• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alt+F4 said:
So why did Francesco Introna, a defense expert, put the time of death at around 22:50?
Click to expand...

Isn't this quite a selective interpretation of what Introna said? According to Massei, that estimate was based on Hensgge's nomogram, and Lalli's estimate of how much Meredith weighed; accepting the latter, he then accepted Lalli's estimate of "the time of 22:50 pm as the most probable time of death, with the "range of times of death lying between 21:30 pm and 03:30 am the following day". He also noted that:
With respect to these indications given in Dr. Lalli's report, Professor Introna stated that Dr. Lalli was not able to weigh the body. He observed that for a girl whose height was one metre and sixty centimetres, weight tables predict a normal weight of slightly over the 55 kilos guessed by Dr. Lalli. He also observed that "two kilos more or two kilos less usually escape attention altogether", but they have a significant effect in the use of Henssge's nomogram. He added that Meredith Kercher was not a weak, thin girl, and if Dr. Lalli had guessed her weight as 57 kilos rather than 55 kilos, the centre of the Gaussian curve indicating the probable time of death would have been at 21:50 pm, and if he had entered the value of 56 kilos, it would have been at 22:20 pm; for 54 kilos it would have been at 23:20 pm.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, when Introna estimated the time of death using all the indications available, he said the following:
He asserted that "knowing that Meredith's meal started at 18:30 pm, knowing that there were about 500 cc of stomach contents, and knowing from the autopsy that there was no pathology of the stomach...which could slow down digestion, and above all", as reported by Dr. Lalli, knowing that the duodenum was still empty "because the stomach had not even begun to empty itself" (page 19 of the transcripts), the time of death must lie between 21:30 pm (three hours after 18:30) and 22:30 pm (four hours after 18:30), and that this timing agreed with the less rigid data provided by the analysis of the hypostasis, of the rigor mortis and of the body temperature, considering the uncertainty of the body weight which was guessed without weighing the body.
Click to expand...
That sounds to me like Introna's estimate of the T.O.D. was 21:30-22:30.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Machiavelli,

You are continuing to ignore what Sara Gino said on or about 25 September 2009. She said that she did not the testing dates. Because the dates would be part of the electronic data files, we know that she did not have the files, either. Moreover, you are continuing to ignore what Gregory Hampikian said in March of 2010 to the effect that he had still not been able to get copies of the files. His request went through the defense lawyers, who were refused. Whether he will be called during the appeal or whether he was a consultant is not finally the point. The defense was refused.
Click to expand...

Yes I am continuing to ignore whatever the attorneys didn't say. Sarah Gino gave a testimony and she said in the files she couldn't find some data that would have helped her to determine the amount of reagent in microliters used in the DNA tests of the bra claps. This amount was actually indicated by Stefanoni but Sarah Gino claimed that is she had more precise "SLA" records she could determine amounts for certain.
Based on an assumption of 25 microliters, the defenc (Tagliabracci and Gino) derived an hypothetical datum of about 120-140 picograms. The assumption was arbitrary, but the datum was assumed based on the lack of full record of all data on a file, and on the machinery brand manual set for 25 microliters.
But Sarah Gino didn't make any request to the prosecution (she couldn't effectively do it anyway) and didn't state there had to be a file missing. After Sarah Gino's testimony, no statement by the defence was asserting there were files not released by the prosecution.

The defence complained their experts didn't have the possibility to have all data they wished to have had, speaking about the data available in the files.
The defence did not assert the prosecution was preventing files from being released, that they had other files, that were concealing the existence of files or withholding them from the defense.
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
I didn't - That referred to the ridiculous '2nd storey man' argument you were putting forward.The rest of your post is either OT or as well sourced and relevant as the above.
If you wish to continue to 'speculate' over 'possible semen stains' between the victims legs - that's your call.
You may find several others here willing to do so on your terms - but I am not among them.
.
Click to expand...
Greetings Platonov,
Fair enough...

