Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Draca]

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

That is not what I said at all. The police claim that there were no signs of the climb. They needed to document that and not force the reliance on the testimony of an officer on what they 'observed'.

Massei pg 50
The double climb necessary to attain the height of three and a half metres would have left some kind of trace or imprint on the wall, especially on the points on the wall that the "climber" would have used to support his feet, all the more as both the witnesses Romanelli and Marco Zaroli gave statements indicating that the earth, on that early November evening, must have been very wet (declarations of Marco Zaroli, hearing of February 6, 2009, p. 174, and declarations of Filomena Romanelli, hearing of July 7, 2009 p. 24; see also the document acquired at the hearing of March 28, 2009 concerning the fact that on October 30, 2007, it was raining). In fact, there are no visible signs on the wall, and furthermore, it can be observed that the nail - this was noted by this Court of Assizes during the inspection - remained where it was: it seems very unlikely that the climber, given the position of that nail and its characteristics, visible in the photo 11, did not somehow "encounter" that nail and force it, inadvertently or by using it as a foothold, causing it to fall or at least bend it. On this subject it is also useful to recall that at the hearing of April 23, 2009, the witness Gioia Brocci mentioned above declared that she had observed the exterior of the house, paying particular attention to the wall underneath the window with the broken pane, the window of the room then occupied by Filomena Romanelli. She said: "We observed both the wall...underneath the window and all of the vegetation underneath the window, and we noted that there were no traces on the wall, no traces of earth, of grass, nothing, no streaks, nothing at all, and none [39] of the vegetation underneath the window appeared to have been trampled; nothing" (p. 142 declarations of Gioia Brocci).

She also recalled the existence of a nail on that wall, which jutted out about 6cm, and added that "walking along the outside perimeter of the house" her shoes became dirty with "grass attached to the shoes" (p. 145, cf. also declarations of the assistant Zugarini, hearing of Feb. 28, 2009, p. 133).

Massei is making a lot of claims here that the defense has no real chance to defend against because the police failed to properly document the very things they are claiming. Where are the closeup photos of the outside wall that prove their claim that there were NO TRACES ANYWHERE? Where is the photo of the grass? It's the same situation with no photos of glass on top of items as claimed, where once again everyone is to rely on testimony because the police failed to document with photographs.

 

[Draca]

Also Pilot Padron,

It does indeed appear from the few subpar photos that are around that there actually ARE signs that should have been looked at closer. And should show reasonable doubt on whether the breakin was real or not:

Photo above window where someone possibly balanced on an edge with their shoes:




Photo of dirt on items on floor where someone possibly left traces of the outside wall after stepping on them:

 

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Chris C
They didn't take photographs of the ground beneath the window.

I've said it before, and I feel like I'll have to keep on saying it in this thread:

On what factual basis do you make this assertion?

Show me where Massei says at any point that indeed what Gioia Brocci testified to is clear to be seen in the photos entered in the evidence file. How is Chris suppose to prove something doesn't exist. It would be easier for you to prove these outside photos do exist. Surely they are mentioned in the Massei and Micheli report as they would be important backup evidence of a staged breakin. Perhaps you could supply Chris with the page numbers to satisfy him that he was mistaken?

 

[RWVBWL]

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.

Greetings Fuji,
I have wondered why,
of all of the 3 individuals imprisoned for this brutal murder we discuss, only Rudy Guede had cuts on him?

Amanda Knox had what most folks would agree is a hickey on her neck. That's understandable, she had just started dating a new, inexperienced luver and the guy was probably as horny as can be...
I'm a guy. And I am the 1 who usually gives a hickey every once in awhile to the women I date, hahaha. Sometimes the gals get a lil' mad.
Besides that hickey, there was not any type of bruises or cuts on Amanda Knox. What does that tell you?

What about Raffaele Sollecito?
Well he did not have any cuts nor bruises either.
What does that tell you?

Both of these 2 young folks did not run away and flee the country, so the police were able to see their hands and IIRC, after their imprisonment just a few days later, futher examine their bodies for bruises or cuts. And nothing was ever found except for that hickey.

But didn't Rudy Guede, he who ran away to Germany, have visible cuts healing on his hands when he was caught.

