Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Yeah really serious...and so criminal...a wiretap!

Now that is a slippery slope.

 

[Chris C]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like time of death is not going to be reconsidered in the appeal. I'm only going on news reports.

If this is so, what is the point of arguments about stomach contents etc?

Its not the ToD thats not getting reconsidered. Its my understanding that they wont re-examine the autopsy. Though even that is not certain, since the judge clearly has ruled he reserves the right to change his mind.

If the autopsy is not getting re-examined then IMO thats just as good as saying it was performed correctly. Since Mignini never introduced any evidence that showed the autopsy was performed incorrectly, I'm assuming the judge is agreeing with Dr. Lalli's results. If thats the case, and no review of the autopsy, then Dr. Lalli has placed the ToD at 2 to 3 hours from when she ate pizza. Thats anywhere between 8pm and 9:30pm. Maybe the latest of 10pm, I'm not sure if he is saying from when they finished the meal. Either way Dr. Lalli's Autopsy puts the ToD at the latest of 10pm.

 

[Chris C]

Yeah really serious...and so criminal...a wiretap!

Now thats what I call trying to underscore Mignini's conviction. A wiretap.

He was illegally investigating journalists, a police chief, and members of the government.

The court ruled that those investigations where designed to harrass and intimidate. In other words he was abusing his office to target people that spoke out against him and using his offices powers to harrass and intimidate them.

Yet you call that a wiretap.

 

[platonov]

Who shall be your Zola !

Now now everyone. Let's have a little holiday goodwill.

The fact is, as everyone knows there are passionate fanatics on both sides of this modern-day Affaire Dreyfus.

Now where did I see that supremely apt comparison? It was quite recent. I know it's going to drive me crazy until I remember. Perhaps someone else can help me out.

Anyway, I am a card-carrying fanatical FOAKER who will never give up until the day this "modern day Affaire Dreyfus" is resolved and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are set free.

BTW, here are some photos I sent to Amanda in a Christmas letter:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/vashon_event_11_20_10.pdf

I cant help you out there but I suspect it was used by several journalists covering the case - engaging in a little 'hyperbole'. Journos as we well know always try and play down their stories so their copy gets as little exposure as possible. Its another version of 'trial of the century' is it not and equally abused.

One wonders if the distinction between the Dreyfus case and Affaire Dreyfus is lost on the authors - possibly not in some cases, but given the fact it is lost on most of the readership the qualification is unnecessary and would defeat the purpose.

But lets take the journalistic 'flourish' and apply it to this case.

Who shall be your Zola ? - C Dempsey or Frank S perhaps.

For Poincaré we have a couple of candidates on this very thread ; some of the statistical analysis here is revolutionary. Whether it will stand the test of time is a different matter - early reviews* are not promising.
* Including my own.

Indeed a couple of budding authors have works in the pipeline apparently - comparison to Proust may however be premature.

(Thats enough - Ed.)

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

One wonders if the distinction between the Dreyfus case and Affaire Dreyfus is lost on the authors - possibly not in some cases, but given the fact it is lost on most of the readership the qualification is unnecessary and would defeat the purpose.

What is the distinction?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The court ruled that those investigations where designed to harrass and intimidate. In other words he was abusing his office to target people that spoke out against him and using his offices powers to harrass and intimidate them.

Yes, he threw Mario Spezi, an Italian reporter, in jail for three weeks and invoked a special law to prevent him from seeing a lawyer for several days. He wanted to hold Spezi longer, but a judge in Florence nixed the idea. The Committee to Protect Journalists sent a strong letter of protest to the Italian government over this:

http://cpj.org/2006/04/crime-journalists-imprisonment-raises-alarm.php

Mignini is a two-bit fascist, a provincial thug, a mentally unsound conspiracy nut. He should be put out of his job so he can't damage more innocent lives.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by platonov
One wonders if the distinction between the Dreyfus case and Affaire Dreyfus is lost on the authors - possibly not in some cases, but given the fact it is lost on most of the readership the qualification is unnecessary and would defeat the purpose.

What is the distinction?

I rest my 'case'

If you can post the material that others here are asking for I will try to explain it to you. Or I will at least post a couple of links which will help.

 

[LondonJohn]

Whooooa there Nelly. Where are you getting this 11:30 - 40 time from?

