Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

What other mistakes do you think the defense made? I can think of a few.

1. Not showing that the bra was torn off instead of cut off.

2. Knox and Sollecito witnesses presenting different versions on how the neck wound was inflicted.


IDK, The Fix was in anyway. The PACK and the judge working together.

The defense some strong arguments and if they won Massei rewarded them by just dropping the subject instead of including it in the outcome. At the same time the prosection was allowed to lie and withhold evidence. It's hard for me to blame the defense for the outcome, even though they did make mistakes.

Do you think it would have made a difference to the outcome in the defense hadn't made those mistakes?

Going for the home run after receiving the July 2009 stack of docs from Stefanoni rather than first going with a motion for the rest of the missing information.

Waiting to the last minute to ask that the stain on the pillow be tested.

Not asking Curatolo any questions.

Not getting through to Amanda on her courtroom attire and behavior (did they even try?).

Not fighting a war in the (local) press to counter all the misinformation and bad press.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA transfer during physical contact

this is true. they were localised to indicate being held by multiple attackers according to the prosecution.

lxxx

If Meredith were held so hard as to be restrained, the forensic scientists should have swabbed those areas for DNA. Either they did not, or they did and the areas were negative.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the odds were not good

Not getting through to Amanda on her courtroom attire and behavior (did they even try?).

Not fighting a war in the (local) press to counter all the misinformation and bad press.

RoseMontague,

I don't entirely agree. Amanda only dressed inappropriately one time (Valentine's day), to the best of my knowledge. She smiled at friends, but that is normal. I wish that they had fought the war in the local press, but I suspect that Massei walked into the courtroom on the first day thinking that they were guilty.

 

[LondonJohn]

Going for the home run after receiving the July 2009 stack of docs from Stefanoni rather than first going with a motion for the rest of the missing information.

Waiting to the last minute to ask that the stain on the pillow be tested.

Not asking Curatolo any questions.

Not getting through to Amanda on her courtroom attire and behavior (did they even try?).

No fighting a war in the (local) press to counter all the misinformation and bad press.

Plus:

Seemingly not getting the computer records properly analysed to show activity on the evening/night of the 1st/2nd.

Not demolishing Quintavalle's credibility/reliability on the stand

Not carrying out their own audiometric tests on Nara's alleged "scream of death".

Not figuring out the whole disco bus issue in time for the first trial

Not arguing very strongly on major incompetence and errors in the forensics collection/storage techniques: the bra clasp collection; the general - and inexplicable - 47-day wait for collection of key forensics items; the shockingly inept storage of blood-soaked towels which rendered them useless as evidence; the ludicrous wrapping paper collection of the mop; the inexplicable transfer of the kitchen knife from an evidence bag to..... a used and unsterile desk diary box that happened to be hanging around in the police station(!); the cack-handed, incompetent and potentially evidence-destroying "smear" technique used to collect blood evidence, particularly in the bathrooms.

Failing to show that the break-in was entirely feasible, and that key elements were in fact positively incompatible with a staging.

 

[babycondor]

this is true. they were localised to indicate being held by multiple attackers according to the prosecution.

lxxx

I believe the expert testimony was that the bruises were "consistent with" being held by multiple attackers. Were the bruises also consistent with being held by a single attacker? Why did the investigators find no evidence of other attackers in Meredith's room? (No DNA, no bloody shoeprints, no fingerprints of anyone besides Guede and Meredith.)

Reasonable doubt.

 

[Draca]

Going for the home run after receiving the July 2009 stack of docs from Stefanoni rather than first going with a motion for the rest of the missing information.

Waiting to the last minute to ask that the stain on the pillow be tested.

Not asking Curatolo any questions.

Not getting through to Amanda on her courtroom attire and behavior (did they even try?).

Not fighting a war in the (local) press to counter all the misinformation and bad press.

Rose,

That's a pretty strong list already. I wonder if it would have made a difference....