Doesn't this tell you something about who was truly there the night Meredith Kercher was stabbed to her death with a knife in her own bedroom?

Can you, or any other members of the pro-guilt community give me a decent, believable explanation for why only Rudy, who also left his fingerprints and DNA in that bedroom, is the only 1 with cuts on him? I ask this since Mignini believes that Amanda stabbed Meredith in her throat with that huuuuge kitchen knife she carried around town for protection and so I should have thought that she, of all 3, would have cuts on her hands, not Rudy.

Thanks for any replies,
RW

 

[RWVBWL]

Frank Sfarzo...

Frank's back!

http://perugia-shock.com/blog/

 

[Fine]

Frank's back!

http://perugia-shock.com/blog/

___________________________

'Caso chiuso’ again.

And if the lovebirds win their appeal..........will the honored cops be asked to return their awards? If not, there should be a strong demand for those awards on eBay.

///

 

[Mary_H]

Ok, let's talk it out. First, what is the claim that you feel is unsupported?

That it is common for burglars to use the toilets during a burglary and not flush?

It obviously happens, but you seem to dispute whether it is "common" or not. Do I have that right?<snip>

I am going to guess that it is common enough. It may be a largely subconscious way of expressing contempt. I had a sleazy landlord once who left an impressive, unflushed souvenir in my toilet, after he was in my apartment without permission. Another time, a young man treated me to a sight I would rather not have seen as I walked past his yard, i.e., he copped a squat, for my benefit.

The use of feces for communication seems to be a measurably frequent behavior in disturbed individuals. Hey, cats do it all the time to let their owners know they're mad at them -- why not people, too?

 

[LondonJohn]

[/B]



I have to agree with Fuji on this point.

Its exactly because there is zero evidence of AK or RS in the murder room that one can absolutely state that they were absent or never there. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

i would disagree with you on both point, FWIW. I don't think that zero evidence of Knox in the murder room (don't forget, there's currently the DNA on the bra clasp allegedly tying Sollecito to the room) is evidence that she wasn't there at the time of the murder. But that's actually of lesser importance in this criminal case. The important point is that the defence doesn't have to prove that Knox (or Sollecito) wasn't in the room at the time of the murder: it's entirely incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that she (and he) was there. So the absence of evidence in this area is damaging to the prosecution's burden of proof, but not fatal.

And in general terms, both you and Fuji are correct to say that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" maxim is not always correct. But the circumstances when absence of evidence can be taken as evidence of absence are few and particular. I had actually alluded to such an example in an earlier post: if a concrete floor is poured at 10am, and it is examined at 10pm and found to have a pristine smooth surface, this is evidence that no human walked across that flooring between about 2pm (when the concrete would have started to set up) and 10pm. The maxim holds true in all but a small number of specific instances. The ground below Filomena's window is not one such instance.

In the case of the ground below Filomena's window, the prosecution has to show why the alleged (no photos apparently exist) "pristine" condition of the ground is somehow proof that nobody stood on that ground some 18 hours earlier. And it's worth noting that not only is this inference highly debatable, but also that the "crack" police don't even apparently have anything more than verbal testimony as to the condition of the ground on the afternoon of November 2nd in any case! In short, in the case of the ground underneath Filomena's window, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is a pdf file on luminol and a commercial version called hemaglow that gives some luminol false positives. Drano gives a positive result. Fantastic, babo cleanser, Fast Orange and The Works give weak positives.

There are many substances that cause a weak positive Luminol reaction. Then there is the total logic fail. The claims are that the Luminol reaction here is a strong one but the second claim is the TMB tests were negative due to the high dilution of the blood. As can be plainly seen from the following chart, the Luminol reaction decreases as the dilution of the blood increases. Somebody please explain this logic to me.






http://www.abacusdiagnostics.com/De...Light_Emitting_Blood_Enhancement_Reagents.pdf

 

[RoseMontague]

Also Pilot Padron,

It does indeed appear from the few subpar photos that are around that there actually ARE signs that should have been looked at closer. And should show reasonable doubt on whether the breakin was real or not:

Photo above window where someone possibly balanced on an edge with their shoes:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664ddb3b9126aae.jpg[/qimg]


Photo of dirt on items on floor where someone possibly left traces of the outside wall after stepping on them:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664ddb3b6a54af7.jpg[/qimg]

There are also signs on the wall itself. Fortunately we have these pictures, not because the cops took them of course. I wonder if the cops are also wrong about the undisturbed vegatation/ground below the window?

