Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[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?

If you look at the high resolution photo's of the lawyer climbing that window and zoom in on the bottom of his shoe you can see spots of paint dust from the wall similar to which was deposited on the clothes under the window. Perhaps somebody here can post that, if not I will do it when I get back tonight.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

The lawyers for both sides will argue every point relevant to the case in the argument phase of the trial. If there is no new witness testimony or evidence pertaining to a given point, the lawyers will argue that point based on the evidence and testimony presented in the first trial. It is not just the areas of the case where new witnesses and testimony are being allowed by Hellmann that will be the basis of arguments: these witnesses and testimony are supplementary to all the evidence and testimony presented in the first trial..

I seriously can't believe that you still cannot grasp the concept that the appeal trial is not limited to the areas in which Hellmann has allowed for new evidence and testimony. The appeal trial is a brand new trial, which will cover every area of the case. The prosecution will have to prove its case again from scratch - albeit it can use witness testimony and evidence presented in the first trial as a time-saving measure. The argument phase will cover every single area of the case.

ETA: Ahh, I think I might see where your confusion might be. I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "closing argument".

 

[LondonJohn]

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

i think that other interpretations are possible of course (and I never suggested that they weren't possible). But I think that the most likely interpretation is the one I gave.

 

[shuttlt]

If you look at the high resolution photo's of the lawyer climbing that window and zoom in on the bottom of his shoe you can see spots of paint dust from the wall similar to which was deposited on the clothes under the window. Perhaps somebody here can post that, if not I will do it when I get back tonight.

I don't dispute that white dust from the wall may have ended up on the lawyer. It was just an obervation about the marks on the wall. I'm not much of a burglar though, so climbing walls and what evidence you leave behind aren't really my area.

 

[shuttlt]

i think that other interpretations are possible of course (and I never suggested that they weren't possible). But I think that the most likely interpretation is the one I gave.

I disagree. It's a pity CNN didn't get him to clarify. Perhaps the interviewer didn't think Mignini had said anything important or contentious?

It was originally in Italian wasn't it? Perhaps more can be deduced from that. Body language and emphasis would be good as well since it was filmed.

 

[christianahannah]

I don't know of other photos that were taken. There were photos of the inside of the room, but even there where are the close up photos of glass ON TOP of items as they claim?

Mignini states himself that they immediately suspected a staged breakin. If they thought that straight away shouldn't it have been a priority to document those aspects that would show staging?

Massei did address the glass on top of clothes issue (there not being any). There was also Filomena's testimony, in addition to the police, that there was glass on top of the clothes before she disturbed them. I am assuming this glass on clothes (which now is not seen) was located by the wall where there were clothes and her computer/bag as she testified there was glass on top of the computer/bag also.

Massei does describe various photos and why the opinion is that the break in of the room was staged. I don' know if all the photos of the inside of the room and outside are in the public domain or how many were taken of the inside of the room or the outside.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sheer luminosity versus sheer stubborness

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.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_383964ddb708be8893.jpg[/qimg]


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

RoseMontague,

I was always bothered by this paradox as well. In Darkness Descending Garofano goes on about the sheer luminosity of the prints meaning that the prints were made in blood. Yet if there is so much blood, the TMB test should have also been positive. Some of the products that give false positives with luminol have oxidants in them, but I would be surprised if Drano has strong oxidants. This deserves more investigation.

 

[Alt+F4]

The lawyers for both sides will argue every point relevant to the case in the argument phase of the trial. If there is no new witness testimony or evidence pertaining to a given point, the lawyers will argue that point based on the evidence and testimony presented in the first trial. It is not just the areas of the case where new witnesses and testimony are being allowed by Hellmann that will be the basis of arguments: these witnesses and testimony are supplementary to all the evidence and testimony presented in the first trial.

Ok, good, you're finally starting to understand. Capezzali and Quintavalle aren't going to be recalled. There aren't going to be any new experts testifying regarding the time of death, the computer, the bathmat or the glass.

I seriously can't believe that you still cannot grasp the concept that the appeal trial is not limited to the areas in which Hellmann has allowed for new evidence and testimony. The appeal trial is a brand new trial, which will cover every area of the case. The prosecution will have to prove its case again from scratch - albeit it can use witness testimony and evidence presented in the first trial as a time-saving measure. The argument phase will cover every single area of the case.

Since so little new information came out in the appeal, it will be based mostly on what came out in the first trial....and we all know how that ended.