That'll be the Massei Report:

This reconstruction, according to which Meredith’s death occurred a few minutes after 23.30 pm is also confirmed by the thanato-chronological data [i.e. data concerning the chronology of death] as there has already been occasion to note, as well as by the following circumstances [which were] highlighted in the relevant chapters:

(Massei Report, p382 (English translation))


EDIT: Oh I see, you're questioning the time of departure of the pick-up truck rather than the first court's ToD. Well, in that case, I'm asserting that the prosecution and the first court got the tow truck timing wrong as well. The car broke down at 10.30pm. The occupants spent about 15 minutes trying to get the car restarted by themselves, and then gave up and called the breakdown service. They were seen doing so by Alessandra Formica at 10.45pm. The breakdown service have said that it took them 20 minutes to assign the call-out to a particular driver and to communicate the details to him. And the driver took 15-20 minutes to drive from where his was when he was notified to the location of the broken-down car. It then took some 10-15 minutes to assess the situation and to fix the car up to the truck to be towed away. Add the timings up, and you get to 11.30-11.40pm.

There are two things to note here: firstly, it appears impossible that the car and tow-truck had left the scene by 11.15pm as per the Massei Report. And secondly, the time of departure of the truck is not even relevant for the argument I was making here. Put it at 11pm if you like: the important point for the particular argument I was making is that the car broke down at 10.30pm, meaning that Knox/Sollecito/Guede couldn't have killed Meredith at any time between 10.30pm and whenever the truck left.

 

[platonov]

That'll be the Massei Report:


(Massei Report, p382 (English translation))

I'd have thought you'd have known this information by now though. Strange.....

Pretty obvious the reference is to your (I may be wrong ?)

since there was a broken down car outside the house between 10.30pm and around 11.35-11.40pm.

It stands out every time you use it

 

[LondonJohn]

Pretty obvious the reference is to your (I may be wrong ?)




It stands out every time you use it

See above. Thanks for your contribution to the debate, though.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I rest my 'case'

If you can post the material that others here are asking for I will try to explain it to you. Or I will at least post a couple of links which will help.

You needn't bother. Your wit and erudition would probably fly right over my head.

What is the material people are asking for?

 

[platonov]

See above. Thanks for your contribution to the debate, though.

Glad to be of assistance LJ - or may I call you JH (as in Jules Henri)

 

[LondonJohn]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like time of death is not going to be reconsidered in the appeal. I'm only going on news reports.

If this is so, what is the point of arguments about stomach contents etc?

You're wrong. For two reasons.

1) The appeal court ruling of December 18th has reserved the right to agree to additional defence witnesses after the DNA re-evaluation has taken place.

2) Even if no new expert witnesses are admitted to testify about ToD, this categorically does not mean that the appeal court will not be reconsidering ToD. In fact, the un-appended witness testimony from the first trial can, on its own, show that Meredith died before 10.30pm. However, I think that new expert witnesses could convincingly bring this time down to 9.30pm, and 10pm at the latest (in line, incidentally, with the police's own pathologist, who performed the autopsy).

Why don't many people understand that the ruling last Saturday was only concerned with whether new tests or witnesses were going to be allowed? It didn't concern itself with what parts of the case the appeal court was going to reconsider. In fact, the appeal court will be reconsidering the entire case. Last Saturday was only concerned with decisions on whether the court required additional testing or expert testimony to assist it in its reconsideration.

 

[LondonJohn]

The reasons why are actually quite simple. The reasons offered by the defence to have it reopened weren't good enough. A court doesn't require good reason NOT to do something, it requires good reason to do it in the first place.

At the risk of repeating myself, the rulings on Saturday were solely concerned with new testing or new witnesses to assist the court in its re-examination of the case. If you really believe that since the court has currently reserved judgement on whether to call new defence ToD expert witnesses, it will not therefore by definition be reconsidering ToD, then I suggest that you don't understand the situation properly.

So maybe you and others might stop erroneously saying things such as "The court will not be reopening ToD" - which are clearly meant to imply that Saturday's rulings mean that the appeal court accepts the 11.30-11.40pm ToD from the first trial. Because that's simply not true.

 

[Chris C]

That'll be the Massei Report:


(Massei Report, p382 (English translation))


EDIT: Oh I see, you're questioning the time of departure of the pick-up truck rather than the first court's ToD. Well, in that case, I'm asserting that the prosecution and the first court got the tow truck timing wrong as well. The car broke down at 10.30pm. The occupants spent about 15 minutes trying to get the car restarted by themselves, and then gave up and called the breakdown service. They were seen doing so by Alessandra Formica at 10.45pm. The breakdown service have said that it took them 20 minutes to assign the call-out to a particular driver and to communicate the details to him. And the driver took 15-20 minutes to drive from where his was when he was notified to the location of the broken-down car. It then took some 10-15 minutes to assess the situation and to fix the car up to the truck to be towed away. Add the timings up, and you get to 11.30-11.40pm.

