Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

You appear to have misinterpreted my post - perhaps the lack of clarity was down to my prose.

But we don't want to go round in circles so I'm happy to move on.

.

Platonov, to go in circles we'd have to get somewhere first.

Forget the ToD, I just wanted to know what you thought.

The rest of it was in reference to your cryptic bit about PL's lawyer. I've googled and can't find anything specific, though I vaguely recall reading about some controversy here. So what is it you're getting at?

 

[platonov]

Cold comfort, perhaps, but not compatible with the claim that Amanda asked him to lie about whether she went out. That is the point we are discussing, right?

No the point is that RS apparently made that claim on the 5th - and it was later 'halfheartedly' ? withdrawn.
The veracity of either this claim or the later 'withdrawal' we cant adjudicate on with certainty at this remove, without clear statements from both defendants - and they are thin on the ground.
Suffice to say, all defence friendly supposition aside, it caused problems.

Are you saying that Raffaele's defense was based on the claim that he stayed home while Amanda went out alone?

Hardly, I thought my point was crystal clear ?

ETA But on this point Hmm ? the RS defence seemed to hedge a little [for obvious reasons] but that's a different argument.

.

 

[platonov]

Platonov, to go in circles we'd have to get somewhere first.

Forget the ToD, I just wanted to know what you thought.

The rest of it was in reference to your cryptic bit about PL's lawyer. I've googled and can't find anything specific, though I vaguely recall reading about some controversy here. So what is it you're getting at?

What I'm getting at is that the certainty in your arguments is surprising given these arguments apparently are informed by incomplete data.

 

[Kaosium]

What I'm getting at is that the certainty in your arguments is surprising given these arguments apparently are informed by incomplete data.

I reserve the right to change my mind when the facts warrant it. However I need to actually see those facts before my 'certainty' can change.

 

[platonov]

I reserve the right to change my mind when the facts warrant it. However I need to actually see those facts before my 'certainty' can change.

Sure but you need to marshal the facts before entering the debate with such certainty.

You don't want to depend on me in any case ....
I'm apparently part of a 'disinfo' team or Fr Todd Unctuous depending on who you ask.

.

 

[Kaosium]

Sure but you need to marshal the facts before entering the debate with such certainty.

You don't want to depend on me in any case ....
I'm apparently part of a 'disinfo' team or Fr Todd Unctuous depending on who you ask.

.

The only thing I'm 'certain' of now is that Amanda and Raffaele were not involved in the murder. Once you learn enough about how the investigation was conducted that becomes obvious to some. The whole case against them is an illusion, and once I saw through it I was embarrassed I ever bought the preposterous idea that a simple interrupted break-in was really a sordid plot between three people who barely knew each other to kill a girl for no reason. The esoteric facts that fill in the blanks I'll learn with time, but once you've seen behind the curtain there's no point in pretending a misplaced comma or disjointed translation is going to change the fact the police and prosecutor screwed up wholesale and railroaded two innocents.

As for those who've been posting for years on it and haven't figured it out? What can I say, I suppose since there's few if any sources for them to cite above the level of the UK's Daily Mail they have to make up their own 'facts.'

You, I think you know the score, you're just having fun with this.

 

[RoseMontague]

Broken_English at IIP members forum has provided a good summary of the documents posted recently from Raffaele's lawyers:

The text is written in "legalese", very difficult to translate.
The journalists of TGCOM have not reported a part of these "additional motivations" presented by the defense of Raffaele. The journalists of TGCOM have published 9 pages not consecutive, probably drawn from the most significant.
The 9 pages report some criticisms to the examination performed by the Postal Police on Raffaele's computer.
In these pages there isn't evidence that at the time of the murder Raffaele was at the computer.(Maybe this evidence is contained in other pages, not published by TGCOM).
But in these pages there is evidence that the expertise of the Postal Police is unreliable and that the Court of Assizes could not ruled out that at the time of the murder Raffaele were at his home.

PAGE 1
The Court (of Assizes) has considered decisive element for the verdict of guilty the lack of interaction with the computer.
This argument is illogical, because of inconclusive/wrong evidence submitted by the Postal Police.
Let us now proceed to present our technical arguments, attempting to use a precise and understandable language.

