Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Forgive me for not reading any more than your opening ?'truth'? about just who was Knox's 'lead' lawyer.

If your oft self heralded Google and Library Card skills fail to even correctly identify just who the lead lawyer was, forgive me for ignoring the remainder of the argument.

Save us the usual wiggles about misinterpretations and/or correct stretches of the terminology 'lead' when something you so dogmatically declare is shown to be completely wrong.

Cites (innumerable others available if one uses Google well)
1) http://www.newsweek.com/2008/10/27/judgment-day.html
2) http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/amanda_knox/8.html

Surely you also knew that dalla Vedova was recommended to Edda by the US Embassy supposedly only because he spoke English well, and *the lead Attorney, Ghirga* did not.
You did know that, did you not ?

Interesting post.......

Firstly, there is no formal differentiation between the two lawyers of a defendant. Article 96 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure states that a defendant is permitted to appoint two (but no more than two) defence lawyers. The term "lead lawyer" is therefore not set in stone - it's merely adopted according to which of the two lawyers appears to take the lead in the case.

In the case of Knox, it may be true that Ghirga initially acted as the more dominant lawyer (in the pre-trial stages and at the start of the trial process), but by the end of the trial Dalla Vedova was definitely taking more of a lead. It's therefore perfectly reasonable to refer to Dalla Vedova as the "lead lawyer". I note that of the "proof" you provided, one article was written in 2008, and the other article is undated but written at some point mid-way through the first trial (and it may well be simply referencing other earlier articles when referring to Ghirga as the lead attorney).

So, in short, your "gotcha" assertion that I erroneously accorded "lead lawyer" status to Dalla Vedova rather than Ghirga is both incorrect and uninformed. And - as others have pointed out - even if I had erroneously "mis-ranked" the lawyers, it would make practically no difference to the actual argument that I was making.

Secondly, I'd like to know your source for the "surely you know" assertion in your last (or perhaps penultimate) paragraph. What evidence do you have that Dalla Vedova was appointed in the knowledge that Ghirga spoke very little English? Because my only source for information regarding the selection of Dalla Vedova is "Darkness Descending", and it states that the US Embassy officials in Rome were unaware of Ghirga's appointment when they supplied the list of lawyers*:

The embassy officials were unaware that Edda had found a local lawyer and had helpfully sent Chris a list of high-powered attorneys who regularly worked for the State Department in Rome.

("Darkness Descending", p199)


Your "argument" seems to imply that Dalla Vedova was primarily selected for his ability to interface between Ghirga and Knox/family. But even if you didn't mean to imply this, what's your evidence that he was recommended "only because he spoke English well"?

Oh, and lastly, please quit with your seeming obsession with my undergraduate degree discipline.


* I would maintain that whoever in the Rome Embassy supplied that list of lawyers to the Knox/Mellas family were derelict in their duty of aid. Somebody within the US Embassy should have easily realised that Amanda Knox was in need of criminal defence lawyer, and preferably one who had experience in murder defences. Quite why they supplied a list which apparently either exclusively or predominantly contained commercial lawyers should be a source of significant embarrassment for the embassy. They should additionally have realised that the Knox/Mellas family was presumably placing a good deal of trust in the embassy staff's expertise and judgement, and its experience in assisting US citizens who faced criminal charges in Italy. They therefore should have taken extra care to ensure that the assistance they supplied to Knox and her family was appropriate and accurate, at a time when the recipients of the assistance were under high stress and distress. In my opinion, they failed to do so.

 

[zeb]

the plants, of happy grass.

Id really like to know what this question about anothers post has to do with this thread.

Any new ideas on an accurate TOD that fit the known facts in the Kercher murder?

I will write some thing I posted on IIPF, the plants at the time needed water, and also needed heat.
So the boys part of the house would have the heating on to keep the plants alive.
Heat rise, so as I think, DAN 0, said this could bring the TOD close to the time Meredith died, please note I am not trying to say that he said that.
The floor would have been warm, and also she had a duvae, or duvet, over her.
Do not forget the plants have not grown enought to start makeing the happy grass.
I think he was hopeing to make money from those plants.
That was the reason, that Meredith lover brought the plants for.
Also These plants are not on sell, at your local garden centre, but they must cost big money.
Clone these plants, the more plants you have the, bigger the money in your bank.

