Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

Thanks Fine. I was aware that Sollecito had spoken before Judge Matteini at his appearance in court on November 8th. I'm just not aware that it has ever been established that Sollecito claimed that Knox left his apartment between 9pm and 1am on the evening/night of November 1st/2nd. And I'm still not aware that this fact has ever been established.

Yes, this has in fact been seen, the Matteini report has been posted in the last thread. I said ~320 it was probably closer to 420 but looking it up would be worthless as I've seen it actually translated by someone who knew what they were doing. My attempt to avoid brain damage whilst puzzling out the google translate is for entertainment purposes only. It's the one where the relevant pages are 8 & 10, renumbered 9 & 11, or the other way around, with the page in between being mostly irrelevant as it mostly deals with the seizure of Raffaele's shoes and his arrest.

However I cannot find it now, and I know a few months back I saw a version that was actually translated. It's timed at 10:40, that's another thing I recall from it.

As I've said before, if Sollecito did indeed say such a thing, and if it was admissible as evidence, then it would be a major pointer towards Knox's guilt (and a possible pointer to Sollecito's guilt too). I feel totally certain that Mignini would have used it as significant evidence in front of Massei's court, and I also feel totally certain that Massei would have addressed it in his sentencing report. But it's noticeable by its absence......

This is the 'load of crap' and I'm pretty sure it was thrown out, as you note they'd have presented it in court.

That is a very interesting Telegraph article, yet more lies/mistakes by the police or press. How are we ever going to keep track of them all when we keep digging up more?

 

[platonov]

Well, point me to a link where it is stated as fact, and that'll be fine. That's all I'm asking for.

Of course, once you've done that, you'll need to explain why it seemingly never cropped up in the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito before Judge Massei. Because (as I pointed out before) if it were true and admissible it would be a pretty huge piece of evidence against Knox. So why didn't Mignini apparently introduce it in the trial? That's all I'm asking.

________________________

John,

Here's a better summary in English of the Matteini Report: HERE

It's always troubled me, too, that Massei doesn't mention Raffaele's "BS" story told to the cops on the night of November 5th. He clearly told that story to the cops, however briefly, as he acknowledged before Judge Matteini. (And mentioned, obliquely, in his Diary, too.) And Mignini mentioned Raffaele's "BS" story in his recent CNN interview...citing it as incriminating evidence.

Here's my theory, just a guess: Raffaele's attorneys challenged the admissibility of the Matteini Report (for reasons I won't go into). It may be that Massei didn't cite the Matteini Report because he feared that his own MOTIVATIONS REPORT would be weakened if a later appeals court were to find the Matteini Report inadmissable.

Maybe others have some thoughts on Massei's silence on this matter.

///

Without getting into pointless arguments regarding the admissibility issue i.e. directly using the 'BS' statement of the 5th by RS - I presume we are all familiar with the situation in that regard.

& Given that this issue is moot as RS never took the stand in the trial or even answered Q's after Nov 8th so subsequent references couldn't be put to him

& Completely ignoring Fine's speculation on this issue

there remains one point that needs to be clarified.

Are you guys sure about this Silence ?

You may need to refer back to the trial - these lawyers are slightly more artful than that, as indeed defendants try to be.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

Is there a prize for who knows who the 'lead' defense attorney was? Or are you just trying to wind LJ up?

Did you notice he's moved on to relevant topics and you're still wondering who the lead attorney is in a land where there's apparently no legal relevance and it's just an adjective anyway?

Perhaps that's just part of his 'cunning plan.' He's leaving you in the dust!

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

Those 'versions' were typed up in legalese a language she could barely read. Are you saying the police deliberately presented her untrue information to sign? All we need to know at this point is whether that's because they were corrupt or incompetent.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Obama

Those 'versions' were typed up in legalese a language she could barely read. Are you saying the police deliberately presented her untrue information to sign? All we need to know at this point is whether that's because they were corrupt or incompetent.