ETA: Ahh, I think I might see where your confusion might be. I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "closing argument".

Again, you seem to think you know more about this case than Amanda herself (she's disappointed that this didn't end before summer started) and her family, who don't think it's impossible for the appeal to be determined before August 1.

 

[Alt+F4]

I wonder if the reason why the defense has gone with such lousy witnessess is because they couldn't get anyone else. Inmates, after all, don't have summer scheduling conflicts.

 

[Kaosium]

I wonder if the reason why the defense has gone with such lousy witnessess is because they couldn't get anyone else. Inmates, after all, don't have summer scheduling conflicts.

Perhaps it's just to 'salt the earth?'

A defense lawyer for Amanda and Raffaele might be thinking not only of how to destroy the case made in Massei, but anything else Mignini, Comodi and Maresca could possibly come up with. One obvious move for this trio would be to put Rudy on the stand and have him...extrapolate...on his implication he might have seen Raffaele and maybe heard Amanda. Thus they may intend to have an ambush waiting for them. I can't see any reason they wouldn't need to have all the bases covered, even if they need to use a shovel-wielding babykiller to repudiate a rapist-murderer.

Raze the case against Amanda and Raffaele to the ground and make sure it never bears fruit again. Let there be nothing left but the lamp!

Mignini delenda est!

 

[Alt+F4]

A defense lawyer for Amanda and Raffaele might be thinking not only of how to destroy the case made in Massei, but anything else Mignini, Comodi and Maresca could possibly come up with. One obvious move for this trio would be to put Rudy on the stand and have him...extrapolate...on his implication he might have seen Raffaele and maybe heard Amanda. Thus they may intend to have an ambush waiting for them. I can't see any reason they wouldn't need to have all the bases covered, even if they need to use a shovel-wielding babykiller to repudiate a rapist-murderer.

Witnessess in Italy have protection against self-incrimination so what would make the defense think that Rudy would testify even if subpoened? His case is concluded, there is no benefit to him to testify now. I'm sure he just wants to do his time, he'll get out of prison at a still young age and probably kill again. Why would he care about AK or RS or what some prison rats say about him?

 

[Diocletus]

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.

I did an experiment last night. I ran around on our lawn, playing lacrosse with my daughter. Observations:

1. If I simply walked/ran over a particular area of grass, I did not leave indents or footprints. If you looked behind me, you could not tell where I had stepped.

2. If I repeatedly walked/ran over an area and maybe did some twists or pivots, the grass in that spot was somewhat trampled.

3. When I woke up this morning, and looked at the lawn, you could not see any disturbance, including in the areas that had been "trampled" the night before.

 

[Kaosium]

RoseMontague,

I was always bothered by this paradox as well. In Darkness Descending Garofano goes on about the sheer luminosity of the prints meaning that the prints were made in blood. Yet if there is so much blood, the TMB test should have also been positive. Some of the products that give false positives with luminol have oxidants in them, but I would be surprised if Drano has strong oxidants. This deserves more investigation.

What I wonder is why Gen. Garafano, the man the Sun called 'Italy's CSI' dude, doesn't understand the process for proving for blood. It's actually pretty simple and logical. Luminol is the most sensitive detector of blood there is, it's also easy to use--just spray it down and turn out the lights. It glows in the dark where there might be blood, very cool!

Then find the spots that light up and test them with TMB, after all there's about 250 items that can be typically found in households that will light up and not be blood, including some that will display the same chemiluminescence pattern as undiluted blood. The TMB test is easy and can be done on-scene, kinda like a pregnancy test; they don't want to waste the lab tech's time, and this process should eliminate about half of all hits according to Dr. Gino in Massei. Then the lab looks at it under the scope and confirms it's human blood, and DNA tests are done to identify it. That's how you prove for blood.

What I don't quite understand is how a forensics expert could review a team that sprayed down the luminol, saw that the footprints tested negative for TMB, but the lab tried to hide those results in court, never bothered with the confirmatory test or successfully hid those results, and that all but one or so of the footprints tested negative for Meredith's DNA. Being as there were no control tests reported that means the one that did show Meredith's DNA might have been part of the floor beneath it and not the footprint.

If I had a nasty suspicious mind I'd think ILE was trying to pretend those footprints actually were blood when they knew they couldn't prove it, and that the footprints probably weren't related to the murder. Why is it that Gen Garofano didn't notice this? I couldn't help but note that his name came up as having assisted Mignini in the Monster of Florence case. Naturally most sane people were trying to oppose the double body-swap nonsense, but not Garofano...