There are two things to note here: firstly, it appears impossible that the car and tow-truck had left the scene by 11.15pm as per the Massei Report. And secondly, the time of departure of the truck is not even relevant for the argument I was making here. Put it at 11pm if you like: the important point for the particular argument I was making is that the car broke down at 10.30pm, meaning that Knox/Sollecito/Guede couldn't have killed Meredith at any time between 10.30pm and whenever the truck left.

Then add in the fact that Rudy admits to seeing the broken down car and the couple when left the scene. A time in which Merdith was already dead. That also means the TOD couldn't be after the people where gone. Rudy wouldn't have seen them.

 

[platonov]

You needn't bother. Your wit and erudition would probably fly right over my head.

What is the material people are asking for?

Perhaps but I try to pitch my posting 'style' to suit the audience
The Proust or Zola references are hardly obscure & given that much of the expertise on this thread is google powered shouldn't present a problem in any case. Perhaps the world isn't ready for my wit - I am often my own best (only) fan

I see references here from posters to material that you (or Bruce Fisher) claim to have but haven't made available online.

 

[LondonJohn]

Then add in the fact that Rudy admits to seeing the broken down car and the couple when left the scene. A time in which Merdith was already dead. That also means the TOD couldn't be after the people where gone. Rudy wouldn't have seen them.

Didn't Guede say that he saw the dark-coloured car which was parked outside the cottage's gates (this car had no occupants inside)? I'm not sure that he says he saw the broken-down car. But I might be wrong in that. I think Guede left the cottage by 10.15pm - before the car broke down.

 

[Chris C]

Didn't Guede say that he saw the dark-coloured car which was parked outside the cottage's gates (this car had no occupants inside)? I'm not sure that he says he saw the broken-down car. But I might be wrong in that. I think Guede left the cottage by 10.15pm - before the car broke down.

I could be wrong. He might have been referring to the car in the driveway.

 

[Justinian2]

Actually there is a good chance Mignini goes to jail. Just not for the crimes he committed against Knox and Sollecito.

That would make me happy - about has happy as hearing my favorite song over a cup of cappuccino each morning for a week. I'm not big into punishment, but I have to admit that would make me happy.

 

[Chris C]

Rudy's own words:

Then I headed for Meredith’s house. With all the running around I did, I think it would have been around 8:30, approximately. Because we were supposed to see each other at that time, even though I didn’t have a watch I tried to arrive on time, because I usually arrive late. As I arrived in front of the house, I noticed a white car with headlights on, and a Drug-Dealer I often saw on Garibaldi Avenue, but I didn’t make much of this, and I went into the yard. I knocked on the door, but no one answered. I went downstairs to the guys’ place, but no one was there either. So then, I waited in the yard.

/skip on down

I am asking myself how is it possible that Amanda could have slept in all that mess, and took a shower with all that blood in the bathroom and corridor? Why Patrick? Who was that person, Raffaele? And then "AF, AF." It could be his name. And then if thieves had been there, why isn't Amanda saying a word about the missing money? And who was in the house below when I left? What has ever happened between Amanda and Meredith?


Is it me or is Rudy stating that someone was in the house below when he left. They never found Meredith's keys. Did Meredith's keys have the key to the downstairs apartment with them? If the guys that lived downstairs where out of town. Then Rudy is claiming that someone broke in downstairs also. Was the murder of Meredith to get the keys to the downstairs apartment? Also Knox claims to have arrived home and the door was open. Since you had to lock the door with the keys, then if someone took the keys downstairs to get in the apartment then Rudy couldn't have locked the door when he left. I'm not saying Rudy's innocent. I just found the statement about someone in the house below interesting, because they never found Meredith's keys. Then to top it off there is also a car in the driveway.

I'm in an amusing mood this morning so lets use some of that Guilter statement analysis. When I read that statement, "who was in the house below when I left". To me its implied that who is in the singular form. So with my expert do-it-yourself statement analysis degree. Rudy is telling me that 1 person broke into the downstairs apartment. Couldn't have been Knox/Sollecito.