 

[LondonJohn]

So many Bigwigs there that night. Late at night for the interview of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox.

Edgardo Giobbi, Marco Chiacchiera, Giuliano Mignini and Domenico Giacinto Profazio

The Head of the Rome Serious Crime Squad, Director of the Flying Squad and a Prosecutor. Not to mention most of the flying squad. All there.

Mignini says he saw Raffaele and Amanda being interviewed as he was passing through - perhaps on his way to the control room to have a cigar with Giobbi, Chiacchiera and Prafazio.

The control room is described as being very close to the interview rooms - just an L-shaped hallway away. Within an easy range of hearing a girl scream late at night in the quiet, well usually quiet, Questura.

Giobbi was Mathematically sure he called them both in.
Profazio helped break Amanda in the interview.
Mignini was woken up by Profazio from a nap he took upstairs and told there are developments.

A visual image I take away is Four High Level men all in the Control Room together late at night listening to Amanda Knox scream. Perhaps not exactly, but I think this image captures the gist of what happened that night well.

A lot of high level positions on hand this late at night for just a regular interview of non-suspects. : /

I don't think so.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_401664ded881e97192.jpg[/qimg]

I totally agree. I think it's ridiculous to cling to the assertion that Knox and Sollecito were invited to the police HQ on the night of the 5th November for just another in a series of routine witness interviews. It flies in the face of the known evidence - including the numbers and seniority of the personnel present in the police HQ on that Monday night, the triumphalist (and, in hindsight, stunningly ill-judged) statement of the Perugia Police Chief the following morning, the testimony of the police's interpreter, and the assertions of Knox and Sollecito themselves.

To me, it's pretty obvious that the police had decided some time before the evening of the 5th that Knox and Lumumba (and probably also Sollecito) were involved*. The interrogations of the 5th/6th were therefore - in my view - specifically designed to break Knox's/Sollecito's previous versions, to provide ammunition for their arrest and detention, and to provide sufficient ammunition to arrest and detain Lumumba.


* c.f. Police Chief de Felice's statement on the 6th that: "Initially the American (Knox) gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in. They all participated but had different roles."

 

[LondonJohn]

I will write some thing I posted on IIPF, the plants at the time needed water, and also needed heat.
So the boys part of the house would have the heating on to keep the plants alive.
Heat rise, so as I think, DAN 0, said this could bring the TOD close to the time Meredith died, please note I am not trying to say that he said that.
The floor would have been warm, and also she had a duvae, or duvet, over her.
Do not forget the plants have not grown enought to start makeing the happy grass.
I think he was hopeing to make money from those plants.
That was the reason, that Meredith lover brought the plants for.
Also These plants are not on sell, at your local garden centre, but they must cost big money.
Clone these plants, the more plants you have the, bigger the money in your bank.

This is potentially a good point. The Massei Report makes reference to the ambient temperature in Meredith's room (p113, English trans), listing it as 13 degrees celsius at 00.50 on 3rd November (i.e. some 25-27 hours after the death) and 18 degrees at 12.00pm on the 3rd. It's unclear, however, how ambient temperature was treated in the inputs to the Henssge Nomogram (the calculator used to estimate ToD from residual body temperature, ambient temperature and state of clothing/covering of the body).

The two other critical points to note in relation to the estimate of ToD from residual body temperature are these:

1) body weight is a significantly important factor. The autopsy pathologist inexplicably failed to weigh Meredith's body - preferring instead to "guesstimate" her weight. However, it's likely that her real weight was at least a couple of kilograms more than Lalli's estimate of 55kg. If every other variable in the nomogram was kept the same, a body weight of 57kg would have resulted in a mid-point in the estimated ToD of 9.50pm on the 1st (as opposed to the 55kg mid-point of 10.50pm).

2) The Henssge Nomogram is most usefully employed when residual body temperatures are able to be taken in the period some 6-18 hours after death. Lalli's first reading of Meredith's residual body temperature was made some 25-27 hours after her death. The margin of error in the nomogram becomes very significant after such a delay - indeed Lalli himself gave a 3.5-hour margin of error either side of his mid-point.