PAGE 2
To carry out the investigation was necessary to analyze the computer of Raffaele.
The postal police used the software "Encase".
As described on page 322 of the Judgement, it was considered the interval of time between 6pm on November 1 and 8am November 2, 2007.
This choice will prove to be inappropriate.

As follow-up actions, on a computer, can change the tracks of previous operations, restrict the interval of time has taken away the ability to find possible causes of changes or deletion of information.

PAGE 3
Based on the analysis performed by the Postal Police with "Encase", described on page 324 of the sentence, in the examined time interval only two files were used at 9:10:30pm on November 1 and at 5:32:09am November 2, 2007.

In Mac OS X systems (such as the computer of Raffaele Sollecito) temporal data are 5 and are stored partly in the inodes of the file system HFS + and partly in another memory area. In particular, inodes hold information about the last file access.

--
(Here surely it's missing a page.)
--


PAGE 4
access to a file (eg a film) causes the overwriting of previous temporal data.
For example, a quick access to the film "Amelie" in the days after November 1 2007 would result in the absence of any response to interaction with the film "Amelie" in the period between 6pm and 9:21:32pm of November 1.

Consequently, the lack of files changed since the 9:21:32pm can not be considered as evidence of the absence of interactions with the system.

In fact many interactions with the computer, without the presence of files with modified dates in the period covered by "Encase", are possible for several reasons:

- watching a movie, then removed it at a later date (and not found by investigators given the limited amount of time considered by "Encase")

- watching a movie, then reviewed it at a later date: notice how by the survey conducted by consultants of the defense a large number of videos (including "Naruto", episode 101) showing dates changed at 1:30 pm of November 6, 2007 (time of seizure)

PAGE 5
- listening to music then repeated it: is common practice to listen the music with the so-called "playing list". In this case listening to a list remove the traces of the previously list played. In this regard it is noted that in the interactions documented through the iTunes application logs, that have not even been examined in the study of the prosecution, between 5.44am and 6.20am of the November 2, 2007 are heard just two sequences of "playing list" who deleted data from previous plays of the same, also the listening counters (indicators that measure how many times a song has been played) of some of these songs are quite high (from 2 to 26)

- listening to music directly from CD-ROM: this type of play does not leave traces of changes to files. Note that, recorded in the minutes, from the computer of Raffaele Sollecito was extracted by the Postal Police a CD of a band.

In the study of the Police Post is NEVER highlighted this inability to prove with certainty the absence of interactions in the periods in which the keyboard was active

PAGE 6
The report of the consultants of the defense noted that to analyze the interactions in the Apple computer of Raffaele Sollecito occurred between 6pm November 1, 2007 and 8am of the following November 2 would FIRST have to examine the file "windowsserver.log" which records the history of the periods in which keyboard and mouse are disabled from the screensaver

(follows a long description of what is a screensaver)

--
(Here probably it's missing a page.)
--

PAGE 7
(This page begins with the History of the screensaver from 6am to 12am of November 2)
Translating into a language more "understandable" is clear that in the period between November 1, 6:26pm and 6:22am on November 2, the periods in which there is a certain lack of interaction ARE OF A MAXIMUM OF 6 MINUTES while all other periods are of interaction/potential no interaction, calling "potential non-interaction" an ACTIVE CONDUCT OF THE USER ON THE COMPUTER that, while not using the keyboard or mouse, uses the system by acting on its peripherals such as opening/closing the drawer of the CD/DVD and engaging in behavior incompatible with the absence from the place where the computer is located.

Mind you that from the analysis of this file [windowsserver.log] results that the screensaver was never switched off.

Instead the file "windowsserver.log" and the log file of the screensaver "com.apple.screensaver.0016cba1b0b7.plist" were completely ignored in the analysis of the Postal Police.