I recently thought they made a mistake in presenting important info to late. I was researching the CCTV timing of MK arriving home (8:51-8:53) I ran into a March 13, 2009 court date comment in Perugia Shock that the defense thought the CCTV was 10 minutes slow at that time. They didn't do their big presentation proving that until Oct 18, 2009. It was suggested by Perugia Shock that they waited this late so that it would be fresh in the jury's mind going into deliberation. I thought that was a mistake because that gave the jury (and the guilters) 7 months more to think that Raffaele called the police after they arrived. That is very damning in my opinion and if they knew in March they could prove it wasn't true they should have done their presentation much earlier IMO. One reason being that it can take time for information to become firm in a person's mind. Things often have to be repeated several times before the point is clearly made.

When did the defense first learn about the sperm stain with the crimescope?


I recently asked Francesco Vinci a question and complimented him on his work on the case.
He said "Thank you, but some times I feel like I were shouting in the wind..."

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose,

That's a pretty strong list already. I wonder if it would have made a difference....

I recently thought they made a mistake in presenting important info to late. I was researching the CCTV timing of MK arriving home (8:51-8:53) I ran into a March 13, 2009 court date comment in Perugia Shock that the defense thought the CCTV was 10 minutes slow at that time. They didn't do their big presentation proving that until Oct 18, 2009. It was suggested by Perugia Shock that they waited this late so that it would be fresh in the jury's mind going into deliberation. I thought that was a mistake because that gave the jury (and the guilters) 7 months more to think that Raffaele called the police after they arrived. That is very damning in my opinion and if they knew in March they could prove it wasn't true they should have done their presentation much earlier IMO. One reason being that it can take time for information to become firm in a person's mind. Things often have to be repeated several times before the point is clearly made.

When did the defense first learn about the sperm stain with the crimescope?


I recently asked Francesco Vinci a question and complimented him on his work on the case. He said "Thank you, but some times I feel like I were shouting in the wind..."

I believe it was March/April (without going back to look it up) that Vinci did his examination and just before the closing arguments maybe November that they asked for testing on the stain.

The information that Raffaele allegedly called the cops after the police arrived was faxed to Mignini's office from a local paper shortly after the crime (according to Frank). Again you have the reliance on the local press to do the investigation and the producing of witnesses. This reliance seems to be backfiring of late with both information and witnesses being discredited. It is very strange, imo.

 

[pilot padron]

Are YOU going to participate in the actual debate about the case too, or are you also merely content to offer some sort of "commentary" on the board discussions from the sidelines? Care to offer some evidence in support of your position on the case, or are you too embarrassed to try to argue it by now....?

Since you conveniently omitted this from the message you quoted, I repeat what another poster incisively and accurately points out to you (yet again):

And until you run this forum, I will comment as I see fit, thank you very much.

Also, yet again, out of respect for MA, your 'argument's' characteristic concluding 'question' about "embarrassed" is ignored

 

[babycondor]

It also has to ignore the screensaver evidence brought up in the appeal showing continuous human activity on Raffaele's computer through the night until 6:02 am the next morning.

Continuous human activity? Does that mean the screensaver was never activated?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "intermittent human activity?" (Obviously one can't conclude much without seeing the logs showing the time intervals between activation and deactivation of the screensaver.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Since you conveniently omitted this from the message you quoted, I repeat what another poster incisively and accurately points out to you (yet again):



Also, yet again, out of respect for MA, your 'argument's' characteristic concluding 'question' about "embarrassed" is ignored

Again, for your information, please understand that I'm not making requests or demands here: I'm doing no more than inquiring. You can either give me a "yes" or a "no", or tell me that you're not going to answer, or ignore me completely. I really don't mind.

However, I think I'll take your "response" as I did the other poster's: it's a "no". Nothing of any worth to add about the question of Knox's/Sollecito's guilt/non-guilt. "Nada", as they say in Mexico. Or in Brazil...