 

[shuttlt]

Can you, or any other members of the pro-guilt community give me a decent, believable explanation for why only Rudy, who also left his fingerprints and DNA in that bedroom, is the only 1 with cuts on him? I ask this since Mignini believes that Amanda stabbed Meredith in her throat with that huuuuge kitchen knife she carried around town for protection and so I should have thought that she, of all 3, would have cuts on her hands, not Rudy.

Are the cuts on the hands supposed to be accidentally self-inflicted? I don't see why one would necessarily get cuts stabbing a restrained person, or possibly even an unrestrained person, in the throat.

 

[Alt+F4]

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.

What makes you think the court is going to address any of this? On Saturday:

Chris Mellas pointed out that it is "possible" that a verdict may be reached at the beginning of August. He explained, "The forensic experts will give their findings June 30, and the judges want to confer with other DNA experts so that they understand what is being discussed, almost like another third party opinion to help them interpret it and make an appropriate decision. The time allotted runs to July 25. They typically break for summer vacation the month of August, but it is possible they will hear closing arguments, then reach a verdict prior to the summer break."

I think the family knows better than you what's coming up. Sorry, John, you're wrong. It's the DNA evidence, the five convicts and that's it. So yes, the five convicts are the best the defense can come up with.

www.westseattleherald.com/node/180416

 

[shuttlt]

There are also signs on the wall itself. Fortunately we have these pictures, not because the cops took them of course. I wonder if the cops are also wrong about the undisturbed vegatation/ground below the window?

To me, those don't look like marks of somebody climbing the wall, but what do I know? If they are, the person doesn't seem to have had any mud on their shoes.

Going back to a previous post of yours. The Mignini CNN interview. Are you saying that its obvious from the text alone that Mignini wants people to believe the mark on Amanda's neck was significant, or that ,given a wider knowledge of Mignini, that that is the most likely of multiple possible readings?

 

[LondonJohn]

What makes you think the court is going to address any of this? On Saturday:



I think the family knows better than you what's coming up. Sorry, John, you're wrong. It's the DNA evidence, the five convicts and that's it. So yes, the five convicts are the best the defense can come up with.

www.westseattleherald.com/node/180416

Sorry, Alt+F4, you still have no grasp whatsoever of what a first appeal trial is in Italy. It's not the same as you have back in the US, you know. The appeal isn't limited to specific challenges to the prosecution's case from the first trial.

It's a whole new trial, from scratch, with a whole new verdict.

This means that Hellmann's court will hear arguments about every single element of the case, and will reach a completely new verdict based purely on what it hears and sees in the appeal trial. The only way in which the first trial impacts upon it is that the evidence and testimony from the first trial is typically used as the basis for the arguments in the first appeal - unless, that is, the judge in the appeal trial allows new evidence or testimony to be introduced. Hellmann's rulings on Saturday about allowing the testimony of five inmates was just such a ruling (as of course were his earlier rulings in December last year re the independent DNA review and Curatolo's recall).

But be in no doubt that every single issue relevant to this case will be raised and argued in the appeal trial. That's the way it works. Hellmann's court cannot reach a verdict without hearing the entire case - it's a de novo trial. I find it quite hard to believe that you still can't grasp this simple concept after such a long time - and after it's been explained so many times.

 

[shuttlt]

But be in no doubt that every single issue relevant to this case will be raised and argued in the appeal trial. That's the way it works. Hellmann's court cannot reach a verdict without hearing the entire case - it's a de novo trial. I find it quite hard to believe that you still can't grasp this simple concept after such a long time - and after it's been explained so many times.

Is the plan to do this 5 days a week then? If they were to rehear everything from the old trial at the same pace as the old trial there's not a hope in hell of them getting a judgement by the end of July. Even doing this 5 days a week that seems kind of quick.

 

[LondonJohn]

To me, those don't look like marks of somebody climbing the wall, but what do I know? If they are, the person doesn't seem to have had any mud on their shoes.

