Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[SomeAlibi]

LOL. You crack me up. How would the English court view a prosecutor coming up with a fantasy speech such as this:

"You are always acting like a little saint! Now we will make you have sex!"

I don't understand what you find amusing in my original post (which has nothing to do with other aspects of Mignini's speech, the quote from which I find unnecessary on his part)? In court, you may have heard of the rules relating to good character. Class A drug use is something that a lot of jurors think extremely badly of and whether you have experience of being in court or not (not I believe), it doesn't take a lot of difficulty to appreciate that the suggestion is something that would be objected to strenuously if not based in fact.

 

[Withnail1969]

I don't understand what you find amusing in my original post (which has nothing to do with other aspects of Mignini's speech, the quote from which I find unnecessary on his part)? In court, you may have heard of the rules relating to good character. Class A drug use is something that a lot of jurors think extremely badly of and whether you have experience of being in court or not (not I believe), it doesn't take a lot of difficulty to appreciate that the suggestion is something that would be objected to strenuously if not based in fact.

I think your court experience in the English system is irrelevant. If Mignini can get away with ludicrous verbal fantasies such as the one i mentioned, there is probably nothing the defence could do to challenge any passing allegations he made about cocaine or LSD in his closing statement.

The fact remains, the cocaine/LSD allegations are supposed to have come from Amanda, but they are not in her statement. Why not?

 

[Dan O.]

Wasn't it necessary first to climb and open the shutters before throwing the rock through the window-

or am I missing something??

If the shutters were in fact closed, it would be necessary to open at least 1 side before throwing the rock (unless you want to explore the possibility that Rudy picked up the shattered remains of the shutter and glued it back together before leaving).

It is only 1.1m from the corner of the house to the edge of the window. Another .35m for the width of one shutter. This is reachable from a point just below the porch in front of the planter using the planter or the edge of the house for support. The particular point happens to stand out as if the surface was abraded by stepping and pivoting on it.

I believe with the shutter wedged on the swollen wood, he would have had to reach the center of the window to get sufficient leverage to open the shutter. Trying to pull it open by one of the slats might break the slat first.


I haven't had a chance to review SomeAlibi's photos and videos yet. I hope they are a much higher resolution than what we've seen so far. I also hope he thought to take a tape to confirm the measurements.

 

[SomeAlibi]

I think your court experience in the English system is irrelevant. If Mignini can get away with ludicrous verbal fantasies such as the one i mentioned, there is probably nothing the defence could do to challenge any passing allegations he made about cocaine or LSD in his closing statement.

The fact remains, the cocaine/LSD allegations are supposed to have come from Amanda, but they are not in her statement. Why not?

She said it in interview not in the statement. Do you have Rose on your lengthy ignore list too?

I consider you're arguing in bad faith so this will be my last reply to your posts.

 

[Katody Matrass]

We don't know what happened that night.

I think I have already a fairly clear idea.

My own theory (NB theory) is that Amanda met Rudy at the baseketball court (see her accusation against Patrick transplanting this) or in Corso Garibaldi when she went to work that night (corroborated by the different cellphone tower at Via Aquila) and she asked him if he had any stuff for her to have a little party with Raffaele.

I think the cell phone tower evidence is meaningless here. The next morning Amanda makes 4 phone calls from Raffaele's flat connecting via the same cell that is used to prove she left Raffaele the day before. Yes, it's a blunder that defense overlooked it. IMO she never left Raffaele's flat that night.

They went hooked up with him later at a pre-arranged time and went back to the cottage to jointly indulge in this.

What time would it be in your theory?

Knox also perjured herself concerning drugs (at least under our legal systems - you're allowed to lie in the dock in Italy) when asked in testimony how many joints she had that night. She replied "one". See youtube video of her testimony. Yet, if that were the case, how can that possibly be reconciled against her diary (also evidence) where she writes: "I will never smoke marijuana again. When they free me I will go back to the United States, but I will come back to Italy to study. I’m not afraid of this country, it's part of me now. This is place I call home. And before all this happened I was so happy" . Elsewhere in her diary she wrote "That night I smoked a lot of marijuana and I fell asleep at my boyfriend's house. I don't remember anything."

So? Where did she wrote or say "I smoked more then one joint?"
For some people (like me) smoking one joint is already much and more then enough.

