Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

By zero. It's matched to his footprint measurements to millimetre or near millimetre measurements in several parts and across both width and length. That's rather the point?

Yes, my slip-up. By how much would it have to shrink to possibly be Guede's?

 

[SomeAlibi]

At this point, you are speculating with 20/20 hindsight. Lets try dealing with the reality of that morning.

By 12:07, Amanda had enough concern to try Meredith's phones and call Filomena. After returning to the cottage, she discovered the broken window and discussing this with Filomena. By 12:47, when Amanda called her mother, she knew that there had been a burglary and that Meredith's door was locked, and she was not answering her phone. It's a reasonable story showing escalating concern as things are discovered.

During the 12:51 call to 112, we know that Amanda is standing next to Raff because we can hear him ask Amanda for the street name and hear Amanda answer.

What we don't hear is the Postal Police. They had yet to arrive.

Right but the point about Amanda denying the first call is because Edda is just about to go into what Amanda said to here when they are in a bugged environment on a prison visit. Amanda literally cuts her off and kills the conversation stone cold dead by doing so twice. Other prisoners would have warned her by then that the interview rooms could be tapped. As soon as Edda starts recalling it, Amanda cuts her off because she is panicking that what Edda says Amanda said to her may conflict with the story she's told the police. This is the relevance of the denial of the call.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Right but the point about Amanda denying the first call is because Edda is just about to go into what Amanda said to here when they are in a bugged environment on a prison visit. Amanda literally cuts her off and kills the conversation stone cold dead by doing so twice. Other prisoners would have warned her by then that the interview rooms could be tapped. As soon as Edda starts recalling it, Amanda cuts her off because she is panicking that what Edda says Amanda said to her may conflict with the story she's told the police. This is the relevance of the denial of the call.

Can you possibly provide us with a transcript of that bugged conversation and point it out?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well if the court makes an argument it is Sollecito's on the measurement basis and the defence cannot raise a valid defence, Raffaele is staying where he is. It absolutely *must* be defended in my opinion.

The defence's ONLY job is to convince the court that the prosecution's expert is incorrect in positively identifying the partial blood/water print on the ridged towelling bathmat as Sollecito's. They don't have to prove it's someone else's. If I were them, I would merely seek to discredit the whole pseudo-science employed in making this alleged identification, and perhaps point out in passing that the print matches Guede as much (or even more) than it matches Sollecito.

I think the defence dropped the ball majorly in this area in the first trial. After all, if the print was accepted as definitely Sollecito's, that's him pretty much convicted right there. The thing is, I don't think it IS Sollecito's, and I think that Rinaldi's "science" in this respect is bunk.

But again, it bears repeating that this appeal is a de novo trial. The defence therefore doesn't have to seek to "overturn" the first court's reasoning regarding the bath mat partial print. It merely has to convince a new jury of its invalidity as solid evidence against Sollecito.

 

[LondonJohn]

You're correct by the medical definition: they depress inhibitions and reduce self-control. Common experience before you even look at statistics on violence and alcohol will know that it stimulates acts of aggression.

Ermmm... I wasn't the one who originally used the word "stimulant". You were. Straw man, anyone?

 

[katy_did]

By zero. It's matched to his footprint measurements to millimetre or near millimetre measurements in several parts and across both width and length. That's rather the point?

But on two crucial measurements - the width of the forefoot, and the width of the big toe - the police expert measured the print to a point at which there was no blood, based on his guesstimation of how big the actual print would've been had it been complete. Astonishingly, it turned out his guesstimates matched Raffaele's foot to the millimetre. According to the defence, the actual width of the print was 93mm (Rinaldi's estimate: 99mm) while the width of the big toe was 24.8mm (Rinaldi's estimate: 30mm).

Since the print wasn't even measured strictly 'to the millimetre', how on earth can it match Raffaele's foot 'to the millimetre'?

 

[SomeAlibi]

Ermmm... I wasn't the one who originally used the word "stimulant". You were. Straw man, anyone?

I was acknowledging you were correct about the term 'stimulant'? I think my answer was pretty clear about that so not sure what point you are seeking to make.

 

[christianahannah]

Would she have even known Raffaele's last name, or whereabouts his dad lived? LOL, I'm just puzzled now. Massei lists the calls received by Meredith's Italian phone on 2 November, and none are from Filomena. So, I don't know...

Massei does mention a 12:43 call on 11/02/07 but I don't believe he attributes it to anyone. I'm not sure all calls are included in the motivations. Perhaps only those calls are included which confirm the reasonings that are being made?