I do hope though,
that you yourself never have to go thru a trial where potential evidence is not tested to help prove your innocence.

But if you ever do have to go thru a major trial I hope that the witness/es testifying against you
or the investigators who examined the evidence against you DO NOT LIE, while under oath,
to help further their case or the prosectutions case against you...

If that ever happens, Platonov
maybe you will understand why I brought up a very personal story on public forum to debate with you.
Peace,
RWVBWL

PS-Platonov,
Haven't you ever heard of a person who, using the same M.O. ,
breaks into some place, sometimes robbing or raping the person there.
A couple that spring to my native Los Angeles mind are the "Hillside Strangler" and the "Night Stalker".
Is its odd that the crimes these men were commiting stopped aftrer their arrests and imprisonment?

I find it very interesting that after Rudy Guede was arrested and jailed, that in the town of Perugia, Italy there appears to have not been any further B+Eing crimes using that modus operandi.
You apparently do not, so I guess we will just disagree, once again...
Take it easy,
RW
 
Withnail1969 said:
so Nara says she can hear things, and we are just supposed to believe her without any testing?

I do not decide she is a credible person, so tell me, what are my options?

No need to tell me, the court already decided it. I see.
Click to expand...

Well if you are a judge you are supposed to be neutral. As a judge you are not free to decide a witness is not credible just when you want.
A court would follow a praxis to understand if there are reasons to think the witness is not credible. An array of questions is put to the witness by several partis and assessment is given on his/her performance and on the testimony consistency.
When the court thinks a witness lies, there are usually specific reasons for they have this perception. If the witness is imprecise, could be still a good witness. If instead is inconsistent, the testimony gets under closer scrutiny.
The court "tests" the witness for consistency and credibility, however without assuming that credibility has to be "proven".
 
RWVBWL said:
(..)

I find it very interesting that after Rudy Guede was arrested and jailed, that in the town of Perugia, Italy there appears to have not been any further B+Eing crimes using that modus operandi.
You apparently do not, so I guess we will just disagree, once again...
(..)
Click to expand...

Where did you make up this information?
While there are 600+ breake ins in apartments per year.
The great majority of all thefts in houses is from a second store balcony (first store, I think, for UK English speakers).
 
Machiavelli said:
Well if you are a judge you are supposed to be neutral. As a judge you are not free to decide a witness is not credible just when you want.
A court would follow a praxis to understand if there are reasons to think the witness is not credible. An array of questions is put to the witness by several partis and assessment is given on his/her performance and on the testimony consistency.
When the court thinks a witness lies, there are usually specific reasons for they have this perception. If the witness is imprecise, could be still a good witness. If instead is inconsistent, the testimony gets under closer scrutiny.
The court "tests" the witness for consistency and credibility, however without assuming that credibility has to be "proven".
Click to expand...

And if the defence requests independent tests?
 
halides1 said:
Machiavelli,

You are continuing to ignore what Sara Gino said on or about 25 September 2009. She said that she did not the testing dates. Because the dates would be part of the electronic data files, we know that she did not have the files, either. Moreover, you are continuing to ignore what Gregory Hampikian said in March of 2010 to the effect that he had still not been able to get copies of the files. His request went through the defense lawyers, who were refused. Whether he will be called during the appeal or whether he was a consultant is not finally the point. The defense was refused.
Click to expand...

Finally, it seems the only source for this claim is Gregory Hampikian.
But I cannot consider Hampikian a source on this point of law in the trial: the request exists if there is a lawyer's documents reporting the request and if there is a document of the refusal.
You talk about a "request" and a "refusal" without any legal arena, without any place this request and refusal to take place. But this request and refusal is something formal, it is a trial documentation, and this documentation does not appear in the files that should report it, which are the sentencing report and appeal documents.
 
