Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

Where does it say in Massei that Guede was not attracted to Meredith? He was known (and there's testimony to support it IIRC) to lust after caucasian girls*, so I think there's every possibility that he was sexually attracted to her. Add in the adrenaline rush of the situation, and the fact that Meredith was demonstrably alone in the cottage (and let's not forget Massei's track record of woeful reasoning in other areas), and I think this is an entirely reasonable possibility.

* Yes, I know that Meredith was of mixed race, but I would consider her ethnicity to be caucasian enough to appeal to Guede's sensibilities.

Page 57 of the motivations. And this conclusion from Massei was in relation to the testimony of the boys downstairs saying that Rudy had shown an interest in, and inquired about, Amanda.

 

[LondonJohn]

Page 57 of the motivations. And this conclusion from Massei was in relation to the testimony of the boys downstairs saying that Rudy had shown an interest in, and inquired about, Amanda.

Yes, but suppose I went to a house party, and there were two girls there - one of whom (Girl A) I found really physically attractive, and the other of whom (Girl B) I also found physically attractive, but to a lesser degree. I might remark to a friend that I fancied Girl A and wondered if she was single - but there is no way whatsoever to infer from my statement that I didn't also fancy Girl B.

I find Massei's reasoning here to be on a par with his reasoning in many other areas of his sentencing report.

 

[pilot padron]

You forgot a prerequisite - "0) Guede stands on the ground underneath Filomena's room".
I'm guessing that's because you have no evidence to support such an assertion. That's okay - neither have Knox's or Sollecito's attorneys.

The prosecution also has no evidence to support their assertion.It is their burden of proof.

Uhhhh ?? Really; the Prosecution's burden... ???How unique ??

May I apply an ever so technical complimentary characterization apparently endeared to communications engineers:
"Umm I think you might have this back to front."

Your logic goes like this:

The prosecution presented enough proof that there was a staged break in to deflate any futile defense rebuttals to the jurors during trial.

A prerequisite to breaking in would be to stand on ground before climbing

You tell us now that the *Prosecution* has a burden of proof to show the jurors that the Defense's Mr Break in, a.k.a. Spiderman stood on the ground before completing a supposed break in ; the same break in the Prosecution proved to jurors *was staged* .

"Back to front" indeed.

Oh Gee; per haps you might next try shifting goalposts to the anatomically impossible idea of hanging from roof eaves or even the astounding and entertaining but incredibly irrelevant "wall climbers without suction cups" You Tube.
Then we can repeat that previous several hundred post circular jerking diversion to no where on this same topic

 

[LondonJohn]

I would also add that most sexual assaults, rapes and sexually-aggravated murders are far more about power/control than they are about attraction or sheer lust. This is (for example) why inadequate 25-year-old men will break into the houses of 80-year-old women and sexually molest them.

I do think that Guede probably found Meredith physically attractive to a reasonably high degree: she was, objectively speaking, an attractive young woman, and Guede had a known preference for non-black girls. But this may have had nothing to do with the murder and concurrent sexual assault that took place. Guede had a reputation for hassling girls, and by most accounts had been rebuffed by most (if not all) of the girls he'd approached. So I believe that Guede may have been sexually frustrated and in need of a feeling of control over a woman. In that respect, Meredith may simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I suspect that if it had been Laura who had come home unexpectedly (and, with all due respect, she is not a classically attractive woman), she would have suffered the very same fate.

 

[LondonJohn]

Uhhhh ?? Really; the Prosecution's burden... ???How unique ??

May I apply an ever so technical complimentary characterization apparently endeared to communications engineers:
"Umm I think you might have this back to front."

Your logic goes like this:

The prosecution presented enough proof that there was a staged break in to deflate any futile defense rebuttals to the jurors during trial.

A prerequisite to breaking in would be to stand on ground before climbing

You tell us now that the *Prosecution* has a burden of proof to show the jurors that the Defense's Mr Break in, a.k.a. Spiderman stood on the ground before completing a break in that the Prosecution proved to jurors *was staged* .

"Back to front" indeed.

Oh Gee; per haps you might next try shifting goalposts to the anatomically impossible idea of hanging from roof eaves or even the astounding and entertaining but incredibly irrelevant "wall climbers without suction cups" You Tube.
Then we can repeat that previous several hundred post circular jerking diversion to no where on this same topic

Oh dear. Try reading Draca's post again. He's not suggesting that the prosecution needed to present evidence of human presence on the ground - he's suggesting that the prosecution should have presented evidence that no human had stood on that ground, as part of their assertion that the break-in was staged.

By the way, that was my degree discipline. It's not my job. Sometimes I wish I'd gone to agricultural college instead though....