I find it very striking that both Knox and Sollecito both swear in absolute terms that they will never smoke marijuana again. I believe this is because of their regret about what happened that night.

I believe this is because what happened at the Questura. Both of them couldn't recollect exact order and timing of events of the Nov 1. They were tricked into doubting their memory and consciousness and ended up in jail.

 

[Withnail1969]

She said it in interview not in the statement. Do you have Rose on your lengthy ignore list too?

I consider you're arguing in bad faith so this will be my last reply to your posts.

If that's the way you feel. I only asked you for a citation, there's no need to overreact. It's not me who thinks Raffaele's past alleged cocaine use is of any relevance.

Artists > Specials, The > A Message To You, Rudy

Stop your messing around
Better think of your future
Time you straightened right out
Creating problems in town

Rudy, a message to you
Rudy, a message to you

Stop your fooling around
Time you straightened right out
Better think of your future
Else you'll wind up in jail

Rudy, a message to you
Rudy, a message to you

Stop your messing around
Better think of your future
Time you straightened right out
Creating problems in town

Rudy, a message to you
Rudy, a message to you
Rudy, a message to you

For some reason that song just popped into my brain.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Alleging Class A (in the UK) drug use on the part of defendants is a very serious issue that couldn't possibly remain uncorrected by counsel for the defence in a trial if it was not based on evidence contained in the core trial bundle. The fact that there was no objection or correction is pretty much conclusive. You'll note Rose also says it's admitted.

I guess defense would appeal it if it ended up in the motivation which it didn't.

We agree Amanda wasn't the source?

 

[Katody Matrass]

My take on this is that Rudy made a 1st climb to open the shutters, similar to the lawyer photo.

I think there was no need for this, because the shutters were open, as Filomena initially testified.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The throw from the drive is very easy for anyone - it's basically level and 2 metres as you say. No basetball skills required.

Agreed.

I don't think it can be right foot up because the glass on the windowsill is completely undisturbed.

Left foot is even better, true. He could do this also easily without placing any foot there at all.

People pulling up like that, if it were possible, would pull themselves up onto their knees, imho.

You're wrong on this. I posted a video^*) once how it is done. I'll try to look it up for you.

I still don't understand where he is supposed to have put his right hand during this climb based on the glass distribution.

He grabbed the wooden frame.

Given the height of the climb, you're also suggesting someone with near-mountaineer strength in his fingers because this would be an unassisted pull-up using finger strength only.

why unassisted? Is Rudy a midget? Have you tried to estimate the distance from the grating to the sill?

If he gets it wrong, he's going to be injured or seriously injured in the fall versus the balcony.

Fall from the balcony (if e.g. the gutter would let go under his weight) would be similar.


ETA

*) Here you go, you can watch the first 15 sec only

 

[colonelhall]

Chris C: "What do cartwheels have to do with being guilty. "

Are you deliberately missing the point?

You never answered. so I ask again "Are you deliberately missing the point?"

 

[Fulcanelli]

I believe the only reason the 5:45 a.m. statement was allowed during Amanda's testimony is because of the slander trial of Patrick which was occurring at the same time. Massei does not mention the 1:45 a.m. or the 5:45 a.m. statement in the motivations.

Here is Article 63 cpp (in both Italian and Google Translate):





http://www.leggeonline.info/procedurapenale/titoloIV_1.php

http://translate.google.com/transla...ggeonline.info/procedurapenale/titoloIV_1.php

The 5:45 a.m. statement is a bit different from the 1:45 a.m. statement in that there is more detail and Amanda doesn't exclude Raffaele from being at the cottage. She was either questioned for more detail, it was added by the police from statements given during her first interrogation, or she gave the details herself (there may be more possibilities than these three).

From reading the Codice Procedura Penale (Title IV - The accused) I am not sure that even if there was a video of the interrogation that it could be included by the prosecution against Amanda since the 1:45 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. statements cannot be used against her. It is difficult for me to understand the legalese presented in the two links above and it has nothing to do with Italian and everything to do with the language of law.

It's a little more complicated then that. The primary reason the statements were admitted was because the charge of calunnia became a charge of "calunnia 'in continuation " The 'in continuation' element changes it from being a separate charge of it's own, but rather makes it as a part of the murder charge itself (a crime committed as part of the murder, in continuation of it) and changes the legal status of the evidence itself (the high court ruling was made on the basis that this charge did not exist at that point). In effect, the nature of the charge changes the ruling of the High Court.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rudi's lies

Which would be potentially great for them (although the police would look into the idea that he was being paid off). Whatever our views on the case, we should all be hoping and wishing Rudy talks - it can only be good for a just finding for or on AK and RS.