 

[RoseMontague]

Mary, as a friend, I feel embarrassed for you saying that "Amanda did not lie".
Amanda did indeed lie, and more than once.
You may argue she is not guilty (and often do very admirably), but please do not attempt to argue "she did not lie"

May I start by quoting her own lawyer who throughout the trial was very protective of his client and her oft cited 'quirkiness'.
He was forced to concede the following:
" Luciano Ghirga, told reporters Friday [09 November 2007]"... that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004005696_italy10m.html

Spare us any attempts to even waste cyberspace spinning this straightforward affirmation that his own client, Knox, did actually lie here when (2) of her 'versions' were simply *in his own direct words*.... 'untrue'.

Although the above is adequate refutation of your statement,
for the record, some time ago another observer listed several other instances of 'lies' from Knox.

As a preface, some of these additional examples of 'lies' have been the subject of very vigorous and varied attempts here to justify, interpret, spin,and/or explain.
I remain unconvinced.
Regurgitation of those unconvincing attempts will do little other than add to the 50,000, and I will not again revisit them.

1) Lie one. Amanda said she was going to call Raffaele, but according to Raffaele, Amanda had already returned to his apartment at 11.30 am, and then they had gone back to the cottage.

At 12.34 pm Amanda and Filomena spoke again. Filomena said, “We spoke to each other for the third time and she told me that the window in my room was broken and that my room was in a mess. At this point I asked her to call the police and she told me that she already had.”

2) Lie two. Amanda and Raffaele didn’t actually call the police until 12.51 pm.
The postal postal police unexpectedly turned up at the cottage at 12. 35 pm.

3) Lie three. Amanda and Raffael told the police that they had called the police and were waiting for them.

4) Lie four. Amanda told the postal police that Meredith always kept her door locked. Filomena strongly disagreed with her, and told the postal police the opposite was true.
Amanda and Raffaele were then taken in for questioning.

5) Lie five. They said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis.
It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.
Long term use of cannabis may affect short term memory, which means that users might have difficulty recalling a telephone number. But it won’t wipe out whole chunks of an evening from their memory banks.

6) Lie six. Amanda accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith at the cottage.
It’s true that two of Amanda’s such statements were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court. However, Amanda repeated the accusation, in a note that she wrote to the police on 6 November.
This note was not thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court, and it was admitted as evidence.

7/8) Lies seven and eight. In her 6 November note Amanda claimed to have seen Diya Lumumba at the basketball court at Piazza Grimana; and outside her front door. He was actually at his bar.

9) Line nine. Amanda’s supporters claim that she confessed to a lesser role in Meredith’s murder, and blamed Diya Lumumba, because she had been “smacked around” or put under pressure by the police.
But the real reason she had to say she was at the cottage was because she was informed that Raffaele Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi.
Raffaele had been confronted with phone records, and was now claiming that she was not with him the whole evening, and that she had only returned at 1.00 am. Amanda did not attempt to refute Raffaele’s claim, but now admitted that she had been at the cottage.
The significance of this about-turn cannot be stressed enough.

(Incidentally, Raffaele was also claiming that he had lied, because he had believed Amanda’s version of what happened and not thought about the inconsistencies. He is acknowledging that Amanda’s version had inconsistencies.)

If it had been true that Amanda had been “smacked around” by the police during questioning, why haven’t her lawyers ever filed a complaint? It was very telling that Amanda dropped her allegation of being hit by the police at her recent court hearing, and instead just claimed she had been put under pressure.

There’s a world of difference between police brutality and being put under pressure. It wasn’t the first time that Amanda has made a false and malicious accusation, as Diya Lumumba knows only too well.

10) Lie ten. Amanda claimed to have slept in at Raffaele’s until the next morning. However, her mobile records show that this was not so. Amanda turned on her mobile at approximately at 5.32 am.

The only plausable explanation for Amanda’s deliberate and repeated lies? That she was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

It should be no surprise to anyone following the case that the same three witnesses who have repeatedly lied, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede, have all been placed at the crime scene.

Four independent posters (LJ, KL, Mary_H, and katody) have all reviewed this list of lies and found them seriously lacking in both fact and logic.

Mixed blood of Harry Rag and The Machine was found in 3 different numbers scattered throughout the post.

Many of these lies were posted 22 minutes before Meredith was killed.