 

[SomeAlibi]

The defence's ONLY job is to convince the court that the prosecution's expert is incorrect in positively identifying the partial blood/water print on the ridged towelling bathmat as Sollecito's. They don't have to prove it's someone else's. If I were them, I would merely seek to discredit the whole pseudo-science employed in making this alleged identification, and perhaps point out in passing that the print matches Guede as much (or even more) than it matches Sollecito.

I think the defence dropped the ball majorly in this area in the first trial. After all, if the print was accepted as definitely Sollecito's, that's him pretty much convicted right there. The thing is, I don't think it IS Sollecito's, and I think that Rinaldi's "science" in this respect is bunk.

But again, it bears repeating that this appeal is a de novo trial. The defence therefore doesn't have to seek to "overturn" the first court's reasoning regarding the bath mat partial print. It merely has to convince a new jury of its invalidity as solid evidence against Sollecito.

I never said they did. What I said was they have to show it isn't Raffaele's - exactly the same point you write in saying "It merely has to convince a new jury of its invalidity as solid evidence against Sollecito". You appear to be arguing other people's points in relation to topics we are discussing rather than what I'm actually saying. This is the second time in a few posts you are repeating the same point I've already made.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

wrong shape of toe

Well if the court makes an argument it is Sollecito's on the measurement basis and the defence cannot raise a valid defence, Raffaele is staying where he is. It absolutely *must* be defended in my opinion.

SomeAlibi,

Let us take Massei's stance that the mark next to the big toe was not caused by a second toe, and ask how it got there. Maybe it seeped there and nowhere else, but that seems implausible. Or it was made by a portion of the big toe, which seems to be what Massei is saying. If so, you have a big toe with the opposite shape as Sollecito's which is larger near the base than the tip, almost triangular. The mystery person would have a big toe that is largest at the far end. There is a paragraph to this effect in Raffaele's appeal. The other problem with Massei's arguments is he is relying on someone who got the shoe print wrong in 2008 and discounting someone who got it right.

This on top of misunderstanding a fundamental principle of forensic genetics in his explanation of the bra clasp DNA. I don't want to be misunderstood. My problem with Massei is not that he is necessarily wrong about the DNA profile, but he is wrong in his reasoning that gets him there. . These examples (and there are others) gradually erode one’s confidence in the quality of the reasoning of this verdict.

 

[christianahannah]

Can you possibly provide us with a transcript of that bugged conversation and point it out?

The motivations only give a part of the transcript. It is discussed elsewhere in the motivations (besides the part I quote). I don't know if Charlie Wilkes would have the full transcript.

Page 94:

M: "You called me one time saying..."

A: "I was in shock you know"

M: "But this was before anything happened except for the fact that the house was..."
(RIT 397/08, of November 10, 2007).

 

[LondonJohn]

The story gives them an alibi for the corner-shop and the morning clean up. The computer and cellphone records show that Raffaele at a minimum was clearly not asleep. You don't have to agree it but it's nonsense to suggest this isn't important to the case. It's hugely germane.

Nonsense. What difference does it make if one or both of them were awake at Sollecito's apartment or asleep at Sollecito's apartment. Why is it important whether they were alseep or awake at 5.30am? After all, if the interpretation of the computer and phone data is correct, it merely goes to prove that at least one out of Sollecito or Knox (probably Sollecito) was inside his apartment at that time. Ditto the 9.30am phone calls from his father.

So perhaps someone could tell me why the story along the lines of: "Oh yeah, I woke up at 5.30, messed around on the computer for a while and checked my phone, then went back to bed, then the phone woke me and Amanda up at around 9.30 with my dad's call" isn't in itself a pretty exemplary alibi for not being at the store or the cottage at 7.45am onwards? I'd argue that it's actually a much better alibi than: "Oh, we were both asleep until around 10.00am". What am I missing?

 

[Antony]

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.

I read with interest your lengthy response to the question "what convinces you of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt?" and what struck me was that it focusses entirely on their reactions during questioning and in the trial, and not about the substantive evidence at all. It's summed up by your assertion "innocent people don't do that" in the one paragraph I've quoted above.

I have to disagree: innocent people will do and say odd things when faced with false accusations. What we can say with much more confidence is that guilty people don't behave in the way Amanda and Raffaele did - they don't hang around the murder site the next day; they don't call the police; they don't make themselves available to assist the police, so trusting that they hadn't even contacted lawyers!