SomeAlibi,

Thank you for the kind words. I agree that Rudi's telling the truth would be a good thing, but I fear that one will just hear more lies. Assuming that were the lone assailant, he only damages what little remains of his good name by saying so. Rudi has not shown himself to be averse to lying in the past; for example, there are the words of his foster father to that effect. Payoffs--where have I heard about them before? Let me think on it for a bit and get back to you

 

[platonov]

What

First of all, the tests that were conducted cannot be used to conclusively state that the DNA was found on the clasp because they cannot rule out the possibility of contamination of the sample in the lab.

The results of the DNA extraction and analysis did show a major contribution was Meredith's and minor contributions from Raffaele and two unidentified females.


When dealing with DNA in the LCN range, the samples are invisible to the naked eye so they cannot be visually tracked to assert they were present on the object being tested. This obstacle is overcome in LCN testing by repeating the sampling and processing the samples in separate facilities to eliminate a common mode source for contamination. Any correlated results between the two tests would then be attributed to the object tested. By keeping track of the contamination rates in the labs, the confidence that the result came from the object can even be expressed mathematically.


The lab in Rome had never done LCN testing so there were no logs that showed the rates of contamination within the LAB at the LCN levels. The material suposedly containing the DNA was never seen on the clasp. The testing was not repeated. I therefore reject the claim that the DNA was on the clasp.

Did you just claim that 'DNA in the LCN range' as opposed to other DNA typing/profiling had something to do with visibility to the naked eye

I don't think that is the defining characteristic of 'LCN' - which has more than 1 'definition' in any case.
Its more to do with the number of amplification cycles required, original sample size < 100 or < 200 picograms etc, or definitions based on interpretation techniques etc - and that is a very gross oversimplification on my part. Nor do I claim any expertise on the matter (halides1 claims he has, he could probably explain it to you)

Do you have a cite for this 'claim' or have you 'misinterpreted' a complex technique to somehow make the Bra clasp DNA 'disappear' as it were.

This stuff is a lot more complex than long sticks or telling the time

But obvious 'errors' are just as obvious.

.

 

[SomeAlibi]

I think I have already a fairly clear idea.




I think the cell phone tower evidence is meaningless here. The next morning Amanda makes 4 phone calls from Raffaele's flat connecting via the same cell that is used to prove she left Raffaele the day before. Yes, it's a blunder that defense overlooked it. IMO she never left Raffaele's flat that night.



What time would it be in your theory?




So? Where did she wrote or say "I smoked more then one joint?"
For some people (like me) smoking one joint is already much and more then enough.


I believe this is because what happened at the Questura. Both of them couldn't recollect exact order and timing of events of the Nov 1. They were tricked into doubting their memory and consciousness and ended up in jail.

On the time, I'm agnostic, sometime after 9 I believe. They'd been smoking since the late afternoon (cite: Raffaele's diary) and they were pretty bombed already I believe.

Where did she write that they smoked more than one joint? It's actually at the end of the quote in my original post - that night they smoked a lot. Your point about your dope tolerance (same as mine as it happens from many many years ago) is not relevant to Amanda. She was a regular dope smoker from her diary (see several references to having a "smoke up", her delight that her new flatmates "smoke like chimneys" (I think it's safe to say she didn't mean Gauloises) and Rudy's diary relating the night in the boy's apartment upstairs where he says she had a joint on her lips pretty much all night long).

Your spot on the cell-towers in Massei is a very good spot. I hadn't heard of this before. If I were you or the defence, I wouldn't be relaxed about this, I would be all over it. I'd say on the face of it that is a pretty big mistake in the report. I will write to the judge and seek clarification on this. Good spot.

 

[Withnail1969]

It's a little more complicated then that. The primary reason the statements were admitted was because the charge of calunnia became a charge of "calunnia 'in continuation " The 'in continuation' element changes it from being a separate charge of it's own, but rather makes it as a part of the murder charge itself (a crime committed as part of the murder, in continuation of it) and changes the legal status of the evidence itself (the high court ruling was made on the basis that this charge did not exist at that point). In effect, the nature of the charge changes the ruling of the High Court.