ETA: or should it be written "agri cultural"?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Absolutely agree. Although there was perhaps a possibility that, given that it had recently rained, there might be a presence (or absence) of indentations in the muddy ground. But I would imagine that a wet muddy, grassy, leafy patch of ground would be near impossible to analyse for the absence of human activity upon it. We're not talking about a freshly-poured concrete floor, after all.......

Rained? I don't think so. IIRC there was some talk on this forum about weather in Perugia in that context, and the data someone unearthed showed there was basically no precipitation in October 2007.
Also the ground below was not grassy or muddy, but more like poor soil overgrown with herbs and covered with dry leaves.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

theory guides, but experiment decides

Your logic goes like this:

The prosecution presented enough proof that there was a staged break in to deflate any futile defense rebuttals to the jurors during trial.

pilot padron,

The prosecution never tested a theory of breaking the window as is described in Massei. The defense did, as Sgt. Pasquali testified. Why should a skeptic take the word of the person who did not do the experiment over the word of the person who did? Fuji does not care to answer, but perhaps you can help me to understand.

 

[pilot padron]

Oh dear. he's suggesting that the prosecution should have presented evidence that no human had stood on that ground, as part of their assertion that the break-in was staged.....
Sometimes I wish I'd gone to agricultural college instead though....
ETA: or should it be written "agri cultural"?

Oh Thanks ever so much.
Your mystical ability to give us insights into what others on your team *meant* to say (again) might make an iota of sense if we forget how violently and with such vigor 'your team' wanted us to buy the eave hanger and/or circus act quality vertical wall walkers breaking in.
Both of which would not need to stand on ground. Eh ??

ETA:
'Aggies' are always 'down to earth' enough when discussing with others that they do not usually find it necessary to need to resort to "Oh dear" as an opening courteous salutation or more appropriately here as an expression denoting a self realization of despair .

 

[pilot padron]

pilot padron,

The prosecution never tested a theory of breaking the window as is described in Massei. The defense did, as Sgt. Pasquali testified. Why should a skeptic take the word of the person who did not do the experiment over the word of the person who did? Fuji does not care to answer, but perhaps you can help me to understand.

IMHO Fuji has done very well here, especially today.

May I choose with your concurrence to leave that *new argument* to Fuji.

My statement was simply that the prosecution did in fact prove to the satisfaction of the Court (where it matters) that the break in was staged.
It defies common sense to wrap the 'burden of proof mantra' to now ask that the Prosecutio must also prove a break in (that they say did not happen) perpetrator stood below the window

That is all I am saying and care to say at this point.

Cognizant that most of the 'home team' here want to argue with the Prosecution here (where it does not matter), I do not wish, nor find beneficial to do likewise

ETA:
Appreciative of the implied abilities you deign me worthy of, may I state with no disrespect intended, that cognizant of all that has been said (and shown) to date about that broken window subject here to date, and with your proven above average academic achievements and intimate familiarity with what has been said, and in fact saying a lot of it yourself, far be it from me, an individual referred to above (of course most politely) as an agricultural worker; 'a mere man of the earth'...how could I possibly 'help' you

 

[LondonJohn]

Rained? I don't think so. IIRC there was some talk on this forum about weather in Perugia in that context, and the data someone unearthed showed there was basically no precipitation in October 2007.
Also the ground below was not grassy or muddy, but more like poor soil overgrown with herbs and covered with dry leaves.

Massei p50 (English trans) states that it rained in Perugia on October 30th 2007. But I'm perfectly willing to believe that Massei might be wrong in this

 

[RWVBWL]

Rained? I don't think so. IIRC there was some talk on this forum about weather in Perugia in that context, and the data someone unearthed showed there was basically no precipitation in October 2007.
Also the ground below was not grassy or muddy, but more like poor soil overgrown with herbs and covered with dry leaves.

Hi Katody Matrass,
Just a friendly FYI,
in Mignini's recent CNN interview, in part 2 at 35'25" he mentions rain on Oct. 31, '07.

There’s also for example the fact that, well, take for example the rain. Curatolo remembers that the evening during which he saw the two young people, it wasn’t raining, and it’s true that on the evening of the crime it wasn’t raining. Vice versa, and they say this, also other witnesses say this, on the previous night, only in the town of Perugia, there was a limited weather phenomenon; in the late afternoon of October 31, it rained. And even I remember that, because I remember that the street was wet. So, this is to say that this is a detail which was confirmed by…there.
<snip>

Take it easy, RW

PS-

For completeness I'd add that such "presence of untrampled vegetation" does not prove anything. Vegetation tends to "untrample" itself without outside help

Very true...

 

[Diocletus]

pilot padron,

The prosecution never tested a theory of breaking the window as is described in Massei. The defense did, as Sgt. Pasquali testified. Why should a skeptic take the word of the person who did not do the experiment over the word of the person who did? Fuji does not care to answer, but perhaps you can help me to understand.