 

[zeb]

LJ
When I use to watch keep on RN ships, I had to take and record the outside temp, and the Ambient temp.
Its been along time, but if I remember rightly, is that the Ambient temp is the temp inside the body, and not out side the body.
This is just to clear up for the folks, that do not know what Ambient temp is.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

witness to become a suspect

LondonJohn,

"Monday, 5 November 2007 -- Ominous words:'It is not excluded that in the next few hours one of the many persons interviewed in recent days might be converted into a suspect.'"

This was apparently something that the police said to the media, and it is more evidence that the police had someone in their sights already. The link (http://truecrimeweblog.freeforums.or...s-etc-t11.html) from which this quote was extracted is now dead. More of the text is here. Malkmus originally found it.

 

[snook1]

What are the next court dates?

 

[Rolfe]

The ambient temperature is the environmental temperature. The temperature in the room. The temperature outside the body.

Surely to God they took into account that Meredith had been covered by a duvet?

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

LondonJohn,

"Monday, 5 November 2007 -- Ominous words:'It is not excluded that in the next few hours one of the many persons interviewed in recent days might be converted into a suspect.'"

This was apparently something that the police said to the media, and it is more evidence that the police had someone in their sights already. The link (http://truecrimeweblog.freeforums.or...s-etc-t11.html) from which this quote was extracted is now dead. More of the text is here. Malkmus originally found it.

Fortunately the Wayback Machine has crawled this.

http://web.archive.org/web/20081209...ums.org/media-powerpoints-videos-etc-t11.html

The original quote seems to come from here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090616183704/http://news.centrodiascolto.it/

 

[RoseMontague]

The ambient temperature is the environmental temperature. The temperature in the room. The temperature outside the body.

Surely to God they took into account that Meredith had been covered by a duvet?

Rolfe.

The appeals have a lot to say in this regard starting with the fact the body was not weighed and the adjustments for things like this not properly done and the temperature of the body not taken immediately upon discovery.

 

[pilot padron]

Four independent posters (LJ, KL, Mary_H, and katody) have all reviewed this list of lies and found them seriously lacking in both fact and logic.

Mixed blood of Harry Rag and The Machine was found in 3 different numbers scattered throughout the post.

Many of these lies were posted 22 minutes before Meredith was killed.

1) Kinda like the guy who posted them here first said in the preface about them being vigorously protested, is it not?
(deliberate use of third person; so 'commo engineers', please do spare us the inevitable 50,002)

2) Unlike others who cannot even correctly identify the lead Defense Attorney in the lead sentence arguing their 'truths' about the case, and then cannot even *ever* just admit they were wrong, I said in at least 3 places that in retrospect, I wish I had not added that '10 lie' addendum.
It did little than dilute and divert from my main point that even Knox's *lead attorney, Ghirga* said two of Knox's versions were 'untrue'.(i.e she lied)

Repeated for emphasis...Ghirga was/is Knox's l-e-a-d attorney. He said she gave two untrue versions

'Bloody rags and mixed machines' was indeed an informed, incisive, witty and appreciated breath of fresh air in the argument

 

[RoseMontague]

1) Kinda like the guy who posted them here first said in the preface about them being vigorously protested, is it not?
(deliberate use of third person; so 'commo engineers', please do spare us the inevitable 50,002)

Yes, my post was an attempt at humor but I didn't preface it as such. I hope I was not being too subtle knowing what has happened before.

2) Unlike others who cannot even correctly identify the lead Defense Attorney in the lead sentence arguing their 'truths' about the case, and then cannot even *ever* just admit they were wrong, I said in at least 3 places that in retrospect, I wish I had not added that '10 lie' addendum.
It did little than dilute and divert from my main point that even Knox's *lead attorney, Ghirga* said two of Knox's versions were 'untrue'.(i.e she lied)

Repeated for emphasis...Ghirga was/is Knox's l-e-a-d attorney. He said she gave two untrue versions

I agree. Ghirga is the lead lawyer and is also listed first on the Knox appeal. Amanda made some statements that were not true, Ghirga stepped on his tongue by saying that but to deny reality is just being silly, imo. The reason for her false statements is the real question, in any case.