I'm not sure that these are mutually exclusive categories. As Barack Obama (I think) said, "It's not an either-or; it's a both-and." I agree that the language sounds as thought it came out of ILE, more than it came out of Amanda.

 

[Magister]

Interesting development..

http://notizie.virgilio.it/notizie/...g_perugia_intervista_pm_mignini,29937961.html

 

[Kaosium]

I'm not sure that these are mutually exclusive categories. As Barack Obama (I think) said, "It's not an either-or; it's a both-and." I agree that the language sounds as though it came out of ILE, more than it came out of Amanda.

Indeed it is a false dichotomy, naturally they can be both, and the evidence thus far would suggest that's the case. They blew the 'investigation' and then covered it up.

Something I've been wondering about ever since we heard that Mignini claims there's no cameras in the interrogation rooms. I have trouble fitting that into my mental universe because of all the other indications they did, but let's pretend that's true.

That interrogation would never have ended until they got what they wanted, why would they stop?

 

[Kaosium]

Interesting development..

http://notizie.virgilio.it/notizie/...g_perugia_intervista_pm_mignini,29937961.html

Meredith / 'Today': Pg Perugia interview given to Mignini pm
Made by British journalist with statements about what happened
posted by -9531 sec ago TMNews

Yesterday Raffaele Sollecito's lawyer, Luca Maori, gave the Attorney General of Perugia, Giancarlo Costagliola, that in the process of Appeals for the murder of Meredith says the charge, supported by Manuela pm Mignini and comfortable, the sound of an interview by the same Mignini a British journalist. "An interview that might embarrass the prosecutor," says the magazine today, on newsstands tomorrow. "I handed the disk without comment," he told Today the Maori lawyer.

Sounds like Raffaele's lawyer gave the tape of a recent interview to the actual prosecutor in this case, Costagliola. The one by Bob Graham recently printed in the Sun.


The guard called the statements made by Mignini in a long interview with Bob Graham, a British journalist working with the tabloid The Sun The magistrate, after almost four years, assuming that the scene of the crime have not been found biological traces of the alleged murderer Amanda Knox, Graham would have said: "Theoretically, Amanda may have instigated the crime, even from another room." "A key quotation marks - says the magazine - which contrasts with the substance of the indictment, which alleged that Amanda had played a double focus: the mind of the orgy was then led to the crime and the arm that held firm while Meredith Rudy and Raffaele the slaying.

I think someone's noticing that Mignini is 'changing his story.' Payback is a bitch!


" Moreover, in the interview, Mignini admit that the police did not find scientific tracks because it has examined all. He had to make a choice: this item is important, this is not. But based on what criteria this choice was made? To this question, the prosecutor would have said only that there was no time to do scientific expertise across the board. In the focus, first, police said.

It sounds like Bob Graham nailed Mignini on an important point: Mignini made it all up! That he came up with his silly theory without any evidence to support it. Mignini said there was 'no time'--more confirmation that they brought Amanda in on purpose to put the screws to her, as she might have left the next day when her mother got there.


The prosecutor, continues the article in the Weekly, he confirmed his preference known in the legal Perugia, for the police, who believes more reserved, more disciplined, less bureaucratic, full of information that would lead to other witnesses and in particular fewer passionate. "Amanda's confession is half fiction and half truths," he said then Mignini the British journalist, referring to the interrogation made without lawyers from Knox on the night between 5 and 6 November 2007.

I wonder what part of the confession he now thinks is 'fact?' My guess is that she was there, cowering in the kitchen, something he didn't have any use for when he was fantasizing about ritual orgies and sex games.

Ya know, if he actually believes Amanda was there, this sick bastard prosecuted his best witness to the crime! Then he appealed her sentence to try to put her away for life, while letting the actual murderer skate away.

However she wasn't, that was an invention of the cops to get her to finger Patrick Lumumba in the interrogation. She would have no reason whatsoever to cover for Rudy Guede, nor go to jail for more than three years protecting him when he already is in jail.

