Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[SomeAlibi]

The shape of the big toe is wrong, as indicated in my recent comment.

The judge deals with this and it's a very weak point compared to the measurements and proportionality. Since it can't be Guede's proportionally, whose is it? The measurements say it is Sollecito's of course but since the proportionality is wrong, are you saying there was a fourth man?

Raffaele's counsel have to do a very very good job on this at the appeal and I'm not seeing it at all at this point. This would be one that would be keeping me up at night at the moment.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

Unfortunately the corner shop witness has been completely discredited. I am glad that you see it as important however. Finding Quintavalle credible because Massei does not find two other witnesses credible hardly seems to be giving this one the importance you seem to put on it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Willingham case versus this one

I don't get the connection. Willingham lied about entering the room where the murders took place. AK and or RS lied about being awake or asleep in an apartment that had nothing to do with the murder. The two of them being awake and just hanging out that morning is just as a good alibi as them being asleep. Why the lie?

I should have said that he claimed to have entered it when he did not. BTW, it was probably no longer fire in a room but a room on fire. There is no specific connection other than to make the point that the simple fact of a defendant's lying is not proof of guilt. I would add that lying is a really bad idea, as Kestrel has richly documented. Even when the police lie (as in an interrogation), even an innocent person cannot lie in his or her answer.

As far as Amanda, one or more commenters here asked for specific examples of lying by Amanda some time ago, and no examples emerged.

 

[SomeAlibi]

I don't exactly think the fact that Massei found someone else not credible to give me a reason to think Quintavalle is credible. But I will rephrase the question to you. Why do you find Quintavalle credible?

I refer you to my earlier answer you quoted - this is just circular.

 

[Dan O.]

Knox and Sollecito are supposed to be "frantic" at this point. Massei describes:

"Yet when the Postal Police arrived, the panic caused by that locked door was not expressed in any way and Amanda did not speak of that locked door in the phone conversation she had with Romanelli; it was instead Romanelli who asked Amanda about Meredith, as mentioned above.

... Neither of them asked him to break down the door of Meredith’s room (page 114). Battistelli has also stated in the same hearing that it was Romanelli who noticed that Meredith’s door was locked (page 118)." Massei p 92

" ...The same Zaroli has stated that it was Luca Altieri who asked about the door and the response about the normality of it being locked he got it from Amanda and we were reassured (p.181).

Luca Altieri also stated that when they arrived they saw the room of Romanelli in a mess and then Meredith's room locked with a key. They asked if this was normal and Raffaele, "translating Amanda’s answer told me that she usually locks the door even when she goes into the bathroom to take a shower ... so there was no concern arising about the fact that the door was locked‛" Massei p 93 etc.

Are the defendants playing games and contradicting themselves or what.

We've already established that Battistelli was lying on the stand so we need to be careful about accepting any of his statements. As for Massei, does he acknowledge the events that occurred between the time Amanda was in the frantic state and the time the postal police arrived? Events such as Amanda talking to her mom, Raffaele calling his sister and then the police and the two of them going outside to wait for the police to arrive. It seems to me that there was plenty of time to count to ten and settle down before the postal police showed up.

The locked/closed door issue we've been over many times too. There could very easily have been a translation error between locked and closed and there is no reason for Amanda to want to reassure everyone that the situation was normal after already having called the police because the situation was not normal.

 

[Alt+F4]

Well alrighty, let's says a "worried" Filomena (thought I had a quote for 'shocked', but can't find it at present). Why didn't a 'worried' Filomena give Meredith's phones a quick call? Amanda spent 23 seconds longer trying to get in touch with Meredith than Filomena did...

Depends on what Amanda told her. After all, it was Amanda who saw what was going on, not Filomena.

 

[katy_did]

Well you know I don't think it's a tactic and as defence counsel I love when I get the option to run the sort of argument you make here. You can make a lot of mileage out it. Shame on Ghirgha for not being on the ball enough to grab it in the trial of first instance. The conspiracy / deliberate falsification you are seeking to make doesn't really work because the objective telephone records were there. IF Comodi was trying to stitch Amanda and Raffaele up she would have known that those records existed and that it was a "tactic" that could very badly backfire. Therefore there's not a lot of sense in attempting that "tactic" which tends to defeat the point you're trying to make.

So lying in Court is indeed an acceptable tactic to use as a lawyer, and Comodi's lie was nothing out of the ordinary. Thanks, that answers my question.

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually it's in many more parts of the foot than that. There are multiple measurements which you can find in Massei p.339. There are multiple points where it matches Raffaele and Guede's measurements are many millimetres different but even more tellingly, Guedes foot is longer and narrower such that it doesn't matter how much spread or bleed you hypothesise, you simply can't make Guede's foot fit it. We can disagree about a lot but this is incontrovertible.

It most certainly is not incontrovertible. It's the result of bogus pseudo-scientific analysis by the prosecution's expert, who had already made errors elsewhere in his analysis. I don't know whether you've tried to fit a properly-scaled reference print of Guede's to the partial bath mat print. You should do it some time.