'Bloody rags and mixed machines' was indeed an informed, incisive, witty and appreciated breath of fresh air in the argument

I love it and I will borrow that one on occasion if you have no objection?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Tea and Sympathy

May I start by quoting her own lawyer who throughout the trial was very protective of his client and her oft cited 'quirkiness'.
He was forced to concede the following:
" Luciano Ghirga, told reporters Friday [09 November 2007]"... that his client had given "three versions and ... it is difficult to evaluate which one is true."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004005696_italy10m.html

Pilot Padron,

I do not agree with Mr. Ghirga, inasmuch as I count only two versions: what she said on 5 November and what she said every other time. It would be nice to know what he meant. I agree with RoseMontague in that we all agree that what she said that night was false. I am working on a new angle however. Maybe chamomile tea causes one to hallucinate. Hmm...this could be my next grant proposal.

Rose Montague,

Thanks for finding the other links to the 5 November story.

 

[pilot padron]

Tea or two

Pilot Padron,

I do not agree with Mr. Ghirga, inasmuch as I count only two versions: what she said on 5 November and what she said every other time. It would be nice to know what he meant. I agree with RoseMontague in that we all agree that what she said that night was false. I am working on a new angle however. Maybe chamomile tea causes one to hallucinate. Hmm...this could be my next grant proposal.

Well, I thought I was being generous (fair) to the majority here when I did not further break down Counsellor Ghirga's statement.

But for 'the rest of the story', when one says that she gave three different versions, therefore two are untrue, the possibility (probability) cannot be ruled out (yet) that *all three* were untrue, i.e lies

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, I thought I was being generous (fair) to the majority here when I did not further break down Counsellor Ghirga's statement.

But for 'the rest of the story', when one says that she gave three different versions, therefore two are untrue, the possibility (probability) cannot be ruled out (yet) that *all three* were untrue, i.e lies

If you are referring to the 1:45AM, 5:45AM, and hand written statement the next day, that is possible as far as these three statements go. Her first statements were made on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th which we don't have a copy of.

Just guessing I would say she probably gave the same "spent the entire night at Raffaele's place" statement on numerous occasions. I believe Ghirga is referring to these as one statement, the 1:45 and 5:45 as the second, and the hand written statement as a third.

 

[Katody Matrass]

If you are referring to the 1:45AM, 5:45AM, and hand written statement the next day, that is possible as far as these three statements go.

For the hand written statement I don't see anything there that can be so easily falsified.
The disclaimer that the described events are more unreal and like a dream leaves very little to argue about. After all how would you argue that it didn't in fact come to her as a form of dream, unreal flashes of imagination etc.? It's also impossible to falsify her statements about treatment by cops, unless they cough up the tapes. Finally it's impossible to falsify her statement that she stayed at Raffaele - unless you believe Curatolo of course

 

[Katody Matrass]

untrue, i.e lies

How do you then evaluate cops statements that we now know were untrue?

E.g. about Amanda's sweatshirt that they said was missing, about the shoeprint they said was Sollecito's, or that they arrived at the cottage at half past twelve, before Raffaele called?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

maybe it was the chamomile tea after all

How do you then evaluate cops statements that we now know were untrue?

E.g. about Amanda's sweatshirt that they said was missing, about the shoeprint they said was Sollecito's, or that they arrived at the cottage at half past twelve, before Raffaele called?

How about the Harry Potter book? Or the supposed CCTV footage of Ms. Knox? Or the bleach receipts? Or the pink bathroom photo? Or....gotta get cracking on that new research grant. If ILE has been quaffing that tea, it could explain a good deal about this and the Scazzi case.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Well, I thought I was being generous (fair) to the majority here when I did not further break down Counsellor Ghirga's statement.

But for 'the rest of the story', when one says that she gave three different versions, therefore two are untrue, the possibility (probability) cannot be ruled out (yet) that *all three* were untrue, i.e lies

I am getting really confused. There are certainly a lot of versions of how many versions Amanda gave.

This is nonsense. Before the interrogation on the 5th, Amanda had one version, then came the interrogation, then on the 6th, Amanda went back to the version she had before the interrogation.

How many versions is that? I count 2.

The repeated nonsense about Raffaele not providing an alibi for Amanda falls into the same category. Raffaele retracted his statements, just like Amanda did, shortly after the interrogation. Raffaele did so in front of a judge. Both stand side by side in their defense. Raffaele regularly makes contact with those who support both. Yet people like you still make the claim that Raffaele does not provide an alibi for Amanda.