Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

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.

Toto noticed them for the first time at 21:27 IIRC. They were without Rudy and behaved themselves. So let's say they met Rudy some time after. Let's make it 21:30. They all went to the cottage where Meredith still in her street clothes were hesitating for half an hour already whether to try calling her mother again or not.

But Toto says he saw them every time he raised his eyes from the newspaper. Were they running to and fro?

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).

Well, Mignini missed his chance to attack her from this side. He never asked if she smoked "a lot" that night, and her diary is not in the evidence IIRC. The appeal just began, we may still find out new things, though. I don't think it matters much or makes a good "attack vector" for the prosecution. e.g. She doesn't have to remember another joints she smoked .

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.

I believe the defense contested the idea that Amanda left Raffaele from the beginning. They got their own expertise on it. I may be wrong but I think it's in the appeals.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I agree. I think she was asked to make further statements and probably given the appropriate spiel about the legal status of these declarations (i.e. that these declarations were voluntary in the sense that she could refuse to make them, but that by agreeing she was waiving certain defensive rights) but in such a way that refusing would have been difficult. As you say, for people who aren't aware of their rights (as Amanda clearly wasn't) it takes a great deal to refuse to talk to the police. Especially if you've just asked for a lawyer and been told that this would make things 'worse' for you.

No. Had this been so, the defence would had grounds to have appealed it to the High Court. The defence did not. They never challenged it on the grounds that it was made as an unsolicited statement. The grounds of their challenge of the 5:45 statement was simply that because a lawyer was not present it therefore could not be used as evidence against Amanda in court. On this, the High Court ruled for the defence. No court has ever ruled that the statement wasn't unsolicited and never have the defence claimed so (or made any appeal on that basis).

 

[Fulcanelli]

I recall Frank had a very similar scenario as that reported by Dempsey.

Did not LJ provide a link showing that a prosecutor could appeal in a fast track trial?

They can only request a retrial. They can't appeal the actual evidence, verdict or sentence.

 

[platonov]

I didn't refer to it as either

platonov,

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

halides1

Perhaps, but I didn't refer to it as either.

In fact I deliberately added the ' ' to Dan O's LCN to get 'LCN' (see above).
Without going over old ground again - If I remember rightly, you yourself repeatedly referred to the RS sample as LCN when trying to cast doubt on the value of the result ??

In any case shouldn't you as the 'expert' be correcting these glaring errors (visibility to the naked eye) as opposed to leaving it to a layman like myself

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

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

Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that
when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007
she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95);
"the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26),
adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went
away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a
couple of days" (p. 96).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Indeed so far we considered Rudy's actions assuming he was indeed a skilled and seasoned burglar, perfectly rational and professional in picking his targets.

But looking on the entirety of his career it cannot be missed that it consists of a series of blunders:
He got caught multiple times. He didn't manage to sell the stolen items, he got caught with them. Where he managed to make it - like with the lawyer's office - it was more of bravado then skill. Breaking the window with rock in a courtyard where everyone could see or hear it?
He's methods were rough and he was a very unlucky burglar.
And his last burglary ended up very unfortunately for him, his victim and many other people.

Where's your evidence Rudy broke into the lawyers office? And does it meet the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Let us know where you've set that bar by the way. We hear from you that in regard to Amanda and Raffaele, the lies, the false alibi, the DNA, the footprints, the witness testimony, the fake break-in, their connection to the victim, their behaviour just after the murder, the computer records, the phone records...all of this combined (individual pieces of evidence being disputed or not) does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt against them. Yet in the case of Rudy, a couple of stolen items in his back-pack does, to the point you are running about stating as an absolute fact that he did rob the lawyer's office? What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lcn dna

halides1

Perhaps, but I didn't refer to it as either.

In fact I deliberately added the ' ' to Dan O's LCN to get 'LCN' (see above).
Without going over old ground again - If I remember rightly, you yourself repeatedly referred to the RS sample as LCN when trying to cast doubt on the value of the result ??

In any case shouldn't you as the 'expert' be correcting these glaring errors (visibility to the naked eye) as opposed to leaving it to a layman like myself

platonov,

L low
C copy
N number

The quotes are not my issue. It might be better to refer to LCN as a subset of low template DNA analysis. The other profiles besides Meredith's on the clasp are nearing, possibly below the level to be considered low template.