PS I'm not, of course, talking about "Kermit's" famous ppt presentation, where he scales Guede's reference print totally incorrectly, and then triumphantly announces that it in no way fits over the bath mat print.....

 

[Antony]

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.

The need for an explanation is the origin of a number of factoids in this case, which are treated as fact even in the Massei report, and have been adopted as articles of faith by the guilter faction.

The alleged clean-up and the supposed staging of the break-in are the obvious ones, but I think I also read that Amanda was charged with "unlawfully carrying a weapon" solely on the basis that for Raffaele's kitchen knife to have been the murder weapon, she must have been carrying it to and from the cottage on the night of the murder. Is this true?

 

[Alt+F4]

As far as Amanda, one or more commenters here asked for specific examples of lying by Amanda some time ago, and no examples emerged.

I don't think Amanda lied about anything, can you say the same thing about Raffaele? After all, their fates are intertwined.

 

[RoseMontague]

I refer you to my earlier answer you quoted - this is just circular.

The difference is this time I asked you why you thought Quintavalle is credible. If you think it is circular then you are saying that you have the same reasons that Massei does, yet you don't know or will not say what those reasons are. Still you just indicated that this was "hugely germane".

 

[LondonJohn]

I refer you to my earlier answer you quoted - this is just circular.

Yes Rose. The answer (in case you missed it the first time) is: Well, Quintavalle is one of those witnesses who's either credible or not. You have to be in court to decide whether he was credible or not. And the court thought he was credible. So he was credible.

 

[Alt+F4]

We've already established that Battistelli was lying on the stand....

Sorry if I missed it, but who established that Battistelli was lying on the stand? Thanks for the evidence/cite in advance.

 

[SomeAlibi]

So lying in Court is indeed an acceptable tactic to use as a lawyer, and Comodi's lie was nothing out of the ordinary. Thanks, that answers my question.

I clearly stated that I don't think Comodi was deliberately lying and in fact such a "tactic" would have been dumb. Am I worrying you too such that you are getting so snipey and silly in your responses?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I guess I'm rattling you because that's entirely ad hominem and could easily be said the other way round about people seeking to disprove the prosecution case. Except that I wouldn't because it's rude. Nevertheless, it's very gratifying that you've chosen to go for a macro-level dismissal this early in the conversation.

As I explained above, from my point of view, based on reason, not courtroom politics there is not much of a prosecution case, only various pieces that don't hold together. It's a pity you take that personally, but it's not my fault that you're so devoted to your theory.

The fact that I have already arrived at a "macro level" opinion doesn't mean I don't enjoy micro level picking apart, especially that it's not my theory that's under fire or questioned

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think Amanda lied about anything, can you say the same thing about Raffaele? After all, their fates are intertwined.

So Knox didn't leave Sollecito's apartment on the night of the 1st November? So she slept in at Sollecito's apartment until around 10am? So she wasn't at Quintavalle's store "waiting for it to open" at 7.45am?

Glad we got some of that sorted out..........

 

[Alt+F4]

...but I think I also read that Amanda was charged with "unlawfully carrying a weapon" solely on the basis that for Raffaele's kitchen knife to have been the murder weapon, she must have been carrying it to and from the cottage on the night of the murder. Is this true?

I don't think she was charged with any weapons possession.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele's appeal got this one right as well

The judge deals with this and it's a very weak point compared to the measurements and proportionality. Since it can't be Guede's proportionally, whose is it? The measurements say it is Sollecito's of course but since the proportionality is wrong, are you saying there was a fourth man?

Raffaele's counsel have to do a very very good job on this at the appeal and I'm not seeing it at all at this point. This would be one that would be keeping me up at night at the moment.

I don't believe anyone can prove that the print is Guede's, but that is not the defense's burden.

Raffaele's appeal in effect said that the images proved the opposite of what the court wanted to conclude. I did not quote one paragraph that I should have, but I did discuss this in comments 11081 and 11170.

 

[SomeAlibi]

The difference is this time I asked you why you thought Quintavalle is credible. If you think it is circular then you are saying that you have the same reasons that Massei does, yet you don't know or will not say what those reasons are. Still you just indicated that this was "hugely germane".

I said the fact of the alibi for the morning of the 2nd is hugely germane not Quintavalle. I don't mind debating with you but I can't do this thing where you keep on misquoting or misinterpreting me. To be fair you haven't done that much but LJ keeps on doing it.

I don't want to reopen the enormously lengthy debate about Quintavalle. I see no particular reason to disbelieve him the reasoning for which was quoted at length here previously in one time I did read your board by Fulcanelli and others. We, of course, disagree about it.

 

[LondonJohn]

I guess I'm rattling you because that's entirely ad hominem and could easily be said the other way round about people seeking to disprove the prosecution case. Except that I wouldn't because it's rude. Nevertheless, it's very gratifying that you've chosen to go for a macro-level dismissal this early in the conversation.

Wouldn't you now? Sure about that?

(Maybe not here, I suppose...)