Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Is evidence they know they're gone lose? How does it follow? Please explain.

They will lose.

Why do you think it's the best? Care to give some evidence ?

What else is there? Are you suggesting the defense wanted the computer expert or one of the others mentioned in the appeals to testify over the summer and the court refused? What is your explaination why the defense went with the five inmates? Or are you just making stuff up? What we do know as a fact is that the only scheduled witnesses for the summer are these five. What do you know that everyone else doesn't?

 

[shuttlt]

Completely incomparable. I am guessing that if your daughter cut the inside of her mouth but not the outside, she either bit her gum or had a soft impact which nonetheless pushed one of her teeth into her gum.

I guarantee you that to be hit hard enough on the nose to cause it to bleed is to guarantee a level of bruising to the nose, cheeks or lips - and usually one or two black eyes to boot. One cannot get a nosebleed from a light tap on the nose, or even a sharp slap - it needs a fairly full-blooded hit with an open hand or a punch. And that will leave marks and bruising.

Is there any reason why it has to be her nose? I thought that was just an example of somewhere from which blood might come without leaving a visible wound? If we're talking nose bleeds, some people are more prone to them than others.

 

[Fuji]

You're wrong. simple as that.

I suggest you read some information on modern jurisprudence, and you may find out that rulings of fact in one trial have no bearing on rulings of fact in any other trial - the facts have to be proven in each trial totally separately. it is only rulings in law that can be applied across different cases.

Therefore, the findings of fact in Guede's trials have zero implications for the findings of fact in Knox's/Sollecito's trials. The prosecution won't even be able to refer to the findings of fact in Guede's trials during Knox's/Sollecito's current appeal. Hellmann's court will restrict itself to considering evidence presented directly to it during the appeal (whether evidence/testimony brought over from the first trial or the new evidence/testimony granted by Hellmann).

If the prosecution can prove to Hellmann's court that this was a group crime (using primary evidence and testimony), and that Knox and Sollecito were part of that group, then so be it. But what the prosecution won't be able to do is say something like: "Ah, the Supreme Court just validated the verdict against Guede - which convicted him of being part of a group of people who killed Meredith Kercher - and we contend that Knox and Sollecito were the other members of that group."

If you're going to continue "arguing" this point, please could you at least have the courtesy of gaining some additional comprehension about the subject first - otherwise it's like arguing in a vacuum...

I said: "There is no way that the appellant lawyers would be able to successfully pursue any line of defense dependent upon a contradiction (i.e. Guede was alone and/or actually broke in) of these two points."

You said: "You're wrong. simple as that."

I say: Show your work. All I see are assertions, same as mine. I concede mine is opinion. And you?

 

[Diocletus]

Incorrect. If there is no discernible evidence of anyone having stood under that window on the night in question, then in and of itself this is a strong indicator that the burglary was staged.

Well . . . the alleged absence of "evidence" (trampled vegetation) of someone standing under the window the night of the crime might be suggestive of a staging if: 1) we would necessarily see trampled vegetation if there was a true break in, 2) someone adequately serched for trampled vegetation, and 3) it wasn't there.

You're not there on No. 1, as there have already been multiple explanations for why vegetation would not appear trampled. Also, you're quite weak on No. 2, having to rely on the testimony of just a photographer. As to No. 3--where's the pic?

No, that is the only evidence that you have cited. Massei does not have to indicate which specific photographic or other forensic exhibit was the crucial determinant for him in reaching his conclusion. It is implicit that his judgments are made in consideration of the extensive evidence file.

Well, if you're saying there is some secret evidence in the file that Massei doesn't cite, what can I tell you? Ordinarily, the way these things work, is the court marshals its best arguments and evidence and puts them in its opinion, which in this case is 400 pages. If you're saying that you believe Massei for some reason did not do this, and you know of some better evidence in "the file" then you're definitely ahead of me.

 

[shuttlt]

Are you suggesting the defense wanted the computer expert or one of the others mentioned in the appeals to testify over the summer and the court refused?

This presentation of this evidence is overdue is it?

 

[LondonJohn]

Calling five prison snitches to testify IS evidence of this. No wonder Amanda was crying on Saturday. I'd be crying too if this is the best my defense could come up with.



Did they? I know others (such as a computer expert) were mentioned in RS's appeal but what happened with that? Do you know?

Nah - I think that the "best the defence can come up with" might include a total rebuttal of the DNA evidence, a full discrediting of Curatolo, a discrediting of Capezzali, a proper rebuttal of the time of death, a proper examination of the computer records (specifically the screenserver log on Sollecito's laptop), a rebuttal of the bathmat partial print evidence, a supported argument that the break-in was more likely real rather than staged, and a complete discrediting of Quintavalle.

And regarding the new computer expert (and other expert witnesses), Hellmann has already said that he has reserved judgement on calling them until the independent DNA report has been assessed. The interesting point is why he reserved judgement like this. If it was because he didn't want to waste time assessing things before getting the DNA testing done, then that is a neutral position. But if that's not the case, then it seems like he wanted to make further new evidence/testimony decisions based on what came back from the DNA report. If i were a betting man, I might put a cheeky tenner on Hellmann throwing out the case if the DNA report says what the leaks suggest it might say....

 

[Fuji]

Completely incomparable. I am guessing that if your daughter cut the inside of her mouth but not the outside, she either bit her gum or had a soft impact which nonetheless pushed one of her teeth into her gum.

I guarantee you that to be hit hard enough on the nose to cause it to bleed is to guarantee a level of bruising to the nose, cheeks or lips - and usually one or two black eyes to boot. One cannot get a nosebleed from a light tap on the nose, or even a sharp slap - it needs a fairly full-blooded hit with an open hand or a punch. And that will leave marks and bruising.

And one almost certainly can't leave DNA evidence at a crime scene with a cut cheek or gum or lip. And furthermore, oops... <ahem>.... what was that?

 

[Alt+F4]

What is the evidence that you believe will be the basis for refusing the appeal?

I believe that Curatolo's testimony will be tossed, but everything else will remain. What makes you think that the pairs new "super witnesses" will get them off?

 

[shuttlt]

If i were a betting man, I might put a cheeky tenner on Hellmann throwing out the case if the DNA report says what the leaks suggest it might say....

If the computer records provide an alibi, wouldn't that do the job just as well?

 

[LondonJohn]

Incorrect. If there is no discernible evidence of anyone having stood under that window on the night in question, then in and of itself this is a strong indicator that the burglary was staged.

I nearly spat out my lovely fresh mint tea when I read this gem! Do you not realise that in order for the police/prosecution to make their point properly, they would have to provide positive evidence that no person had stood on that ground on the evening of November 1st? Have you never heard the very true maxim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - which is exactly what you are suggesting here?

I would genuinely love someone to stand up in a court one day and say what you suggested: "We didn't find any evidence of someone standing on that ground, so this is in and of itself a strong indicator that nobody stood on that ground"

 

[Fuji]

Well . . . the alleged absence of "evidence" (trampled vegetation) of someone standing under the window the night of the crime might be suggestive of a staging if: 1) we would necessarily see trampled vegetation if there was a true break in, 2) someone adequately serched for trampled vegetation, and 3) it wasn't there.

You're not there on No. 1, as there have already been multiple explanations for why vegetation would not appear trampled. Also, you're quite weak on No. 2, having to rely on the testimony of just a photographer. As to No. 3--where's the pic?

1) I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that if the police swore in court that they sent someone to check it out, that they think it's possibly significant. Being the police, they probably investigate a lot of break-ins.

2) As I have said in other posts, I believe that mention of Ms. Brocci's testimony in the "Massei report" should not be taken to assume that photographic evidence was not introduced.

3) As previously stated, ask Buongiorno or dalla Vadova.

Well, if you're saying there is some secret evidence in the file that Massei doesn't cite, what can I tell you? Ordinarily, the way these things work, is the court marshals its best arguments and evidence and puts them in its opinion, which in this case is 400 pages. If you're saying that you believe Massei for some reason did not do this, and you know of some better evidence in "the file" then you're definitely ahead of me.

This whole "secret evidence" meme is so ridiculous it almost deserves its own thread of derision. It's not "secret" evidence - it's not explicitly cited and reproduced publicly evidence that is so problematic for some people.

 

[Katody Matrass]

This presentation of this evidence is overdue is it?

IIRC they already filed the request for reexamination at the beginning of the appeal, along with the data they extracted from the hard drive copy. Isn't it up to the court to decide who to hear and when?

 

[pilot padron]

Completely incomparable.....
One cannot get a nosebleed from a light tap on the nose, or even a sharp slap - it needs a fairly full-blooded hit with an open hand or a punch. And that will leave marks and bruising.

Of course with your oft stated belief in superiority of google and library card use to formal academic training (shades of TOD), surely you know that cocaine use is listed as just one of several possible causes of nose bleeds.
Just sayin'

Or maybe the home team did not want that player to be exposed on their less than level playing field here

Please spare us the also selectively used documentation whine

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/nosebleeds/article_em.htm#Nosebleeds Causes

 

[shuttlt]

I nearly spat out my lovely fresh mint tea when I read this gem! Do you not realise that in order for the police/prosecution to make their point properly, they would have to provide positive evidence that no person had stood on that ground on the evening of November 1st? Have you never heard the very true maxim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - which is exactly what you are suggesting here?

I would genuinely love someone to stand up in a court one day and say what you suggested: "We didn't find any evidence of someone standing on that ground, so this is in and of itself a strong indicator that nobody stood on that ground"

Are you really arguing about the absence of evidence.... thing, or objecting to the assumption that one would expect to find evidence had somebody stood there?