Let us hope this prosecutor will do the right thing, end this farce. A forlorn hope perhaps, but it could happen.

 

[Magister]

More..

http://www.ilsitodiperugia.it/conte...rilasciata-dal-procuratore-mignini-bob-graham

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Without wishing to go too far down this somewhat blind cul-de-sac (which is of virtually no relevance to the point I was making in any case), there's no formalisation of "lead lawyer" in Italian criminal cases. It's a purely colloquial terminology. Each lawyer has equal standing in the eyes of the court; it's not a case of the court recognising one lawyer as the lead, and the other has his/her "subordinate". And Ghirga and Dalla Vedova are in fact listed equally on either side of the top of the page in Knox's Italian appeal document (which places them as formal equals in my eyes, unless one supposes that the left-hand name is the lead, and the right-hand name is the subordinate).

But if it makes Pilot Padron feel good to say that he successfully shot down one of my points in flames, then I'm more than happy to concede the point and say I got it horribly, terribly wrong: Ghirga is the lead lawyer. And since Pilot was seemingly only using that as a device to avoid having to deal with the actual argument contained within my post (viz. the "I won't bother to read any more" nonsense), I trust he'll now be able to tell us all why the combined defence teams in this case were still - in his opinion - "the best that money can buy"....

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I would quite like to see the inputs that they used for the Henssge Nomogram. I can emulate the nomogram, and it would be interesting to test the sensitivities to their inputs.

But in any case, even if the inputs were rigorously accurate (the body weight, the covering of the body, a proper time-adjusted analysis of the ambient temperature), the single fact that the first internal residual temperature was not taken until over 24 hours after death is an intractable problem. The nomogram has such a wide margin of error after such an elapsed time* that nobody could make anything other than a very broad estimate of the ToD under such circumstances.

In fact, if Meredith's correct weight had been entered into the nomogram algorithm, then the estimated time of death it generated would likely have laid between around 7pm on the 1st and 2am on the 2nd. This tells us very little of probative value, and it's at this point that we look to the stomach/intestinal contents: and it's there that we get a lucky break. After all, if Meredith had had a lag time of some 90 minutes (around the average), then her stomach would have been half empty at the time of her death, with chyme matter in her duodenum and jejunum.

If her gastro-intestinal organs had been found in this state at the autopsy, it would have been very difficult to narrow down a time of death. But the chance occurrence that Meredith had a lag time of over 170 minutes means that the probability of her dying between 9pm and 9.30pm is far larger than the probability of her dying between 9.30pm and 10pm, which in turn is far, far larger than the probability of her dying any later than 10pm (and which makes it virtually impossible for her to have died at Massei's court's ToD of 11.40pm).

* owing not only to the sheer passage of time, but also to the fact that the residual temperature decay is reverse-exponential in nature, and the hourly temperature drops become very small as the residual temperature approaches the ambient temperature

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

And of course all of this helps to illustrate just why Ghirga (Knox's LEAD lawyer, let's not forget ) cannot by any measure be described as a leading light in any "dream team"....

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Or the "fingerprints of Knox on the face of Meredith" that were apparently presented as evidence to Matteini's court on November 8th 2007. I'm still very interested in the background and provenance of this claim.

 

[LondonJohn]

Meredith / 'Today': Pg Perugia interview given to Mignini pm
Made by British journalist with statements about what happened
posted by -9531 sec ago TMNews

Yesterday Raffaele Sollecito's lawyer, Luca Maori, gave the Attorney General of Perugia, Giancarlo Costagliola, that in the process of Appeals for the murder of Meredith says the charge, supported by Manuela pm Mignini and comfortable, the sound of an interview by the same Mignini a British journalist. "An interview that might embarrass the prosecutor," says the magazine today, on newsstands tomorrow. "I handed the disk without comment," he told Today the Maori lawyer.

Sounds like Raffaele's lawyer gave the tape of a recent interview to the actual prosecutor in this case, Costagliola. The one by Bob Graham recently printed in the Sun.