This analysis with the software ENCASE has examined only the files created, accessed, modified or deleted during the period mentioned ignoring the information from log files

--
(Here probably it's missing a page.)
--

PAGE 8
- severe alterations to the data occurred in the period following the seizure of computer (and before the acquisition of the hard disk) which led to the modification of the date for many files (over 520)

Based on the foregoing, it is considered necessary that these elements are evaluated by an expert appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal. We insists that a report is prepared on computer Macbook.Pro used by the accused in order to ascertain what were the real interactions in the period between 1 and 2 November 2007

At this point it's open a chapter devoted to Curatolo, but on page 8 and page 9 is summed only who he is and what he has declared. At the end of page 9 it is doubtful that the facts narrated by Curatolo have taken place on the evening of Nov. 1, citing the testimony of Ceccarelli Alessia (newsstand owner in the square Grimana).... but here ends the page.

My take on this is that the Police computer expert has again showed a lack of expertise and there is more than sufficient evidence for further outside expert review asked for in the appeals.

 

[Fine]

Another INTERNALIZED False Accusation?

I'm not so sure about this; Katody may be right that the translation isn't quite accurate. The word Raffaele uses is 'indurre', for which I think the most neutral English translation would be 'induce'. Of course, nuances are always tricky as a non-native speaker, but certainly in English to 'induce' someone to do something doesn't necessarily mean that you set out to persuade them to do it. It often just means that you influenced them in some way, not necessarily consciously. For instance, say I bought a concert ticket and that 'induced' someone else to do the same. That certainly doesn't mean I told them to buy one nor that I consciously and deliberately persuaded them to do it.

In this case we don't really need to guess as to what Raffaele meant, because he's referring to what he said in the "second version" of his statements on the 5/6 November, and the police statement from that interrogation was leaked and published (thanks to Christiana for linking to it, I was looking for that everywhere...). The statement says:
_____________________________________________
In my previous declaration I said a load of crap because [Amanda] convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the contradictions._____________________________________________

Here, he's obviously not saying that Amanda told him to lie, he's saying that she influenced him by convincing him that her 'version' of what happened that night was true: i.e. that they were together all night. Had she actually told him to lie, there's no way he could've been 'convinced' that her version was the truth!

I think what happened that night is that the police told Raffaele they had 'hard evidence' placing Amanda at the cottage (as they had also told Amanda). They probably pointed out that since it was Thursday, Amanda must have left to go to work, and she had sent a text to her boss confirming she planned to meet him that night. Therefore she must have left the house - why was he covering for her? Faced with these contradictions, Raffaele concluded that when he and Amanda had talked about that evening and the questions the police were asking them, during which she no doubt talked and behaved as if she were with him all night, she was intentionally trying to mislead him by convincing him of 'her version' - which he initially believed, until faced with the "contradictions" presented to him by the police.

_________________________

Thanks for your thoughtful response katy_did.

You certainly have an imaginative interpretation of the highlighted quote from Raffaele's interrogation, whereby Raffaele's "load of crap" is Amanda staying home (the truth) which is supposed to "contradict," for Raffaele, the misinformation that the cops tricked Raffaele into believing, viz. that Amanda had really gone to Le Chic. But that seems implausible. Certainly your conjectures on how they tricked him are inconclusive.

If Amanda didn't leave, could the cops have convinced him otherwise, since Amanda says in her court testimony that when she read Patrick's text declaring a "night off" she jumped on top of Raffaele and told him she had the night free. Wooopie! Also, the cops couldn't have mentioned to Raffaele, during his interrogation, Amanda's return text to Patrick---"see you later"---to demonstrate Amanda's departure because the cops didn't know about it at that time. According to Barbie:

"As her officers were booking Raffaele, Napoleoni went out to the vending machine in the hallway, worried that Amanda might hear Raffaele protesting his arrest and decide to leave.* * * The two went back to an interrogation room, where Napoleoni and several other officers asked Amanda to check through her cell phone for names and ideas." (Angel Face, page 68)

So, seems like there's only one explanation for your quote from Raffaele's interrogation (if it is from his interrogation). It's an earlier instance of his remarkably similar "load of crap" statements in his Diary. It's proof that Raffaele changed his story during his interrogation that night from Amanda left back to Amanda didn't leave. In which case, Raffaele did in fact tell the cops that night that Amanda had lied to him.

The quote again:

"In my previous declaration I said a load of crap because [Amanda] convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the contradictions."

