Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

Has Nara's window been identified yet?

Machiavelli seemed so certain about the direction that the scream was herd that I figured he would be pointing out this window for us so we could put that part of the issue to rest.

 

[Mary_H]

Sorry, What's True ?
That I explained first time around & that you forgot or misunderstood OR are you just ignoring the thrust of the post thereby illustrating the point about groundhog day.

.

In response to this and all the other posts you've made tonight (or whatever time it is in your world), I like what Kevin said:

"So what's left? Only the Chewbacca Defence - spread as much confusion as possible and act like you presented a compelling argument."

 

[platonov]

Ironically

Originally Posted by platonov
Sorry, What's True ?
That I explained first time around & that you forgot or misunderstood OR are you just ignoring the thrust of the post thereby illustrating the point about groundhog day.

In response to this and all the other posts you've made tonight (or whatever time it is in your world), I like what Kevin said:

"So what's left? Only the Chewbacca Defence - spread as much confusion as possible and act like you presented a compelling argument."

It was the only post directed at or in response to you, and took the form of a Question - But if you have no answer, well that's an answer in itself.

.

 

[TomM43]

It 'kinda' does - as regards emphasis certainly & the defence wasn't stuck for experts in the trial.
But they are constrained [by reality, professional reputation, opposing experts etc] to a degree obviously - unlike online experts.

.

Well, they are, but the reality is that experts know that they know more about their subject matter than the attorney who cross examines, the judge and the jury. I can tell you from personal experience that it is difficult to get people at the cutting edge to have any interest in legal cases. Some people who act as expert witnesses are truly experts; some of them are intellectually honest, and some are not. Some are hacks. The ones who are not honest think they won't be caught if they lie because, even if they are a hack, they know more than any lawyer, any judge, and certainly more than any juror.

I once encountered a geologist to testified in a drainage case to a theory of defense that, to be true, would require that water run up hill--a fact which he reluctantly had to admit under cross-examination. I have seen another expert--a medical doctor--thoroughly impeached when confronted with diametrically opposed testimony he had given in previous cases. Actually it was worse than that; he had testified one way in a number of cases, and in the opposite way in others. Someone had the wit to do the research to find cases where the M.D. testified, and got certified copies of the testimony. The doctor's testimony was always in favor of the side that hired him. It was ugly at the trial.

 

[platonov]

'What kind of figure did you have in mind.'

Well, they are, but the reality is that experts know that they know more about their subject matter than the attorney who cross examines, the judge and the jury. I can tell you from personal experience that it is difficult to get people at the cutting edge to have any interest in legal cases. Some people who act as expert witnesses are truly experts; some of them are intellectually honest, and some are not. Some are hacks. The ones who are not honest think they won't be caught if they lie because, even if they are a hack, they know more than any lawyer, any judge, and certainly more than any juror.

I once encountered a geologist to testified in a drainage case to a theory of defense that, to be true, would require that water run up hill--a fact which he reluctantly had to admit under cross-examination. I have seen another expert--a medical doctor--thoroughly impeached when confronted with diametrically opposed testimony he had given in previous cases. Actually it was worse than that; he had testified one way in a number of cases, and in the opposite way in others. Someone had the wit to do the research to find cases where the M.D. testified, and got certified copies of the testimony. The doctor's testimony was always in favor of the side that hired him. It was ugly at the trial.

I don't think we are in opposition here - if you have court/professional experience you have an obvious edge on me.
Hey, nothing I couldn't overcome with access to google for 10 mins and a pompous attitude - its that easy, right

But in a high profile case the experts are somewhat constrained by the quality of the opposition and not wanting to be made fools of/pushing it too far.
Hence my emphasis on the word 'emphasis'.
I suspect [I could be wrong] Introna & co pushed it as far as they had [or needed] to in the trial.

Unlike London John (see post) I presume their evidence was discussed in advance with the defence lawyers (those idiots) and tailored to suit the needs of the case.

ETA As it happens, according to RS' father, water can be made to run uphill - with enough money.
Probably true all over the world.

.

 

[treehorn]

Funny. I remember a lengthy debate in which it was made clear that the pro-guilt side's feeble attempts to "deal with" the stomach contents evidence consisted of:

1. One sentence taken out of context from someone's on-line lecture notes, which ignored the rest of those notes which supported our position.
2. One sentence taken out of context from the abstract of a paper the pro-guilt side had not read, the body of which supported our position.
3. Incredulity that "experts" could get this wrong and we could get it right, which seemed to be impervious to the pesky fact that the scientific literature was on our side and that the job of an "expert" is to correctly state the results of peer-reviewed studies, as opposed to it being the job of peer-reviewed studies to conform with the statements of "experts".

After having been comprehensively spanked on this issue, and slunk away into the corner from some time, your new tack seems to be to just rewrite history and pretend that the entire thing happened completely differently...