We should take a survey. If someone is standing in a room, and they take a 9 lb. rock and throw it at a pair of shutters that is held closed by friction and not latched, you will end up with:

A. A rock that has struck the unyielding shutters and bounced back into the room, or

B. A rock that knocked the shutters open, and having thus dissipated most of its energy, then dropped down onto the ground outside the room

It would have been nice if the prosecution had actually conducted this fairly simple experiment. Then we would know instead of just having to guess/survey.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh Thanks ever so much.
Your mystical ability to give us insights into what others on your team *meant* to say (again) might make an iota of sense if we forget how violently and with such vigor 'your team' wanted us to buy the eave hanger and/or circus act quality vertical wall walkers breaking in.
Both of which would not need to stand on ground. Eh ??

ETA:
'Aggies' are always 'down to earth' enough when discussing with others that they do not usually find it necessary to need to resort to "Oh dear" as an opening courteous salutation or more appropriately here as an expression denoting a self realization of despair .

You're not really getting this, I think. I'll recap:

The prosecution argued (and Massei's court agreed) that an important factor influencing their determination that the break-in was staged was that there was no disturbance on the ground below Filomena's window. Yet they demonstrably presented no decent evidence to support this assertion of "no disturbance": no decent photographs of the ground, no proper analysis of the ground conditions - in short, nothing to prove in any conceivable way that no person had stood on that ground on the evening of November 1st 2007.

While you inferred from Draca's post that he was referring to the police/prosecutors presenting evidence of someone standing on that ground, his post did not imply such a thing: you made an incorrect inference. It's entirely clear that Draca meant that the prosecution's burden was to prove that nobody stood on that ground - but if you prefer to hear that directly from him, then I can't help in that regard. He and I are not a "team", you see. We are simply both sceptical, critical thinkers who apply logic and reasoning to the case.

And I didn't even realise that the term "aggies" existed - I thought they were called "farmers". Or "far mers".

 

[Katody Matrass]

Hi Katody Matrass,
Just a friendly FYI,
in Mignini's recent CNN interview, in part 2 at 35'25" he mentions rain on Oct. 31, '07.



Take it easy, RW

PS-
Very true...

Thanks RWVBWL and LondonJohn!

I checked it and looks like Massei is right and Mignini got it off by a day. Rain on 30th, no rain on 31th or 1st November.

ETA:
I somewhat doubt that earth was "very wet" as in Massei, considering it didn't rain at all for 2 days.

 

[pilot padron]

pilot padron,

The prosecution never tested a theory of breaking the window as is described in Massei. The defense did, as Sgt. Pasquali testified. Why should a skeptic take the word of the person who did not do the experiment over the word of the person who did? Fuji does not care to answer, but perhaps you can help me to understand.

IMHO Fuji has done very well here, especially today.

May I choose with your concurrence to leave that *new argument* to Fuji.

My statement was simply that the prosecution did in fact prove to the satisfaction of the Court (where it matters) that the break in was staged.
The argument that after the prosecution has proven to the satisfaction of the jurors that the break in did not happen, a poster now chooses to erroneously try and use what s/he considers an all encompassing each and everything burden of proof concept to force the Prosecution to prove the perpetrator who was proven not to exist.... now has left no footprints.

This defies common sense and is the seed of which 50,000++ posts to nowhere continues to grow.

That is all I am saying and care to say at this point.

Cognizant that most of the 'home team' here want to argue with the Prosecution here (where it does not matter), I do not wish to, nor do I see any beneficial result from that pursuit.

ETA
Although I appreciate the implied compliment to my skills at 'helping', I am also cognizant and appreciative of your well earned academic achievements, as well as your well above average knowledge of and ability to discuss the case, and finally of your familiarity with the mountain of posts and pictures about the broken window; many of which you in fact yourself submitted.

For that reason, as well as the fact that I was just 'alluded to' above (of course very 'politely') as an agri cultural worker, I fail to see how myself, a mere man of the earth in need of constant communications engineering, could possibly provide much 'help' to you.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

My memory is fine. Your grasp of the point I was making is deficient, though.

Unless you were intentionally misdirecting the subject, but we can be confident that you wouldn't stoop to such tactics. Right?

I was pointing out that the front door and the the window in Filomena's room were not the only available means of egress (and by comparison to a broken window not even necessarily the best.)

Nothing more. All the "could have" and "could well have" and "might have" you want to conjecture about are utterly irrelevant to that.

But do carry on. It's entertaining, if not enlightening.

Don't get too exited. If this is how you react to finding an irrelevant gotcha to snipe at, I worry that you might burst a blood vessel if you ever found a point to make that actually had something to do with whether or not Knox and Sollecito actually did it.

We're just putting your remarks in the proper context, which is that they are irrelevant to the question of whether the Lone Wolf theory covers the known facts or not.