Here his "previous declaration" is a statement he made earlier that same night in the same interrogation session, "her version of the facts" is Amanda going to work at Le Chic. The contradiction, however, is not clear. My guess is that since it was All Saints Day when the murder happened, he and the cops realized that Le Chic was CLOSED. Indeed, as he says in his Diary, Raffaele thought that Le Chic was closed that night.

As I interpret the quote, it was Amanda who induced Raffaele to say she left for Le Chic. In which case Amanda induced Raffaele to lie. Why would she do that?

///

 

[Mary_H]

Actually this isn't quite right.

Strictly speaking an appeal to authority is a philosophical fallacy because it's not absolutely watertight - an authority could conceivably be wrong.

For example a pathologist could get up and say "t(lag) for a small-to-moderate sized meal eaten by a normal, healthy young woman who was not under stress, had drunk no alcohol, did not engage in heavy exercise or for that matter do anything else known to modify t(lag) could easily be six hours. It happens all the time". They would be completely wrong. Authorities are usually right - that's why they are authorities - but they are not infallible.

So in serious writing you wouldn't just quote some authority figure, you'd cite the relevant literature directly.

My idea that Treehorn was appealing to authority came from the fact that he said he would believe the lawyer if the lawyer's article made it to a prestigious law review, and he would believe Kevin if Kevin had an M.D.

I could change my claims that Treehorn is appealing to authority to claims that he practicing "credentialism."

Credentialism is a term used to describe a primary reliance on credentials for purposes of conferring jobs or social status[1]. In some jobs, employers require a diploma, academic degree, security clearance, or professional license for a job which does not require the specific training that is part of these credentials or for which the skills can be obtained by other means, such as experience and informal study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credentialism;[/quote]
On the other hand, someone I know who knows logic said that what Treehorn did was simply ad hominem. I still think I can get argument from authority in there, though, if I go by this Wikipedia definition. In Treehorn's case, maybe I should say he is arguing from future authority.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

However, I do not claim to have expertise (or authority) in this area, so I am not committed to defending my position.

 

[RoseMontague]

_________________________

Thanks for your thoughtful response katy_did.

You certainly have an imaginative interpretation of the highlighted quote from Raffaele's interrogation, whereby Raffaele's "load of crap" is Amanda staying home (the truth) which is supposed to "contradict," for Raffaele, the misinformation that the cops tricked Raffaele into believing, viz. that Amanda had really gone to Le Chic. But that seems implausible. Certainly your conjectures on how they tricked him are inconclusive.

If Amanda didn't leave, could the cops have convinced him otherwise, since Amanda says in her court testimony that when she read Patrick's text declaring a "night off" she jumped on top of Raffaele and told him she had the night free. Wooopie! Also, the cops couldn't have mentioned to Raffaele, during his interrogation, Amanda's return text to Patrick---"see you later"---to demonstrate Amanda's departure because the cops didn't know about it at that time. According to Barbie:

"As her officers were booking Raffaele, Napoleoni went out to the vending machine in the hallway, worried that Amanda might hear Raffaele protesting his arrest and decide to leave.* * * The two went back to an interrogation room, where Napoleoni and several other officers asked Amanda to check through her cell phone for names and ideas." (Angel Face, page 68)

So, seems like there's only one explanation for your quote from Raffaele's interrogation (if it is from his interrogation). It's an earlier instance of his remarkably similar "load of crap" statements in his Diary. It's proof that Raffaele changed his story during his interrogation that night from Amanda left back to Amanda didn't leave. In which case, Raffaele did in fact tell the cops that night that Amanda had lied to him.

The quote again:

"In my previous declaration I said a load of crap because [Amanda] convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the contradictions."

Here his "previous declaration" is a statement he made earlier that same night in the same interrogation session, "her version of the facts" is Amanda going to work at Le Chic. The contradiction, however, is not clear. My guess is that since it was All Saints Day when the murder happened, he and the cops realized that Le Chic was CLOSED. Indeed, as he says in his Diary, Raffaele thought that Le Chic was closed that night.

As I interpret the quote, it was Amanda who induced Raffaele to say she left for Le Chic. In which case Amanda induced Raffaele to lie. Why would she do that?