Here's a question. What if Amanda calls as witnesses those police officers who have refused to join the 'Calunnia' action? What will they have to say as Christians swearing on the Bible?

 

[SomeAlibi]

SomeAlibi,

Thank you for the kind words. I agree that Rudi's telling the truth would be a good thing, but I fear that one will just hear more lies. Assuming that were the lone assailant, he only damages what little remains of his good name by saying so. Rudi has not shown himself to be averse to lying in the past; for example, there are the words of his foster father to that effect. Payoffs--where have I heard about them before? Let me think on it for a bit and get back to you

Presumably you're thinking of Raffaele's father's bugged conversation that money "makes water flow uphill"?

 

[Withnail1969]

Presumably you're thinking of Raffaele's father's bugged conversation that money "makes water flow uphill"?

With such incredible power, one might have imagined that the much-feared Sollecito Familia would have already made Rudy an offer he couldn't refuse, thus avoiding the current unpleasantness.

But apparently I'm intellectually challenged, so this presumably could not have happened for some reason.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

low template number

platonov,

It would probably be better to refer to what Stefanoni did as low template number, not low copy number, DNA analysis.

 

[Fulcanelli]

However, it sounds as if the reason the Supreme Court had to rule on this is that they were used against her:



I would think that if both statements had only been used as they were supposed to be used (the first against other people but not against Amanda; the second not against anyone) there would have been no need for Amanda to take the issue to the Supreme Court in the first place. Perhaps the police/prosecutor were banking on being able to use the statements in the short-term, even if they were aware they'd most likely be ruled inadmissible in the end. By that time they'd already been released to the press, of course.

This perspective is incorrect and possibly misleading. The author seems to under the impression (or at least via wording gives the reader the impression) that Amanda 'took the issue to the supreme court', as in Amanda's legal team caused the High Court to convene. This is not the case. The High Court hearings to review the case against all three of the suspects was 'automatic', a pre-ordained part of the process (just as the appeals are). All serious cases go through the same process...GIP...GUP...High Court and then pre-trial...trial...first appeal...second final appeal at the High Court. The defence are 'required to appear before all of these courts and provide arguments of defence for their client.

The statements Amanda made COULD be used as part of the police/prosecution 'investigation' against her and others, but NOT as evidence against Amanda (and in the case of 5:45 statement, not against anyone else either) in any of the courts. In other words, the legal value of the statements was deemed to be solely investigative rather then legal. The High Court deemed this as a legal error by the earlier court of the GIP as this court (under Judge Matteini) used the statements against Amanda as part of her ruling against her. However, the High Court also deemed that even though those statements could not be considered by a court as evidence against her, there was enough evidence against her to retain her suspect and arrest status, ongoing remand and should the prosecution at the end of their investigation file their case against her, proceed to pre-trial which would judge whether she should formally be charged (face trial).

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'd assumed we were talking about legal procedures that had already happened (order for precautionary custody, order for trial, etc) since it's talked about in the past tense ("They used the statements I made at 1.45 am"). I admit I'm not 100% sure on that. However, if it was clearly understood that neither statement could be used against Amanda at all, and if there'd been no attempt by the prosecution to use them, then why was the issue taken to the Supreme Court? That seems odd to me.

ETA: In answer to your question, no, they can't use them as part of the investigation if they're used against the suspect, or in the case of the 5:45 statement, against anyone. That's how I understand it anyway.



I think the prosecutor and police are very well aware of the importance of well-timed leaks to the press; from what Machiavelli has said, it almost seems an accepted part of the legal process (for the defence too, no doubt, but the prosecution get a big head-start, both because they're obviously in on the case from the beginning, and also because in the early stages the press are interested in finding the guilty parties, not in a possible wrongful conviction).

Regarding the statements this is incorrect as well your confusing the legal element (the courts) and the investigative element (the police/prosecution criminal investigation) as being one element when they are actually two. The rulings of the High Court (and the Italian legal codes) only apply to the use of the statements against the suspect in a court to be considered as evidence by a court judge. They can however, quite legally be used in the investigation ...to say, lead to more evidence, clues or suspects, or the elimination of the same. There is a difference between being used to investigate and actually being used as evidence. The High Court's ruling concerned the use of the statements as evidence.