Machiavelli said:
Yes I am continuing to ignore whatever the attorneys didn't say. Sarah Gino gave a testimony and she said in the files she couldn't find some data that would have helped her to determine the amount of reagent in microliters used in the DNA tests of the bra claps. This amount was actually indicated by Stefanoni but Sarah Gino claimed that is she had more precise "SLA" records she could determine amounts for certain.
Based on an assumption of 25 microliters, the defenc (Tagliabracci and Gino) derived an hypothetical datum of about 120-140 picograms. The assumption was arbitrary, but the datum was assumed based on the lack of full record of all data on a file, and on the machinery brand manual set for 25 microliters.
But Sarah Gino didn't make any request to the prosecution (she couldn't effectively do it anyway) and didn't state there had to be a file missing. After Sarah Gino's testimony, no statement by the defence was asserting there were files not released by the prosecution.

The defence complained their experts didn't have the possibility to have all data they wished to have had, speaking about the data available in the files.
The defence did not assert the prosecution was preventing files from being released, that they had other files, that were concealing the existence of files or withholding them from the defense.
Click to expand...


Frank states otherwise. We have discussed this before and again, I wish we had the defense filing and the courts response.

And yes, both defenses tried to do something, they explained that without raw data, without knowing the setting of the machine we still don't know how we got to that result. And they filed a claim to the judge. A little claim, simply the annulment of Micheli's decree of trial. Which means to cancel the whole process and send everyone home, free. As a sub-claim they asked to invalidate the sole DNA results.
Click to expand...

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/too-low.html

ETA. Quote from Knox appello

1. Ordinanza dibattimentale del 14 settembre 2009 nelle parti relative a: (i) al mancato accoglimento dell’eccezione di nullità avanzata dalle difese Sollecito e Knox, per lesione del diritto di difesa; ed (ii) alla rigetto dell’eccezione circa inutilizzabilità dell’intera attività d’indagine per omesso deposito. L’ordinanza impugnata viola il principio del giusto processo (art. 111 Cost.) che prevede il contradditorio tra le parti in condizione di parità innanzi a un giudice terzo e imparziale”.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Actually the horizontal distance between Nara's window and the nearest cottage Window is 32 metres. The distance between Nara's window and the balcony window in front of Merediths door is 40.5 metres.

What you believe is your buisness, but wonder why you should believe someone else, someone who could be biased and interested and who you don't know who they are, and can't even recall it.

If you are sure Maori said 200 metres, then you may just just check on Google maps if such distance could be remotely near 200 metres, so you will be able to assess Maori's credibility.

On November 1. and 2. 2007 the winds in Perugia had an average might of 22-22.4 kmph (13.5 mph).
Click to expand...
Hi Machiavelli,
I spend a lot of time outdoors.
I also have a Davis Instruments Wind Scribe,
-(used to measure the strength of L.A.'s winds as I work on a research project),
sitting in my gear bag that is 4 feet away from me right now.
I know that a 13.5 MPH wind is definately a little breezy.
That's a fun time to grab 1 of my kayaks, throw the sail on it and head out there onto the Pacific Ocean...

I have noticed that if it is not windy,
sounds seem to travel better on a cloudy night vs a clear night.

The fact that it might have been that windy, (13.5 MPH) on the night that Nara Capezzali supposedly heard a scream and the footsteps afterwards makes it much harder for me to believe that she did indeed hear it.
That scream would have probably originated from inside of another house and thereby been muffled too, on a windy night...

Do you have any other personal weather information for Perugia on that night of Nov. 1+2, 2007?
Thanks, RWVBWL

PS-In my current avatar photo,
my Wind Scribe has a speed of 44.8 MPH when I took that picture,
with gusts of 50.0 MPH! I've even seen it reach 64 MPH, pretty gnarly!

If it really was blowing 13.5 MPH that night,
I seriously doubt it true what Nara Capezzali has told the court...
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Frank states otherwise. We have discussed this before and again, I wish we had the defense filing and the courts response.



http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/too-low.html

ETA. Quote from Knox appello
Click to expand...