I, for one, have not decided to "slunk away" - I have a job and a family.

I post when I can.

Alas, every time I do find time for JREF, I see that you've continued to elide your little 'slip up'. Indeed, you've been ducking me since early October.

Recall: You neglected to cite a peer-reviewed journal or authoritative text in support of your claims in respect of the ease of displacement of alimentary matter within the human intestine during autopsy.

(I won't even mention the details of your wild suppositions about the content of the sealed autopsy video, and the inner thoughts/ nefarious plots of the medical experts and jurists in respect of it! I honestly felt embarrassed for you when you suddenly dispatched with your insistence upon "evidence-based argument.")

You've steadfastly refused to confirm or deny whether you have a M.D. (or any other training that would involve experience with/ knowledge of the human intestine in this regard) on the ground that you fear "stalkers" on the internet.

Fine.

Here's a question that will help us to assess whether your claims are worth a damn while, at one and the same time, denying the "stalkers" anything of value vis-a-vis your identity:

Have you ever laid your hands on human intestines, in situ, in ANY context?

If not, of what value are your SUPPOSITIONS about the displacement of alimentary matter absent any supporting citations to the scientific literature?

 

[Chris C]

How would this apply if she was released and went back to the US?

They could take her to court in the US to get any earnings owed. However, Knox would be able to counter sue.

 

[Chris C]

Funny. I remember a lengthy debate in which it was made clear that the pro-guilt side's feeble attempts to "deal with" the stomach contents evidence consisted of:

Not only that Kevin, but everyone knows how the Prosecution tried to deal with the stomach contents debate. They put a guy on the stand that didn't even watch the autopsy footage to say something along the lines that the intestines where not tied properly.

Thats right, the Prosecution never attacked the 2 to 3 hour time of death directly. The Prosecutions argument was that Autopsy was done wrong. Dr. Lalli was a prosecution witness that gave the 2 to 3 hour window. So the real debate should be did the Doctor actually perform the autopsy wrong. Because if he didn't then we know about what time Meredith died, between 8:00pm to 9:30pm.

I mean the defense, prosecution, and coroner all agree if the autopsy was done correctly then Meredith died between 8:00pm and 9:30pm.

 

[shuttlt]

Platonov's attempt at a gotcha is to pretend that we are simultaneously arguing that Amanda and Raffaele were in front of Curatolo and also at home (which we are not), and then jump from this to the conclusion that since there are two excellent reasons to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were not at the murder scene, and one plus one equals zero, that adds up to no alibi at all.

Can they both be excellent reasons if we know that at least one of them is false?

2. If Curatolo is not a sound witness, then there is absolutely no evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were not at home at the time of the murder, so their alibi is sound.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but for the alibi to be sound, don't they need evidence to support it rather than an absence of evidence proving that it is false? Without getting into an argument about their validity, surely the the bra clasp and the knife are evidence that their alibi is false? If those bits of evidence hold, and again I'm not seeking to start an argument that they do, then it doesn't really matter if they were seen out and about when they claimed to be at home or not.

 

[shuttlt]

Kevin,

I've knocked up a little table (corrections welcome) to try to capture the argument about the late time of death, Curatolo and the alibi:

Late TOD___Curatolo reliable
Y__________Y_____________Problem for pro-innocence
Y__________N_____________Problem for pro-innocence
N__________Y_____________Problem for pro-guilt
N__________N_____________Problem for pro-guilt

Am I missing something, or is Curatolo of secondary importance to the time of death?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

On Daniel and other matters

treehorn,

A number of posts have been addressed to you in your absence. Perhaps your family could spare your the few minutes that it would take to read and to respond to them. Again, use the advanced search option with my username and type your username in as the search term. I eagerly await your response.

BTW, the elasticity of the small intestine has already been documented at least twice upthread.

 

[Machiavelli]

I suppose there are a number of terms which could be used to describe the testimony of a witness who heard an "urlo fortissimo" in the night, learned the following afternoon of a murder which had occurred across the street, and then neglected to tell the police for months afterward - but "very reliable" would not be at the top of the list.

Interesting that she seems not to have heard the "running on the steel staircase", which was directly below her apartment, heard so clearly by Capezalli at a greater distance. Perhaps a little further reading about the case during her period of self-imposed silence might have avoided this inconsistency.

I think you don't want to believe her as a witness only because you don't want. Your standard to make a witness belieavble apears arbitrary.

The steel staircase is an interesting detail that makes a difference between Nara and Antonella Monacchia's testimonies. But exactly as you observe, I think had her testimony been invented, she would have invented it. I also think, before analysing differences, Nara's witness report has to be read entirely. And it has it has to be considered, things can differ also in what people noticed, and you would notice what you feel relevant. Then, one macroscopic logical problem in dismissing a testimony on this ground, is that you would be dismissing one testimony on the ground of another testimony. This can be done only when you already decided that one of them is especially credible. But you cannot dismiss one testimony A on the basis of a testimony B, and then claim the testimony B is not credible.

