fast asleep until 10am? And isn't it entirely possible that Knox was indeed asleep until at least 9.30am, and even beyond?

 

[platonov]

But here's the rub: what's the point in them lying about it if it only goes to show that at least one of them was in Sollecito's apartment in the early hours of the morning of the 2nd? What's so incriminating about waking up at 5.30am in your own apartment, far from the murder scene? I'll tell you: nothing whatsoever.

If there was evidence showing that one or both of them had been at the girls' house at 5.30am, when they both said that they were asleep at Sollecito's, then that would pose them a great problem. However, I signally fail to understand why they would choose to deliberately lie about one or other of them being awake in Sollecito's apartment at 5.30am, since it's not in any conceivable way indicative of their culpability if they were in fact awake at his apartment at that time of night.

We encounter the same issue here as with the 12.47pm Knox phone call to her mother. There can be no guilty inference drawn from her having made that phone call, so it makes no sense for her to deliberately lie about it. And, likewise, if Sollecito and/or Knox remembered being awake and active at 5.30am inside Sollecito's apartment, then why wouldn't they readily admit to that? After all, if anything, it's exculpatory, since it means that at least one of them couldn't have been at the murder house at that time.

Makes. No. Sense.

It speaks to their credibility ( practically nonexistent), state of mind on the morning after the murder and relates to other evidence -cleanup etc etc.

[Also - There are very grave suspicions about why AK had to 'forget' the 12.47 call]

Taking each point in isolation wont do,
Thats. not. how. it. works. in. court.

In this layman's opinion - If only we had a lawyer to explain it to us.

 

[LondonJohn]

Calling authors that agree with the Meredith Kercher verdict "guilters" is juvenile, self-derogatory and agenda-driven.

Imagine a scientist giving a lecture to a gathering of physicists and calling the sun "sparky".

Yeah, it's a bit like referring to Knox, Sollecito and Guede as Anita, Biff and Rodney respectively.............

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nov. 4th email; the call from Mr. Sollecito

Raffaele's phone receives a phonecall after 9am where Raffaele's father talks to his son for over four minutes straight - 262 seconds. Try starting a stop-watch and then start reading something for over four minutes. It's an extremely long time not to recall.
The phone call finishes and Raffaele hits the finish call button or the call is interrupted
Less than a minutes later the phone rings again and there is another call for 38 seconds.
The phone call finishes and Raffaele hits the finish call button or the call is interrupted
Within seconds the phone rings again and it is Raffaele's father yet again.

But Raffaele and Amanda tell you they were asleep til 10.30? It's pretty hard to believe, isn't it?

My recollection is that they said 10-10:30. The elder Mr. Sollecito's call is past 9, a difference of less than an hour from 10. Comodi says noon when she means 12:47, a difference of less than an hour. I do not see why one difference is significant and the other is not.

With respect to Amanda's email of the 4th, I believe she was told to avoid speaking of the crime itself. That may explain which topics she chose to emphasize.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Just as a point of interest, the restaurant where Guede ate his kebab is not called "kebap". That simply means "kebab". The restaurant is called "Il Cedro". Maybe the next time I go to McDonald's, I'll just say I'm going to Hamburger......

That's why I put it in inverted commas LJ. Otherwise, killer point.

 

[LondonJohn]

You must realize this is speculation. You are "convinced that Guede was facilitating or dealing directly for them that night," but there is no evidence of that. Nor is there any evidence that they used any drugs other than cannabis. Their dazed appearance in photos can easily be explained as shock and distress after learning of the murder. Did anyone - Filomena, the police, anyone else - say that Amanda and Raffaele seemed to be "bombed out" on drugs? We have all listened to Raffaele's call to the emergency number. Did he sound like he was "bombed out" on drugs?

I understand that extreme intoxication is the only conceivable way to explain why two people like Amanda and Raffaele would collaborate with Guede on a murder, but the need for such an explanation does not make it factually true.

You'd think that an experienced criminal defence attorney would not be engaging in this sort of uncorroborated conjecture. Same goes for all this stuff about how Knox might have "come across" on the stand. Aren't people supposed to be convicted on actual evidence, especially when there are two professional judges on the judicial panel?

And that leads to another point. Why on earth should any coverage of this case - whether or not it is critical of the Italian justice system, or even blatantly xenophobic towards Italy - make one single iota of difference as to how Knox and Sollecito are judged in a court of law? Are some people suggesting that the Italian courts are likely to be adversely swayed against Knox (or Sollecito) by anything said or written by others? If so, such people must have an extremely low view of the integrity of Italian justice. Personally, I trust and believe that both defendants will be judged in the appeal by the evidence laid before the court. Nothing more or less than that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

too many significant figures

Maybe at the same time we can get rid of this ridiculous myth that the bathmat partial print matched Sollecito's with "millimetre accuracy". This is extreme nonsense. The print was made with a dilute blood/water mixture onto an absorbent cotton towelling bathmat with a ridged pattern. Thus, the print would have spread after contact, and the ridges would have further distorted the print. The very suggestion that this print was measurable with millimetre accuracy is risible. And so is the prosecution "expert's" analysis of it.

I agree that the "millimetre accuracy" stuff looks problematic in terms of significant figures. Also, the crimescope analysis by Massei looks worse and worse to me. I saw no mention that Rinaldi made this argument. If he did not, then why did Massei?

 

[SomeAlibi]

Alt+F4,

I see nothing in SomeAlibi's list that indicates that Ms. Knox was necessarily awake. I am not sure who was on the computer, but I would assume it was Mr. Sollecito.

I believe it was Raffaele who was interacting with the computer and clearly it was him on his telephone, yes.