 

[Draca]

Plus:

Not demolishing Quintavalle's credibility/reliability on the stand

Failing to show that the break-in was entirely feasible, and that key elements were in fact positively incompatible with a staging.

I HAD thought Marco Quintavalle WAS demolished. Office Orestes Volturno testified that he was told by MQ that he hadn't seen them! Another police officer! It is things like this that make me think nothing the defense did would have mattered.

I do think they should have done more to prove the break in possible. Even going so far as making a video of someone climbing in through the window. But then Micheli accepted it was possible..... They probably didn't think it was an issue. It never seemed beyond a reasonable doubt to me.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

I don't entirely agree. Amanda only dressed inappropriately one time (Valentine's day), to the best of my knowledge. She smiled at friends, but that is normal. I wish that they had fought the war in the local press, but I suspect that Massei walked into the courtroom on the first day thinking that they were guilty.

IIRC a couple of outfits that were not appropriate, some singing to herself, and some blowing of kisses were reported on as well. Then the actions of some of the family that the press made big issues of.

The defense may have tried to counter some of the press locally and met with resistance, I wish we knew more. Based on some of the information lately it is certainly possible that it would be hard to get some counter balance going. From the very beginning this was a press disaster, unfortunately.

 

[RoseMontague]

I HAD thought Marco Quintavalle WAS demolished. Office Orestes Volturno testified that he was told by MQ that he hadn't seen them! Another police officer! It is things like this that make me think nothing the defense did would have mattered.

I do think they should have done more to prove the break in possible. Even going so far as making a video of someone climbing in through the window. But then Micheli accepted it was possible..... They probably didn't think it was an issue. It never seemed beyond a reasonable doubt to me.

They did show the TV interview in court as well.

 

[LondonJohn]

I HAD thought Marco Quintavalle WAS demolished. Office Orestes Volturno testified that he was told by MQ that he hadn't seen them! Another police officer! It is things like this that make me think nothing the defense did would have mattered.

I do think they should have done more to prove the break in possible. Even going so far as making a video of someone climbing in through the window. But then Micheli accepted it was possible..... They probably didn't think it was an issue. It never seemed beyond a reasonable doubt to me.

Unfortunately, the only place that Quintavalle's credibility mattered was among the judicial panel, and the Massei report makes it pretty clear that they (somehow) considered him a good witness. I agree that there was lots counting against him, and perhaps even that the judicial panel were pre-disposed to believe in him, but I think the defence should have pulled no punches in comprehensively demolishing him, such that even Massei and his merry bunch of poor thinkers would have had no option but to disregard him.

Again, regarding the window issue, you're correct to say that Micheli accepted it was possible. However, Massei goes to great lengths to "explain" how the break-in must have been staged. I can't believe the defence couldn't have seen this coming: they should have preempted this issue by showing how the known physical evidence is not only compatible with a real break-in, but how it's also in some cases incompatible with a staging. The defence DID re-enact part of the climb, using one of the lawyers as a stand-in, but they were seemingly hampered by the fact that the cottage was a sealed crime scene, so therefore they couldn't get onto the ledge and through the window to complete the re-enactment. The defence should also have argued far more strongly that Filomena's room was likely to have been less "pristine" than she herself testified, and that the crime scene in her room was severely compromised by her and the postal officers going through her stuff (and her subsequently rushing back in to retrieve her laptop!).

 

[Antony]

it cannot be ruled out by stomach contents data though. it is not reliable enough.

To repeat: it is wholly reliable for the conclusions needed for this case, and confers with common sense as well as science. "Imprecise" does not mean the same as "unreliable".

 

[LondonJohn]

Apropos of nothing...

There's a journalist working for bbc.co.uk who has written a few articles about the Kercher case, and who's been somewhat of a propagandist for a particular web resource on this case. The journalist's name is Julian Joyce. Here are a couple of his articles:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7879293.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7883286.stm

And here is an interesting piece of information about Julian Joyce (member since January 30th 2009):

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/member/135/

Now where's that email address for the BBC Trust.......?