But what you cite is what is in the Massei report, and a confirmation of what I am saying.
Frank is talking about the request claiming an equivalent of mistrial based on the delay in the release of evidence to the defence.
But - apart from court rulings about the legal implication - the point on which everybody agreed in the trial, is that all files that were requested with the defence complaint, then had been later released to the defence. Not only but the prosecution agreed to the release of all files they had. The were not ordered to do so by the court aginst their will: the prosecution expressed the position were favourable to release all files to the defence. This is what is found in the trial documents.

And, there were no futher claims expressed by the defence after this in order to files allegedly withheld buìy the prosecution. The controversy about the release of files had been already solved.
It is a deceptive claim to present facts as if the contention were still pending, as if there were a pending request or pending refusal. The issue had been solved, and is used in the appeal document only as a complaint in terms of procedure in order to propose again a kind of mistrial. But there is no actual request to obtain files, nor any claim that there are still files needed by the defence and are to be released.
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
Yes, press coverage in these very high profile cases is always controversial/problematic, isn't it? I don't think the current press coverage of the Kercher case (generally more favourable to Knox and Sollecito) can be considered without also taking into account the highly prejudicial early reporting - two sides of the same coin. The choice to headline John Kercher's article with a reference to 'Foxy Knoxy' (the editors clearly couldn't resist - well, it draws in the readership...), given the article's content, unfortunately only goes to prove the point he's making.

The initial press reporting on the Jill Dando case after Barry George was arrested was all about the 'obsessive Queen fan' angle, IIRC (sure sign of a killer!); I even remember thinking at the time, what if he's innocent? Not much chance of a fair trial after all the one-sided press coverage. I don't know much about the later coverage leading up to his appeal - was it very different to the earlier reporting?

(Btw, I've just seen that Bard on PMF thinks I was "sniping at John Kercher" in my earlier post. Perhaps someone could gently explain to her that it wasn't John Kercher who wrote the 'Foxy Knoxy' headline, but the DM editors...).
Click to expand...

The press coverage of Barry George became far more sympathetic on the run-up to the appeal (and of course in the immediate aftermath of the appeal). Many UK newspapers performed a classic reverse ferret and claimed that they'd always doubted the safety of George's conviction - even though, as you say, the articles that followed his conviction were vitriolic and vicious towards him. Another case of classic UK press flip-flopping was the Madeleine McCann case, where certain sections of the press went from utmost sympathy for the parents, through to some pretty unpleasant attacks when rumours started circulating that the police thought they (the parents) might have played some part in their daughter's disappearance.

I think if you asked most people whose lives had been touched by a newsworthy tragedy in the UK, they'd tell you just how nasty the British print media can get in pursuit of a "story". But maybe it's a price we have to pay in order to have a truly free and diverse press in this country.

Oh, and I long since gave up worrying about anything that "The Bard" claims to be emoting. Her main occupation these days seems to be to search for ways to loudly proclaim disgust at something someone else has said, written or done. Add in a healthy dose of misrepresentation (e.g., in my case, what I wrote - or, more accurately, didn't write - about John Kercher's book), and there's not much left to respect really...
 
Oh, by the way, there was another woman who allegedly heard the sound of a scream on the night of November 1st. Her name is Antonella Monacchia. In her testimony, she said that she awoke "some time after 10pm", to the sound of two people arguing loudly in Italian. then there was a "loud shout/cry". But no sound of people running away shortly afterwards. She says she went to her parents' apartment below hers, and asked them if they'd heard anything, but they said they hadn't.

And the best part of her story? She didn't come forward until a year after the event. A year during which the details of the murder had been all over the local and national media incessantly. And we're meant to believe that what she heard that night was so significant and unusual to her that she bothered to go down and ask her parents if they'd heard it too, yet it took her a year to realise it might be important in the context of the Kercher murder? Unreliable "witness", to say the very least......
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh, and I long since gave up worrying about anything that "The Bard" claims to be emoting. Her main occupation these days seems to be to search for ways to loudly proclaim disgust at something someone else has said, written or done. Add in a healthy dose of misrepresentation (e.g., in my case, what I wrote - or, more accurately, didn't write - about John Kercher's book), and there's not much left to respect really...
Click to expand...