Incidentally, General Garofano has a unique theory of the murder, he had it published in the Sun early last fall. There's only one other place I've heard that theory echoed, and that's in articles written by John Kercher for the Mail, Mirror and Times.

I wonder if Garofano told him a 'load of crap?'

 

[Kaosium]

Witnessess in Italy have protection against self-incrimination so what would make the defense think that Rudy would testify even if subpoened? His case is concluded, there is no benefit to him to testify now. I'm sure he just wants to do his time, he'll get out of prison at a still young age and probably kill again. Why would he care about AK or RS or what some prison rats say about him?

Things sure worked out nicely for him the last time he decided to 'play ball with the law' didn't they? He went from some bushy-haired stranger story to kinda placing Amanda and Raffaele at the scene. Then he gets skated through the Court system and no one appeals anything and he's looking at leaving prison maybe sometime before 30.

Perhaps he might think he'd get another 'treat' when his next sentence reduction is up for review? It may just be that they'd be grateful to the guy who provided eyewitness testimony to the presence of Raffaele and Amanda at the scene when they can't 'prove' it any other way.

 

[yeti101]

the bad thing for the defence is that the judges only need to accept one of the prosecutions pieces of evidence and its curtains.

 

[Alt+F4]

Things sure worked out nicely for him the last time he decided to 'play ball with the law' didn't they? He went from some bushy-haired stranger story to kinda placing Amanda and Raffaele at the scene. Then he gets skated through the Court system and no one appeals anything and he's looking at leaving prison maybe sometime before 30.

How was he "skated through the Court system"? It's my understanding that his sentence reduction was due to taking a fast track trial. AK and RS had the same option, they choose not to take it.

Perhaps he might think he'd get another 'treat' when his next sentence reduction is up for review? It may just be that they'd be grateful to the guy who provided eyewitness testimony to the presence of Raffaele and Amanda at the scene when they can't 'prove' it any other way.

What "next sentence reduction" is he entitled to?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mignini's interview

As has been pointed out by others, the lack of money excuse for not taping the interview is a new one. It seems the "we forgot" has been flushed.
SNIP
I find him to be quite rather incredibly incredible, unreliable, dazed and confused, personally.

Sorry for quoting myself but I wanted to have these together in one post. Several of these have not been commented on as of yet.

RoseMontague,

Thanks for bringing a bunch of Mignini's comments together. It has quite a cumulative effect.

 

[Kaosium]

How was he "skated through the Court system"? It's my understanding that his sentence reduction was due to taking a fast track trial. AK and RS had the same option, they choose not to take it.

Guede received a mitigation for remorse due to his saying he was sorry he didn't save her, without admitting any wrongdoing. That wasn't appealed by the prosecution, which did appeal Raffaele and Amanda's sentence because of a dirty look, a noise ticket and a pot charge.

What "next sentence reduction" is he entitled to?

Every so often they get together and lop some more off of the sentence if they've been good. Thus even though he had a sixteen year sentence he's not expected to serve all that. Perhaps helping the courts with the case against Raffaele and Amanda would look good at these 'parole' hearings?

What would you do if you were Mignini and looking at having to take that case through court again, but this time without the DNA evidence--including the 'murder weapon'--and the 'witness' who broke their alibi? Plus the defense will know all his tricks this time around, 'bloody footprints' and imaginary phone calls won't go anywhere. He doesn't have many options, and Guede providing definite testimony may seem like his only option.

That's my guess at any rate, I don't think it's because they want to give the baby-killer any 'love,' but because he might stop the rapist-murderer from putting the two innocent lovebirds away for life.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

piktorial representation of the case

A friend of mine who has heard me discuss the case, prepared this representation of the evidence. For visual learners, this may be just what is needed.

 

[Alt+F4]

Guede received a mitigation for remorse due to his saying he was sorry he didn't save her, without admitting any wrongdoing. That wasn't appealed by the prosecution, which did appeal Raffaele and Amanda's sentence because of a dirty look, a noise ticket and a pot charge.

Every so often they get together and lop some more off of the sentence if they've been good. Thus even though he had a sixteen year sentence he's not expected to serve all that. Perhaps helping the courts with the case against Raffaele and Amanda would look good at these 'parole' hearings?

Interesting. It seems then that RG knows how to play the system more than RS and AK. As for helping the courts in exchange for an earlier parole, that's the specific reason why inmate testimony shouldn't be trusted.