 

[RWVBWL]

Thanks RWVBWL and LondonJohn!

I checked it and looks like Massei is right and Mignini got it off by a day. Rain on 30th, no rain on 31th or 1st November.

ETA:
I somewhat doubt that earth was "very wet" as in Massei, considering it didn't rain at all for 2 days.

Hi Katody Matrass,
Thanks for the info!
I agree, I too somewhat doubt the earth was "very wet" some 50 hours later when Filomena's bedroom window was broken...

 

[shuttlt]

I apologize ahead of time if I have missed some of the intent connected with this "official interpreter" discussion. I mostly scanned over it thinking this subject was being just a little over-beaten. So let me contribute to the beating! I would suggest that the use of the term "official" or other such term <may> have weight in evaluating the quality of interpretation provided, but as quoted above by spartacus, the interpreter involved testified (as I understand from info in this thread) to doing more than just strict interpretation. So even if she was an "official interpreter", it is her performance which should be considered.

I agree, however, an "official" interpreter can perform well or poorly. A poor performance doesn't make one unofficial. Whether we feel she was crap is another issue. Some of the time I feel that that is what people are trying to say.

Certification or registration, if based on some sort of system of competence, will help raise the level but not solve all of the problems.

Absolutely.

I have worked for years with interpreters in both medical and legal settings (in the US) and those interpreters have largely been paid professionals with some level of certification. As everyone knows, people are not interchangeable widgets, and different skill levels are seen. And as we have seen with this case, words frequently do not translate literally and and there is also a cultural filter that affects the understanding.

Absolutely.

So, the real issue is what the interpreter did, as opposed to the title you want to stick on them.

I agree.

Many times an interpreter will add connotation as part of the translation, and also at the specific request the person receiving the translation. One could easily imagine that the police interpreter in small town Perugia could be quite competent, but not as competent as an interpreter for the United Nations. Or maybe not so competent. She also may have been well meaning in acting more as a mediator, although we start from the fact that she works for the police (that was established wasn't it?) and her allegiance lies with them. Or was she sympathetic with Amanda in a motherly fashion, eg?

Bottom line is that IMO we should focus, not the nomenclature, but on the quality of service that was provided and that seems best illustrated by the testimony of the interpreter herself.

I agree that what we choose to call her is not important, unless that choice is meant to convey something. To me it appeared to be conveying a claim which appears to be false. Right now it seems to me that "unofficial" is a shorthand for "not good" with a bit of childish name calling thrown in. If that's all it means, I think it's silly and confuses things, but I'm not hugely bothered by it.

The difficulties of dealing with this case is a source of continual facination for me. Much of the time it makes it impossible to read even relatively trivial bits of text relating to the case and be absolutely sure what they mean. To be honest I find it hard on this thread sometimes to determine what exactly people mean despite a shared language.

 

[Katody Matrass]

AK and RS's defense teams know they are going to lose on the DNA evidence and everything else.

Do you have any evidence for this? No? I thought so

They have nothing left to throw at the wall except five prison snitches.

I thought they filed a few other requests? But who am I to know such things. You have irrefutable evidence to back up your claims, don't you ?

 

[shuttlt]

I believe it to be almost certain that the interpreter in question, Anna Donnino, is/was not a police officer. She is/was an independent contractor who is/was employed on a freelance basis by the Perugia police whenever they needed Italian/English interpreters.

That agrees with my understanding.

Beyond that, I would make a couple of salient points:

1) I would imagine that Donnino gets/got quite a bit of work from the Perugia police. It would be very interesting to know just how many times she has been employed by them since, say, 2004, and how much she has been paid by them over that time. I would also imagine that she has developed professional relationships with quite a few of the detectives working in the Perugia police HQ. So, even if she's not a member of the police force herself, one might argue that she has a vested interest in defending police actions in the allegations against Knox.

I'm sure everything up until the vested interest part is common to translators you might run into at a police station the world over. Your conclusion surely can't follow for all of them, otherwise it seems to me like rather a general point about the pitfalls of translation work.

2) Donnino clearly overstepped the boundary between being an interpreter and being an interrogator when she (by her own admission in court testimony) tried to "help" Knox along with her "repressed memory". Donnino's actions should have been clearly limited to translating the police officers' questions and statements from Italian to English, and Knox's answers/statements from English to Italian. Nothing more than that. If the case ever gets as far as the Supreme Court (which I severely doubt), I think that the role played by Donnino in the proceedings would form an interesting point of discussion.

If her role should have been limited such that the Supreme Court may take a dim view of it, surely there are some rules, even in Italy, about what a translator may do in fulfilling the function of a translator during an interview (I nearly said interrogation )? Or do you mean that, while there may be no specific rule or guideline broken by her, the Supreme Court may yet regard it as problematic?