 

[Antony]

One has to wonder if what you read is actually what others have written. How do you get that I have firmly made up my mind? I've spent the last goodness knows how many pages saying that all I have been getting is one side and I want to get the other to compare them. Sheeze. If instead of dodging every question and making stuff up, you actually were willing to help out with seeing the evidence for the "guilty" claims, then after comparing both I might accept your view, just as I might not. Currently however, with almost nothing from one side, all I have go with is what those who believe in innocence have put on the table.

If I am leaning towards innocence it's purely because currently there is nothing convincing me otherwise and no one willing to do so.

I think many of us on the innocence side have had the same experience.

I only started taking an interest in this case when the verdict came out, and I thought "this doesn't sound right - but no doubt there's evidence that I haven't heard about." But when I started reading the blogs I found all the intelligent comment was coming from those challenging the verdict, and despite much trumpeting of "a mountain of evidence" from the pro-guilt side, it turned out to consist of 2 highly compromised items of DNA, plus some ambiguous pieces of testimony from people about events wholly marginal to the crime. All the pro-guilt side seemed to want to talk about was Amanda's alleged character deficiencies - "innocent people don't do that!" when it would be just as true to say "guilty people don't do that."

By this time it had become clear that the police had arrested and accused 2 people who were present at the scene when the crime was discovered, and that one of them had made a false confession during an all-night interrogation with no safeguards for her rights.

Given all of this, it would take some pretty extraordinary evidence to convince me that the police and courts got it right; and of course what we have here is an extraordinary lack of evidence.

 

[pilot padron]

Apropos of nothing...

There's a journalist working for bbc.co.uk who has written a few articles about the Kercher case, and who's been somewhat of a propagandist for a particular web resource on this case. The journalist's name is Julian Joyce. Here are a couple of his articles:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7879293.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7883286.stm

And here is an interesting piece of information about Julian Joyce (member since January 30th 2009):

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/member/135/

Now where's that email address for the BBC Trust.......?

Exactly where is the informational value and direct relation to the case that you seem to hold in such esteem of all this ??

A reporter has over a year ago *joined* TJMK over a year ago.
You did notice that too that after he joined, he had absolutely Zero (Mexican, Brazilian, 'nada') other activity.
He apparently from your info has not even visited the site again.

Ever cross your mind that per chance he simply *joined* to have full access to the most reliable source of information about the subject of his articles ?

BTW
Is not your dramatic disclosure the same type of 'cyber stalking' that is so often vociferously condemned here as a tool of the dreaded (but constantly read and referenced for reliable info).. 'hate group, PMF.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Julian Joyce

LondonJohn,
Mr. Joyce wrote, "According to alleged leaks of her prison diary, Amanda is similarly determined to maintain her innocence - and may be preparing to blame her ex-boyfriend.
She is reported to have written: 'I think it is possible Raffaele went to Meredith's house, raped her, then killed her and then when when he got home, while I was sleeping, he pressed my fingerprints on the knife.'"

This is nonsense, and it has been refuted before. Ms. Knox did write something resembling the above (it was not identical, IIRC), but she closed her comments by saying that she highly doubted it. The interesting question is was this Mr. Joyce's error, or was he given patently false information. (emphasis mine)

EDT
"They became an item. Both have admitted a fondness for marijuana - a drug they blamed for their inability to recall their movements on the night Meredith died." Does anyone know the source for this claim? Both Knox and Sollecito have given accounts of their actions on that night. It is possible that the differences stem in part from faulty memory brought on by marijuana, but what Mr. Joyce wrote is very much overstated, IMO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Not the Joyce who wrote Araby (not even close)

Ever cross your mind that per chance he simply *joined* to have full access to the most reliable source of information about the subject of his articles?

pilot padron,
That thought crossed my mind, but then I started reading the articles, and this hypothesis was falsified. Either Mr. Joyce joined for another reason, or TJfMK is not always a reliable source of information, or both.