Going back to a previous post of yours. The Mignini CNN interview. Are you saying that its obvious from the text alone that Mignini wants people to believe the mark on Amanda's neck was significant, or that ,given a wider knowledge of Mignini, that that is the most likely of multiple possible readings?

The historical data show that there was light rain in Perugia on October 30th, but no rain on the 31st or November 1st. And rainfall across the whole month of October 2007 was light to moderate. So I find it hard to believe that the surface of the ground below Filomena's window was particularly muddy, when apparently there had been no precipitation for at least 44 hours before 8.30pm on November 1st 2007.

And even though the latter question isn't directed at me, yes: I think Mignini intended to imply that Knox's neck "wound" was related to the murder, and that Knox herself was trying to conceal it. His use of the phrase "Amanda kept herself covered" clearly (to me) implies - by Mignini - a conscious attempt by Knox to cover her neck, rather than the implication that Knox just happened to be wearing clothing that concealed the mark. And of course the fact that Mignini even argues that Knox "kept herself covered", when clear photographic and video testimony of her outside the cottage the day after the murder shows exactly the opposite, indicates to me that Mignini's trying to spin this issue.

 

[shuttlt]

And even though the latter question isn't directed at me, yes: I think Mignini intended to imply that Knox's neck "wound" was related to the murder, and that Knox herself was trying to conceal it. His use of the phrase "Amanda kept herself covered" clearly (to me) implies - by Mignini - a conscious attempt by Knox to cover her neck, rather than the implication that Knox just happened to be wearing clothing that concealed the mark. And of course the fact that Mignini even argues that Knox "kept herself covered", when clear photographic and video testimony of her outside the cottage the day after the murder shows exactly the opposite, indicates to me that Mignini's trying to spin this issue.

So you don't accept any other readings are reasonable based on the text alone?

 

[Alt+F4]

But be in no doubt that every single issue relevant to this case will be raised and argued in the appeal trial. That's the way it works. Hellmann's court cannot reach a verdict without hearing the entire case - it's a de novo trial. I find it quite hard to believe that you still can't grasp this simple concept after such a long time - and after it's been explained so many times.

Well tell that to Amanda Knox's family. They are hoping for closing arguments in late July. They have made no mention of any other witnesses or evidence being heard beyond the DNA and the five convicts. I find it quite hard to believe that you think you know more about what's going on in this appeal than they do.

 

[RoseMontague]

To me, those don't look like marks of somebody climbing the wall, but what do I know? If they are, the person doesn't seem to have had any mud on their shoes.

Going back to a previous post of yours. The Mignini CNN interview. Are you saying that its obvious from the text alone that Mignini wants people to believe the mark on Amanda's neck was significant, or that ,given a wider knowledge of Mignini, that that is the most likely of multiple possible readings?

I believe his intent is to imply guilt by the mark and to imply that she tried to hide it from investigators. That is just my opinion. I suppose he could have just casually mentioned this in response to the questions about wounds. He could have also said that Raffaele and Amanda had no wounds.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is the plan to do this 5 days a week then? If they were to rehear everything from the old trial at the same pace as the old trial there's not a hope in hell of them getting a judgement by the end of July. Even doing this 5 days a week that seems kind of quick.

There are two issues here: the speed of the trial, and the procedure. If the court were working 5 days a week, it would in theory be eminently possible to reach a verdict by July. But I don't believe the court will sit for any more than 2 or 3 days a week - mainly in order to accommodate Bongiorno.

But, speed issues aside, there is also the issue of procedure. Hellmann has, for example, still reserved judgement on calling for additional witnesses and testimony. The DNA report will hot be handed to the court before the end of June. And that report in itself may precipitate the recall of certain expert witnesses. Following all the new witness testimony and admittance of new evidence, the actual arguments will be made by both sides. And since this is a de novo trial, the arguments will be as full and as long as they were in the first trial. Indeed, the argument phase of the trial could conceivably last for months. The argument phase in the first trial lasted for around three weeks.

So no, I think it's highly unlikely that the appeal court will reach a verdict before the end of July. I would imagine that the court will have a recess over August, and reconvene in mid-September, with a verdict being reached by mid-October. Only my opinion though.