 

[Withnail1969]

Yet in the case of Rudy, a couple of stolen items in his back-pack does, to the point you are running about stating as an absolute fact that he did rob the lawyer's office? What's wrong with this picture?

Why would someone who actually did rob the lawyer's office give their pitifully low-value booty to Rudy to fence for them? Stolen laptops are hardly worth anything given that they are normally password-protected and identifiable when they go online.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Filomena's shutters

As RoseMontague quoted before
From the appeal:

Romanelli hearing on February 7, 2009, has confirmed the statements made to investigators on December 3, 2007 (p. 115 transcripts) that would leave open one of the two shutters.​

From Micheli:

As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows, but probably leaving the shutters open​

Filomena changed her version about the shutters a few times. It's clear she was not sure she closed them. I think it's very probable she left them open and then didn't want to admit it and gone "I can't remember".

 

[moodstream]

I am operating on the assumption that he was amped up on adrenaline, that many of his actions don't make sense, and also that he was in a state of denial and possibly wishful thinking. Presuming he's never killed anybody before, hearing Meredith gasping for breath or gurgling would be enough reason to convince himself she's alive and may survive. It may have been dark in her room, too.

I agree that your take on the phones is very likely.

I tend to agree with you on this one. Taking the phones is something he may have done in prior robberies, or heard about from other crooks. It's the kind of thing he might do in a panic, even if from a rational point of view it makes no sense.

Besides, I just finished the forensic discussion ( non-DNA) part of Massei and its clear that the murder of Meridith was a lot of work and time, and that Guede did not know how to do it. First he strangled her, and tried to hold her mouth closed, and then he stabbed her first on one side of the neck, and then on the next.

He may have taken the phones for good measure.


On the other hand, I am not quite with you on his then taking the time to find a rock and throw it through the window. My guess is his thoughts would be completely on departure at that point.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Are you suggesting that the trees become invisible in the wintertime?

Desperate. Very desperate. You're clinging to a sinking log. Even sans foliage they are still going to obstruct visibilty. Even more so at night. The simple fact is that the balcony is not as visible as the window, and that someone on a balcony would not be particularly out of place anyway, especially when viewed from a distance. Attempts to argue otherwise are rationalizations. They are not, however, rational.

Exactly! This is what a balcony is FOR, why they are built...for people to walk on, stand on, sit on. There is nothing suspicious about seeing someone on a balcony, one expects they may see someone on a balcony.

What one does NOT expect to see and IS suspicious is someone halfway up the wall of a house or hanging from a window ledge.

I think it's risible that some are arguing there is no difference. In fact, I don't think they even really believe their own arguments. For them, it's better to argue something completely stupid to the death,then horror of horrors, concede a point or accept something they consider inconvenient. That is debate in bad faith.

 

[moodstream]

When I look at this photo I wonder why the PMF gallery cropped it to make it appear that a larger portion of the ledge was covered in glass than was the actual case.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=131862433504903&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=176745915683221&set=a.124466634244483.15396.106344459390034&pid=489162&id=106344459390034

right on Draca

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

I think I have already a fairly clear idea.

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.

Do you assume they continously smoked Marihuana all the time since Nov.1st until they have been arrested?

Because, if not, they must have been 'sober' at some point on Nov. 2nd.

 

[moodstream]

Bingo, we have a winner!

First ring downstairs. If someone downstairs is home, no big deal, do some partying.

Then, ring upstairs. If someone is there, just say that you're looking for the guys downstairs, and wonder if they know when they'll be back.

But, to throw a rock through the window (and an 8lb rock at that)?

It does seem rude. Maybe he wanted to break in?

 

[SomeAlibi]

Toto noticed them for the first time at 21:27 IIRC. They were without Rudy and behaved themselves. So let's say they met Rudy some time after. Let's make it 21:30. They all went to the cottage where Meredith still in her street clothes were hesitating for half an hour already whether to try calling her mother again or not.

But Toto says he saw them every time he raised his eyes from the newspaper. Were they running to and fro?


Well, Mignini missed his chance to attack her from this side. He never asked if she smoked "a lot" that night, and her diary is not in the evidence IIRC. The appeal just began, we may still find out new things, though. I don't think it matters much or makes a good "attack vector" for the prosecution. e.g. She doesn't have to remember another joints she smoked .