///

I am just guessing on this but I have always felt that just as the interrogators went to Amanda and said Raffaele has dropped your alibi, I believe they first used this strategy with Raffaele in inducing him to do so. That is they told him that Amanda said she was not with you that night, therefore you have no alibi. Perhaps he is referring to a police lie about what Amanda said rather than what Amanda actually said.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
A more interesting discussion might concern why they changed their stories on the 5th.

.

Now why didn't we think of that?

 

[platonov]

The only thing I'm 'certain' of now is that Amanda and Raffaele were not involved in the murder. Once you learn enough about how the investigation was conducted that becomes obvious to some. The whole case against them is an illusion, and once I saw through it I was embarrassed I ever bought the preposterous idea that a simple interrupted break-in was really a sordid plot between three people who barely knew each other to kill a girl for no reason. The esoteric facts that fill in the blanks I'll learn with time, but once you've seen behind the curtain there's no point in pretending a misplaced comma or disjointed translation is going to change the fact the police and prosecutor screwed up wholesale and railroaded two innocents.

As for those who've been posting for years on it and haven't figured it out? What can I say, I suppose since there's few if any sources for them to cite above the level of the UK's Daily Mail they have to make up their own 'facts.'

You, I think you know the score, you're just having fun with this.

If only the defence forensic experts you dismissed with 1 line could see behind the curtain as clearly as you do.
Apparently not, so denied an epiphany they have to make do with esoteric facts if they are to help clear AK & RS, the courts also having a stubborn fondness for such facts.

Not much fun perhaps but for mere mortals that's the way of the world.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A long time ago I decided that we'd proved beyond all reasonable doubt the Massei narrative was total rubbish - the science was absolutely unequivocal that Meredith died long before 23:30 barring divine intervention or similar.

The appeals team's discovery of the 21:26 Naruto file,combined with the correct time of death, almost completely closed off any possibility that Knox and Sollecito were guilty, but only almost completely. Just possibly they started the Naturo file at 21:26, bolted out the door, ran to Amanda's house, and then stabbed Meredith to death for no reason. That's such a ridiculous idea it could never sustain a rational prosecution but we couldn't prove with 100% certainty that it didn't happen. That was mildly unsatisfyng.

However based on what RoseMontague just posted, either the appeals team is lying through its teeth and is going to get disbarred, or the guilter case is dead, burned, buried and the ground salted. The time of death argument we spent so much time on turns out to be irrelevant: We can give the guilters a 23:30 time of death as a free kick and Amanda and Raffaele were still at home long after that time, and hence are totally innocent.

Game over. Time for the guilters to start looking for a new hobby.

 

[Fine]

The claim of 1 a.m. from Raffaele is in part of the leaked interrogation to Corriere della Sera article of November 7, 2007. It may be elsewhere (perhaps the news article on Raffaele before his arrest?).

Raffaele states that he was on his computer until around 1 a.m. when Amanda arrived home. He mentions not remembering what Amanda was wearing and if they made love. He doesn't explicitly state he went to sleep after 1 a.m. but states he awoke around 10 a.m.

In this same article is the leaked interrogation of Amanda.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_07/meredith_verbali_sarzanini.shtml

____________________________

A piece of late night trivia. Raffaele's computer is not Raffaele's computer. It's his sister's computer.

///

 

[Withnail1969]

A long time ago I decided that we'd proved beyond all reasonable doubt the Massei narrative was total rubbish - the science was absolutely unequivocal that Meredith died long before 23:30 barring divine intervention or similar.

The appeals team's discovery of the 21:26 Naruto file,combined with the correct time of death, almost completely closed off any possibility that Knox and Sollecito were guilty, but only almost completely. Just possibly they started the Naturo file at 21:26, bolted out the door, ran to Amanda's house, and then stabbed Meredith to death for no reason. That's such a ridiculous idea it could never sustain a rational prosecution but we couldn't prove with 100% certainty that it didn't happen. That was mildly unsatisfyng.

However based on what RoseMontague just posted, either the appeals team is lying through its teeth and is going to get disbarred, or the guilter case is dead, burned, buried and the ground salted. The time of death argument we spent so much time on turns out to be irrelevant: We can give the guilters a 23:30 time of death as a free kick and Amanda and Raffaele were still at home long after that time, and hence are totally innocent.