 

[Machiavelli]

Funny. I remember a lengthy debate in which it was made clear that the pro-guilt side's feeble attempts to "deal with" the stomach contents evidence consisted of:

1. One sentence taken out of context from someone's on-line lecture notes, which ignored the rest of those notes which supported our position.
2. One sentence taken out of context from the abstract of a paper the pro-guilt side had not read, the body of which supported our position.
3. Incredulity that "experts" could get this wrong and we could get it right, which seemed to be impervious to the pesky fact that the scientific literature was on our side and that the job of an "expert" is to correctly state the results of peer-reviewed studies, as opposed to it being the job of peer-reviewed studies to conform with the statements of "experts".

(...)

You skip the detail, that some people dismiss the whole argument of yours on the basis that all points on which it stands are actually non existent as certain facts, objectionable, and unsupported.
Your 1. 2. 3. points is a false attribution.

 

[Machiavelli]

How would this apply if she was released and went back to the US?

The ruling applies to her if she is found guilty, obviously.

 

[TomCH]

The ruling applies to her if she is found guilty, obviously.

Well, OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case, but guilty in the civil case, so maybe the civil liability would still hold!

 

[Alt+F4]

Recall: You neglected to cite a peer-reviewed journal or authoritative text in support of your claims in respect of the ease of displacement of alimentary matter within the human intestine during autopsy.

You've steadfastly refused to confirm or deny whether you have a M.D. (or any other training that would involve experience with/ knowledge of the human intestine in this regard) on the ground that you fear "stalkers" on the internet.

Yet he continues to insist, with boorish indignation, that he is correct and the forensic pathologists who have access to the actual evidence are wrong.

 

[Chris C]

Well, OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case, but guilty in the civil case, so maybe the civil liability would still hold!

Yes but you are talking about civil verses criminal. A civil suit won in Europe is touch and go when you try to get money from someone in the United States. I'm not saying its impossible, but you would have to go through US courts to do it and most likely end up having to do the Civil Suit all over again. You would also run into the problem of a counter suit by the person in the US. If the court was to find the person not guilty in the Civil suit in US court, things could get really interesting.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

I don't believe you are interpreting Frank's post correctly. This was after the defense motion and court order to give the rest of the data to the defense and the following summer break. The defense had time to review those documents and came back with the complaint that they were still missing files:

Quote:
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.

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

The timing of this is certain from what I gather from Frank's post. This was after the additional documents were delivered 30 July and reviewed over the summer break and the filing the defense filed was on 14 September. He also states it this way:

But the time for vacations is over and Massei doesn't make gifts anymore, he doesn't feel like hearing subtleties. And came back with his ruthless verdict: the trial continues, the DNA results are fine like this. Whether we like it or not we have to trust Stefanoni. And that's it.

This is very clear. The pointed out a figure Setanoni had that they did not. The judge ordered the prosecution to deliver the rest of it over the break. The big pile was delivered over the summer. The defense reviewed this information and came back into court and said we still didn't get all the files. Sure it was also late but it is very clear they did not get all of the files based on Frank's post. Frank may be mistaken about this but his report is based on the arguments he heard in court. You are certainly correct in that the defense claimed the big delays on discovery put them in a bad spot. Did you get a chance to look at this quote from Amanda's appeal? The machine translation seems to be not very clear to me. If you get a chance could you give me a quick translation?

Quote:
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”.

 

[RoseMontague]

The Kercher family demands an expression of sympathy, yet they haven´t given one either.
It´s OK to reply to me...

I apologize for the lack of a reply yesterday, Justian2. I was out much of the day.

The way I see this article is that Mr. Kercher is whining about a lack of sympathy from the Knox family and then goes on to say that the Knox girl is guilty, guilty, guilty. This is also after the Kercher's through their lawyer took an adversarial position in court against the Knox girl and fought along with the prosecution to keep the Knox girl in jail.

My opinion on this is that the Knox family has shown remarkable restraint on this subject. If it were my daughter I would be telling Mr. Kercher exactly where he could stick his sympathy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

burden of proof

Yet he continues to insist, with boorish indignation, that he is correct and the forensic pathologists who have access to the actual evidence are wrong.

Alt+F4,

Your use of the word "boorish" is a personal attack, in my estimation. I suggest you withdraw it and use your time to explain what evidence there is to suggest that Dr. Lalli failed to do his job with respect to the small intestine correctly (or something else to bolster the Massei version if you wish). The burden of proof should be on the prosecution to show that material was displaced the entire length of the small intestine if that is their argument. While you are at it, maybe you can explain how Meredith's cell phone records are consistent with the prosecution's TOD.