I believe the defense contested the idea that Amanda left Raffaele from the beginning. They got their own expertise on it. I may be wrong but I think it's in the appeals.

His name is Mr Curatolo which you can do him the dignity of using rather than Toto. Homeless people are first and foremost people and they have enough on their plate without you belittling them. As it happens, he's actually a rather nice bloke who just comes across as someone who is entirely calm and centred. He looks you in the eye and has a calm and soft voice which comes across as considered and thoughtful. This is personal anecdote which you can decide that I'm making up if you like. However I'm not remotely surprised he was considered credible by the court. In this respect AK and RS were rather unlucky, if it had been someone with drug issues etc like Kokamani, it would have been easy to use prejudice against the homeless to dismiss him.

You're wrong about the diary - it is within the evidential bundle in the case. It was confiscated and then introduced into evidence, remember?

The Italian cross-examination system is very different to US or UK law. Under the latter two systems, Amanda would have been, in my personal opinion, absolutely shredded under cross-examination during, probably, around about two days worth of testimony. You stick any decent US attorney or British barrister or solicitor up against her and she would have got absolutely annihilated on the inconsistencies in her story. It's one of my biggest frustrations in the case. I respect the Italian process but these conversations would have been over a long time ago if she'd undergone a US or British style cross-examination.

 

[Withnail1969]

His name is Mr Curatolo which you can do him the dignity of using rather than Toto. Homeless people are first and foremost people and they have enough on their plate without you belittling them. As it happens, he's actually a rather nice bloke who just comes across as someone who is entirely calm and centred. He looks you in the eye and has a calm and soft voice which comes across as considered and thoughtful.

It's well-known in Perugia that Curatolo has mental problems - he's a 'simpleton', for want of a better word. He claimed to know that Amanda and Raffaele turned up at the basketball court at exactly 21:27 'because he has a watch', but when asked to show his watch in court, he didn't have one.

Don't try to wrap up your hate for Amanda with concern for the homeless.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

As RoseMontague quoted before
From the appeal:

Romanelli hearing on February 7, 2009, has confirmed the statements made to investigators on December 3, 2007 (p. 115 transcripts) that would leave open one of the two shutters.​

From Micheli:

As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows, but probably leaving the shutters open​

Filomena changed her version about the shutters a few times. It's clear she was not sure she closed them. I think it's very probable she left them open and then didn't want to admit it and gone "I can't remember".

There are the outer shutters and the inner shutters. Hence the 'different' versions.

You think - but you cannot prove this either.

 

[platonov]

platonov,

L low
C copy
N number

The quotes are not my issue. It might be better to refer to LCN as a subset of low template DNA analysis. The other profiles besides Meredith's on the clasp are nearing, possibly below the level to be considered low template.

No, but they were mine which you seem to ignore to suit your 'argument'.

If your only response to my post is to try to imply that I don't know what LCN stands for then we can leave the matter there.

Nor have I asked for nor want a lesson [Dan O may be interested] in DNA analysis/definitions - as a layman in these matters I can find the opinions of professionals should I choose to do so.
I fail to see how having another layman in this field , one whose credibility I already have issues with, interpret them for me would add value.

 

[SomeAlibi]

right on Draca

Oh for heaven's sake, if you use your eyes for two seconds, the picture you claim as deliberately, malevolently, cropped has a logo on it - something "Crimine" that clearly shows it's a cap from video from an Italian newscast, not a crop by someone at PMF.

Pictures in PMF galleries show even wider fields of view

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=21&image_id=1398

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=21&image_id=1174


This is playground stuff. Can you please stop it.

 

[moodstream]

Yes, but can you throw an 8 lb. rock through a second story window?

I don't think it is necessary for him to have launched it from the ground below Filomena's window. He most likely did have to separate the shutters before breaking the window. He could have brought the rock up with him in the small backpack he probably had with him, and hurled it in from his position just after opening the shutters, or he reached over from the front door level, stretching out from the side of the cottage and using the edge of the structure to hold on to, and then lobbing it in like a grenade.

However, he was surely strong enough to send an 8 lb rock up and through the window from the ground. That is not a tough one. The problem for me is one of precision. Having the window break in a spot where he wants. On the other hand, he was a semi pro basketball player and this too may have been no problem for him at all.