'The Bard' - a riddle, wrapped up in an enigma, inside a mystery, as Winston Churchill said in reference to something else, but perhaps could have been referring to 'The Bard'.

Some internet posters might refer to her as a vicious little cretin who disgracefully tries to associate herself with the name of Shakespeare as though she has some kind of education.

I myself would strongly repudiate any such views and would urge any other posters on the internet to do likewise.
 
Alt+F4 said:
I agree with you that these movies are counter productive for both sides. Are they using Amanda's name, likeness and story without her permission? How is that possible?
Click to expand...

Between the books and the newspaper stories there is a ton of stuff in the public domain. Of course if they rely on one source then they better buy the rights.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh, by the way, there was another woman who allegedly heard the sound of a scream on the night of November 1st. Her name is Antonella Monacchia. In her testimony, she said that she awoke "some time after 10pm", to the sound of two people arguing loudly in Italian. then there was a "loud shout/cry". But no sound of people running away shortly afterwards. She says she went to her parents' apartment below hers, and asked them if they'd heard anything, but they said they hadn't.

And the best part of her story? She didn't come forward until a year after the event. A year during which the details of the murder had been all over the local and national media incessantly. And we're meant to believe that what she heard that night was so significant and unusual to her that she bothered to go down and ask her parents if they'd heard it too, yet it took her a year to realise it might be important in the context of the Kercher murder? Unreliable "witness", to say the very least......
Click to expand...

Antonella Monacchia is a very reliable witness. She admitted she didn't come out until she was searched out by private investigators, since she didn't feel like being a witness at all. Just as many witness do. It was the same in this town where it took years before starting to find wintesses for the Aldrovandi case. And it is perfectly believable Monacchia didn't think her testimony could be important in the context of the Kercher murder. What information she has to give? Try to see it from the point of view of a person who doesn't know the details about the case. She doesn't think that her testiony is needed, she thinks they could do without, so she tries to avoid getting involved as a witness.
What you call "loud shout/cry" is in fact called by MOnachia un urlo fortissimo (a very loud scream). Urlo unequivocally indicates a human scream.
She heared no sound of steps on the gravel path. But she also has her window facing the other side of the cottage.
 
TomCH said:
The fact that the school was closed, and some people took off from work to make it a long weekend (which is common when Thursday is a holiday), does not make it a holiday. For most people, it was a normal work day.
Click to expand...
Hi TomCH,
It's good to see someone else that like his answers correct.
As I do too:
12:00pm is not 12:47pm,
and drops of blood is definately not lot's of blood!

Now if only there were others who heard that scream that Nara did, if only Curatolo was actually wearing a watch+the buses were really cruisin' around town picking up partiers, if only Amanda Knox had purchased bleach at Quintavalle's store, if only Postal Police Officer Battistelli had cared enough to say in court that he actually went inside to see if Meredith was still alive, if only the police had tagged and bagged the bra clasp when they first video'd it, if only the investigators were not wearing dirty gloves when they were video'd collecting evidence, if only the cops had audio or video recorded the interrogation, if only the cops could have counted correctly the right number of 7, not 11, rings on Raffaele Sollecito's Nike Airforce 1 sneakers, if only an investigator had not lied to the court,
well maybe I would have never have changed my 1st opinion that the cops got the right people when they arrested Raffaele Sollecito 1st, Amanda Knox 2nd, and Patrick Lumumba 3rd.

But then they had to go screw it all up and exchange 1 black man for another.
At least they finally got it right by putting Rudy Guede,
who left lots+lots of real evidence, into prison and by doing so,
seemingly ended those darn 2nd story break-ins in Perugia...

Have a good day,
RWVBWL

PS-Does anyone know more about banker Paolo Fazi's testimony?
Thanks, RW
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom