Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

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.

In the old days Charlie Wilkes would, I think, have claimed to have been able to give a definitive answer on this. Given the discussions of this topic that have gone on before, either such pictures don't exist, or he's playing his cards closer to his chest than he was letting on.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I'm sure you have some evidence to support this bizarre assertion.

Yes, and it's even more bizarre, could you believe it?
It's called Massei Report

 

[Katody Matrass]

In the old days Charlie Wilkes would, I think, have claimed to have been able to give a definitive answer on this. Given the discussions of this topic that have gone on before, either such pictures don't exist, or he's playing his cards closer to his chest than he was letting on.

Well, certainly the cops (and Massei) play their cards even closer on this.

 

[RandyN]

I would like to hear more about this. Didn't Randy N bring it up? How is this information known?

I first learned about these meetings from the book "Darkness Descending".

While I find many mistakes in this book it does have the Chief of Scientific Investigation for the Carabinieri General Luciano Garofano as a co-author.

The meetings are described along with the participants. Stefanoni is described as the leader of these meetings. Chapter 33 Murder Reconstruction, pg 327-339

BTW Garofano calls parts of Stefanoni's work sloppy. Mostly when speaking about collection, and the use of luminol. His division was not used apparently because the postal police was called first to the scene or some such nonsense. That’s why he was able to be a co-author since his department was not used.

 

[shuttlt]

Well, certainly the cops (and Massei) play their cards even closer on this.

The cops and Massei don't post on message boards and do Internet advocacy though. If they did, I should think we might have even more documents to work with. Sadly the only group with any kind of access to the case file and any kind of interest in persuading the Internet is FOA and associates.

 

[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?

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"

I had to do a logical doubletake on this one.

This is an extremely bungled attempted assertion of an instance of the subset of the argument from evidence, commonly known as "absence of evidence".

However, the argument that I am actually using could be considerably more accurately summarized as "evidence of absence":

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

I already did show my working. But I'll go through it one last time for you, in a nice easy-to-follow numbered format:

1) Courts cannot accept findings of fact from a different trial.

2) The Italian Supreme Court confirmed both the law applied in Guede's trial and the findings of fact - among which were the facts that Guede did not break into the cottage and that Guede did not act alone in the murder.

3) These findings of fact cannot be used in the trials of Knox and Sollecito.

4) The prosecution in the trials of Knox and Sollecito will have to prove from first principles (evidence and witness testimony) that the break-in was staged and that Knox and Sollecito were participants in a group crime, if they want Hellmann's court to accept these points.

5) Neither the prosecution nor the court in Knox's/Sollecito's trials will be able to (or allowed to) reference the findings of fact from Guede's trials as as any kind of proof in and of themselves of those facts.

Hope that made things a little clearer for you!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

need further explanation

While you're at it, pilot, perhaps you could answer for me, since halides1 does not care to answer, if you think that the Perugian police sent their photographer to specifically investigate the ground under the window without any expectation at all that as the photographer, she might, as one might assume, have a natural inclination towards taking pictures?

Fuji,

I have never said that I think anything about photographer for the Perugian police, one way or another. Can you explain what you mean? Also, I wish that you would at least clarify one thing for me. You position seems to be that the condition of the ground under the window (lack of glass or lack of trampling or both) proves that it was a staged break-in. My position is that Sgt. Pasquali's work indicates that the Massei conjecture of how the window is broken is wrong, a position that is at least consistent with an unstaged break-in. Is it your position that the evidence under the window is stronger than Pasquali's results? If so, why?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Interesting.

So, I guess LondonJohn is off the hook, since apparently you're going to supply the cite that a blow of sufficient force to produce a nosebleed in an individual will "almost certainly" leave notable visible bruising on them as well.

Umm, no^*). Why do you think prosecution failed to present this jewel in court? Why was Mignini rambling instead about "scratches" that Amanda kept covered when in front of the ILE heroes?


*) You can always take the empiric approach, don't forget to post the results (but spare us the pics please )

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a difference

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.

Alt+F4,

I consider inmates to be potentially unreliable when they are testifying against defendant in a trial because the inmate may be trying to curry favor by helping to convict someone. The inmates in this case cannot do any further legal harm to Guede (they are not in position to convict him; he is already convicted. They could be said to be testifying for Knox and Sollecito, not against Guede.
EDT
Any convicts who testified in a way that helped Knox or Sollecito would not be currying favor with ILE.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

If the computer records are as described in the appeal documents (and if they are accepted as reliable by the court), then they would appear to form elements of a pretty strong alibi - but only technically for one of the two: I'm guessing Sollecito. I suspect that if that were the case, Hellmann's court would likely still want to establish whether there was a possibility that Knox had left Sollecito's apartment alone that evening, and that Sollecito was (for some reason) covering for her.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Not to worry. I'm just hanging around for the show.

Relatively few people (in the larger scheme of things) are as emotionally invested in this topic as you seem to be. Don't judge others by your own hang-ups.

Why is it that whenever someone points out a fact which doesn't conform to the "innocentisti" version of reality it is somehow "irrelevant?

Never mind, I know the answer.

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.

Is this your way to describe bringing up an argument I didn't make, and then disagreeing with it?

Cute. Intellectually dishonest and rather sophomoric, but cute, nonetheless.

 

[Fuji]

In the old days Charlie Wilkes would, I think, have claimed to have been able to give a definitive answer on this. Given the discussions of this topic that have gone on before, either such pictures don't exist, or he's playing his cards closer to his chest than he was letting on.

Hi shuttlt. Yes, I remember you from the "old days" (I was just watching back then).

I agree. In fact, I'll go further than you and publicly ask "Charlie Wilkes" to release into the public domain all the pictures he has of the ground and wall underneath Filomena's window. Unless the Knox family didn't provide these photos to him, which of course only suggests other possible inquiries, such as: "Why not?""

 

[Katody Matrass]

The cops and Massei don't post on message boards and do Internet advocacy though. If they did, I should think we might have even more documents to work with. Sadly the only group with any kind of access to the case file and any kind of interest in persuading the Internet is FOA and associates.

Massei sources everything with references either to testimony trascripts (with page numbers) or to actual exhibits or reports (with symbols and numbers of photos, page numbers). He fails to do so only when he delves into conjecture, like with the "knife carried for protection" tale or the "no glass outside" one.

The cops used to be fairly liberal with releasing photos and other interesting pieces, too.

So if anything existed we would have it (or at least a reference).

 

[LondonJohn]

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

So, show us any evi dence what so ever that Knox was a user of co caine - let alone that she had used co caine on the night of the mur der - and we can talk more about this issue.

No? Nothing? Really? No evi dence from the police's dealer contacts? No? No traces of drugs other than mari juana found in Sollecito's or Knox's res i dences? No? No positive drugs tests for drugs other than mari juana following their a rrest on November 6th? No? No test i mony from friends, housemates or anyone else that they had seen Knox using co caine at any time? No? Nothing? Oh, OK then......

 

[Fuji]

Yes, and it's even more bizarre, could you believe it?
It's called Massei Report

Great one-liner. Crappy substantive reply.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Great one-liner. Crappy substantive reply.

Relax. Here's a hint:

exibit [403]

 

[RandyN]

Guede’s legal team have worked the Italian justice system to enable their client’s sentence to be reduced to 16 years, I doubt that he’ll serve more than 10 years probably less therefore; it’s not in his interest to appear.Does anyone know which defence team requested Aviello as a witness?

Of course its not in his interest to appear. That’s why having a few jail house snitches who are claiming that RG told them he acted alone will compel the judge to demand that Guede appear. In that case Guede does not have the choice to remain silent. He can be assessed time for failing to answer and he can be assessed time for lying to the court. Although I agree with you that in any case he will serve no more time at all.

 

[pilot padron]

Hellmann's court would likely still want to establish whether there was a possibility that Knox had left Sollecito's apartment alone that evening, and that Sollecito was (for some reason) covering for her.

Well, yeah......

Even a poor Aggie alumnus, man of the earth, might think that is indeed a 'possibility'.
Particularly since Raffie said at some point (in his several versions):

1) the previous story was rubbish because I was covering for Amanda

2) Amanda did leave my apartment and did not return for several hours

Not precise verbiage perhaps (no quote marks for communications specialist selective monitor), but definitely precisely correct intent

(Therefore, please spare us another "I was there" voluminous circular jerky journey to nowhere)

Kinda obvious like cocaine use is just one of the several non impact causes of nosebleeds

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

It still takes a fair blow to cause a nose bleed. And yes, that part of the argument was specifically about whether it was possible to give someone a nosebleed without there being associated marks and/or bruising.

But yes, of course there were other potential ways in which Knox might have been losing blood during the murder. She could have bitten her mouth or tongue of course (I'm guessing the police didn't check her mouth either soon after the murder or even upon her arrest). She could have had a completely incidental nosebleed. She could have had bleeding gums from poor dental hygeine. She could have been menstruating, and got blood on her hands from removing a sanitary pad when changing after having committed the bloody deed. Etc. Etc.

In any case, in my view it's all moot. As I (and many others) have pointed out often before, the way in which the bathroom blood samples were collected means that the probative value of anything found upon them is severely damaged. The long smearing, wiping motions made in collecting evidence from the sink and taps (faucets) means that the "crack" forensics officers were simply "sweeping up" any DNA-containing material present over very wide areas. There were plenty of entirely innocent reasons for traces of Knox's DNA to have been present in the sink she used every day - the fact that these traces were mopped up by the forensics team onto the same swab as Meredith's blood traces is of no evidential value.