We can also say that honest police and prosecutors do not conduct investigations in the way we saw in Perugia. Just a few in the list: they lied about the time they arrived at the cottage to make it seem Raffaele hadn't called them first; they interrogated Amanda overnight without safeguards for her rights; they obtained a spurious DNA reading by misusing the testing equipment, and then tried to conceal the notes which showed that the procedure was improperly conducted.

There is absolutely nothing in this case to give any confidence in the guilty verdict against Amanda and Raffaele - least of all the fact that those supporting it focus so much on the allegedly "suspicious" behaviour of the accused, instead of the facts of the crime itself.

 

[LondonJohn]

You appear to forget that Raffaele himself frets about the lack of activity via his ISP in his diary. He knows he can't prove he was on the computer. If he knew about event logs, he knew he had a problem but there was simply nothing he could do about it: attempting to delete it or destroy the laptop would obviously have pointed the finger at himself much more comprehensively. If he didn't know about them, then they are still there as uncontested evidence. There isn't a point to be made here either way.

Huh? We were talking about the fact that Sollecito would have fully understood that the computer would have logged his 5.30am activity if indeed it was due to human interaction, and that his phone would have logged the calls from his father at around 9.30am. SO what mileage would there be in him knowingly denying that these things took place, if he must have known that the records would show he was wrong?

This is not about Sollecito not being able to prove he was sat at his computer on the night of the 1st (which, incidentally, is inconvenient to Sollecito but in no way indicative of his guilt - last time I checked, defendants didn't have to prove their innocence). It's about the fact that he must have known that his actual activity WAS logged - both in terms of computer use and phone use. And, in turn, that suggests to me that there was no mileage in him knowingly, deliberately lying about events from 5.30am onwards on the 2nd, since if he'd done that, he'd have known he would be contradicted by the records. Instead, it seems more indicative to me of a lack of recall or a mistake in the "crack" Postal Police analysis.

 

[LondonJohn]

Right but the point about Amanda denying the first call is because Edda is just about to go into what Amanda said to here when they are in a bugged environment on a prison visit. Amanda literally cuts her off and kills the conversation stone cold dead by doing so twice. Other prisoners would have warned her by then that the interview rooms could be tapped. As soon as Edda starts recalling it, Amanda cuts her off because she is panicking that what Edda says Amanda said to her may conflict with the story she's told the police. This is the relevance of the denial of the call.

Yes. I'm sure that supposition would stand up in court.

 

[LondonJohn]

But on two crucial measurements - the width of the forefoot, and the width of the big toe - the police expert measured the print to a point at which there was no blood, based on his guesstimation of how big the actual print would've been had it been complete. Astonishingly, it turned out his guesstimates matched Raffaele's foot to the millimetre. According to the defence, the actual width of the print was 93mm (Rinaldi's estimate: 99mm) while the width of the big toe was 24.8mm (Rinaldi's estimate: 30mm).

Since the print wasn't even measured strictly 'to the millimetre', how on earth can it match Raffaele's foot 'to the millimetre'?

It's total pseudo-science, and should have been vigorously challenged by the defence in the first trial. Another example of Sollecito's poor original defence by a lead counsel who traded on past glories and couldn't devote nearly enough time to her client's murder trial.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The motivations only give a part of the transcript. It is discussed elsewhere in the motivations (besides the part I quote). I don't know if Charlie Wilkes would have the full transcript.

Thanks christianahannah!

I cannot see how SomeAlibi's theory could be drawn from this.

But it's funny what Massei concludes in his typical non-sequitur way:

This conversation [the first call] between mother and daughter was not intercepted. The first call, to U.S. phone user 00120069326457, was made at 12:47 pm on November 2 and corroborated by analyzing the telephone traffic of Amanda Knox’s cellphone. However, the perplexity shown by the mother indicates that in this phone call Amanda had told her of circumstances which, if she was a stranger to what had occurred, she could not have known.

 

[Alt+F4]

Why is it important whether they were alseep or awake at 5.30am?

It must have been because one of them lied about it.

 

[katy_did]

Massei does mention a 12:43 call on 11/02/07 but I don't believe he attributes it to anyone. I'm not sure all calls are included in the motivations. Perhaps only those calls are included which confirm the reasonings that are being made?

He seems to list the full details of calls for the Vodafone ("For the day of 2.11.07, when Meredith was already dead, the traffic registered for the Vodafone number was shown to be the following": one call from Amanda, then two from English numbers) but you could be right about the English phone, as he just says the phone received "numerous calls". The 12:43 call would definitely seem to be a possibility for a Filomena call, good catch.

 

[RoseMontague]

It looks like Filomena tried calling Amanda 3 times as they were on the way to Meredith's flat.