 

[Alt+F4]

Nah - I think that the "best the defence can come up with" might include a total rebuttal of the DNA evidence, a full discrediting of Curatolo, a discrediting of Capezzali, a proper rebuttal of the time of death, a proper examination of the computer records (specifically the screenserver log on Sollecito's laptop), a rebuttal of the bathmat partial print evidence, a supported argument that the break-in was more likely real rather than staged, and a complete discrediting of Quintavalle.

Ok, let's assume you're correct and Hellmann allows all this into the appeal plus whatever other witnesses/evidence the prosecution and defense comes up with along the way (after all, the three additional inmates aren't mentioned in the appeals). Considering the snail's pace this appeal is going at, all of what you mentioned would drag the appeal on for years. I don't see the court allowing that to happen. I see all of this being wrapped up in September.

If i were a betting man, I might put a cheeky tenner on Hellmann throwing out the case if the DNA report says what the leaks suggest it might say....

I don't think the defense see it that way, if they did they wouldn't be calling the worst type of witness ever...inmates.

 

[shuttlt]

IIRC they already filed the request for reexamination at the beginning of the appeal, along with the data they extracted from the hard drive copy. Isn't it up to the court to decide who to hear and when?

Do idea. I was asking for clarification.

 

[Fuji]

I nearly spat out my lovely fresh mint tea when I read this gem! Do you not realise that in order for the police/prosecution to make their point properly, they would have to provide positive evidence that no person had stood on that ground on the evening of November 1st? Have you never heard the very true maxim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - which is exactly what you are suggesting here?

They alluded to it. Page 50.

I would genuinely love someone to stand up in a court one day and say what you suggested: "We didn't find any evidence of someone standing on that ground, so this is in and of itself a strong indicator that nobody stood on that ground"

So would I, because it would probably mean I was in a Jim Carrey movie. Still, I don't see how this has any relevance to what I actually said...

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes. The people who were offering rebuttals to arguments I never made in the first place were erecting straw men.

<snip>


What straw man would that be? That the balcony door was also a potential means of egress from the apartment?


<snip>

Is there some peculiarly British meaning of "straw man" which I am unfamiliar with, or are you just tossing the term around because you think it sounds erudite?

Thank you for your..... detailed... response.

No, I do know what the term "straw man" means. It was in response to the following sentences in the post of yours that I was replying to (my bolding):

There is nothing unconventional about an entrance door which requires a key to allow passage in from the exterior. Sometimes it can prove inconvenient, which appears to have been the case with that door.

On reflection, I think this may have been a mistake by you rather than a straw man - I suspect you meant to write "...requires a key to allow passage out from the interior". I might be wrong though.....

And I am of course totally aware that many (indeed most) front doors have a double lock arrangement - with a key-operated deadbolt and a spring latch operated with a thumb lever from the inside but a key from the outside. My own front door has just such a configuration. I would suggest that most people use the spring latch on a day-to-day basis for security, and only use the deadbolt when they are going away for an extended period or if they feel particularly insecure for some reason. I would judge that it is unusual for people to deadbolt their front door behind them when they come home at night - unless they live in high-crime areas or are of a very nervous disposition.

 

[Katody Matrass]

They will lose.

Uhmmm, OK.

What do you know that everyone else doesn't?

Not everyone, just you

 

[quadraginta]

Ah, I see what you've done: you've completely misrepresented me to suit your own agenda. Magnifique!

What I actually argued was that if Guede (or whoever) had chosen the balcony doors, he would have been faced with two problems that were much lessened by choosing Filomena's window: the first is the sheer extra distance he'd have needed to cover in order to escape if he was spotted breaking in (or if there was someone in the cottage), and the second is that the only way back to the driveway (and the main road) from the ground below the balcony involves a narrow bottleneck at the side of the wall of Laura's bedroom. Any burglar would prefer to avoid confined confrontations if possible, and the exit from below Filomena's window was both fast and broad. The visibility of both Filomena's window and the balcony doors from the main road is actually fairly similar (but from different directions on the road).

And I've actually thought of a third reason why Filomena's window might have made more sense than the balcony: If there was someone inside the cottage (someone dozing with the lights off, for example) who was alerted by the breaking window, they might well have come to the front door to investigate. The only way out from the balcony area meant having to pass the front door area, whereas the exit from below Filomena's window would take any burglar directly away from the front door.

You keep saying this.

Are you having some sort of Goebbels Moment, where you are convinced that if you say something loud enough and often enough it will somehow become true?

Here's an overhead view of the cottage (courtesy of Google Earth.)



The red I have added is the area around the cottage which you insist comprises the only possible routes he could have used to leave the immediate vicinity of the cottage. At which point he would presumably have started running madly up the road.

In an inconspicuous fashion, of course.



Are Italians somehow allergic to wooded areas? Why couldn't he have gone into the woods and gone from there to anywhere he wanted to? If I was running away and trying to get out of sight in a hurry the street would be the very last place I'd head in those surroundings.

Maybe he's a city boy, and doesn't realize it is possible to travel across landscape that isn't paved?