Game over. Time for the guilters to start looking for a new hobby.

Don't forget Curatolo places them at the basketball court at precisely 21:27, not a minute later.

 

[Kaosium]

If only the defence forensic experts you dismissed with 1 line could see behind the curtain as clearly as you do.
Apparently not, so denied an epiphany they have to make do with esoteric facts if they are to help clear AK & RS, the courts also having a stubborn fondness for such facts.

Not much fun perhaps but for mere mortals that's the way of the world.

Oh, I'm sure they've figured it out. However, the techniques they use to free Amanda and Raffaele will be dependent upon what works in an Italian court. Oh, and it's not a matter of if they are acquitted, but when and how much humiliation the Italian Courts will have to endure in the end.

It probably took me longer than some to figure it out because my general sympathy in these matters lies with the police and the prosecutor, and I had more trouble than some would accepting the fact they screwed things up this badly. That anyone could have the unmitigated gall to think they could get away with this with all the attention it attracted is mind-blowing.

 

[platonov]

A long time ago I decided that we'd proved beyond all reasonable doubt the Massei narrative was total rubbish - the science was absolutely unequivocal that Meredith died long before 23:30 barring divine intervention or similar.

The appeals team's discovery of the 21:26 Naruto file,combined with the correct time of death, almost completely closed off any possibility that Knox and Sollecito were guilty, but only almost completely. Just possibly they started the Naturo file at 21:26, bolted out the door, ran to Amanda's house, and then stabbed Meredith to death for no reason. That's such a ridiculous idea it could never sustain a rational prosecution but we couldn't prove with 100% certainty that it didn't happen. That was mildly unsatisfyng.

However based on what RoseMontague just posted, either the appeals team is lying through its teeth and is going to get disbarred, or the guilter case is dead, burned, buried and the ground salted. The time of death argument we spent so much time on turns out to be irrelevant: We can give the guilters a 23:30 time of death as a free kick and Amanda and Raffaele were still at home long after that time, and hence are totally innocent.

Game over. Time for the guilters to start looking for a new hobby.

My new hobby is scanning defence docs.

You might want to hold onto that early ToD [Would you really cast it aside so easily ??]
- At best the above looks like a claim that there might be data on the Mac that shows some interaction, pending further analysis.

The rest [screensaver stuff] doesn't seem to help.

And perhaps the missing pages are a confession.

 

[RoseMontague]

My new hobby is scanning defence docs.

You might want to hold onto that early ToD [Would you really cast it off so easily ??]
- At best the above looks like a claim that there might be data on the Mac that shows some interaction, pending further analysis.

The rest [screensaver stuff] doesn't seem to help.

And perhaps the missing pages are a confession.

Kevin may have overstated this information and you may have understated it. I prefer the understated part at this point, simply because I have not seen a counter argument to this. I do think that at the very least, the court will grant the defense request for additional testing and expert review on the computers.

The missing pages are an issue, I agree. This is simply what was provided in the article and seems to represent what they consider to be important. Broken_English does point out that this particular news source had a decidedly guilty stance during the early stages and even during the trial and now seems to have gone in the opposite direction. I am looking for the complete document as well as Amanda's new filing.

 

[Matthew Best]

____________________________

A piece of late night trivia. Raffaele's computer is not Raffaele's computer. It's his sister's computer.

///

What? This changes everything!!!!

 

[Justinian2]

Yes, authorities can be wrong, but that's not the fallacy. The fallacy is thinking because a professor of physics says something about another subject, say the intelligence of dolphins, that his opinion carries special weight in the debate. In truth he may know less about it than the average surfer dude.

The professor of physics might say something wrong about his field, but employing his opinion in a debate wouldn't be an appeal to authority fallacy.

All that's true.

Wikipedia states:

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1.Source A says that p is true.
2.Source A is authoritative.
3.Therefore, p is true.​

Replacing p with 2+2=5
1.Source A says that 2+2=5 is true.
2.Source A is authoritative.
3.Therefore, 2+2=5 is true

That's my take on appeal to authority.