The guard called the statements made by Mignini in a long interview with Bob Graham, a British journalist working with the tabloid The Sun The magistrate, after almost four years, assuming that the scene of the crime have not been found biological traces of the alleged murderer Amanda Knox, Graham would have said: "Theoretically, Amanda may have instigated the crime, even from another room." "A key quotation marks - says the magazine - which contrasts with the substance of the indictment, which alleged that Amanda had played a double focus: the mind of the orgy was then led to the crime and the arm that held firm while Meredith Rudy and Raffaele the slaying.

I think someone's noticing that Mignini is 'changing his story.' Payback is a bitch!


" Moreover, in the interview, Mignini admit that the police did not find scientific tracks because it has examined all. He had to make a choice: this item is important, this is not. But based on what criteria this choice was made? To this question, the prosecutor would have said only that there was no time to do scientific expertise across the board. In the focus, first, police said.

It sounds like Bob Graham nailed Mignini on an important point: Mignini made it all up! That he came up with his silly theory without any evidence to support it. Mignini said there was 'no time'--more confirmation that they brought Amanda in on purpose to put the screws to her, as she might have left the next day when her mother got there.


The prosecutor, continues the article in the Weekly, he confirmed his preference known in the legal Perugia, for the police, who believes more reserved, more disciplined, less bureaucratic, full of information that would lead to other witnesses and in particular fewer passionate. "Amanda's confession is half fiction and half truths," he said then Mignini the British journalist, referring to the interrogation made without lawyers from Knox on the night between 5 and 6 November 2007.

I wonder what part of the confession he now thinks is 'fact?' My guess is that she was there, cowering in the kitchen, something he didn't have any use for when he was fantasizing about ritual orgies and sex games.

Ya know, if he actually believes Amanda was there, this sick bastard prosecuted his best witness to the crime! Then he appealed her sentence to try to put her away for life, while letting the actual murderer skate away.

However she wasn't, that was an invention of the cops to get her to finger Patrick Lumumba in the interrogation. She would have no reason whatsoever to cover for Rudy Guede, nor go to jail for more than three years protecting him when he already is in jail.

Let us hope this prosecutor will do the right thing, end this farce. A forlorn hope perhaps, but it could happen.

Verrrrrry interesting.

It looks to me too as if it's not outside the realms of possibility that Mignini has been "hoist with his own petard" (gotta love The Bard - the real one, that is...).

Of course, the other salient point is this: why the heck is Mignini going around giving these long, rambling, contradictory interviews in the first place? The trial process is still ongoing, and Mignini apparently still has a formal (though diminished) role to play in them. It looks very much to me like he is embarking on a personal attempt at self-justification and damage limitation. I can't for one moment imagine that Costagliola (the lead prosecutor in the appeal) is at all pleased with these latest public pronouncements by Mignini.

 

[Kaosium]

Or the "fingerprints of Knox on the face of Meredith" that were apparently presented as evidence to Matteini's court on November 8th 2007. I'm still very interested in the background and provenance of this claim.

That is indeed very interesting, and I recall seeing it elsewhere as well, though I do believe there was another possible translation, perhaps the throat.

However what I thought most interesting was that the report of the 'bathroom sprayed down with blood' was in fact a confirmation that the infamous 'House of Horrors' bathroom pic was in fact deliberately presented to damn her in the eyes of the public--and the courts!

Like other instances I recently re-linked in a past post, this was a deliberate attempt on the part of police to present false information in a court to ensure her detention.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is indeed very interesting, and I recall seeing it elsewhere as well, though I do believe there was another possible translation, perhaps the throat.

However what I thought most interesting was that the report of the 'bathroom sprayed down with blood' was in fact a confirmation that the infamous 'House of Horrors' bathroom pic was in fact deliberately presented to damn her in the eyes of the public--and the courts!

Like other instances I recently re-linked in a past post, this was a deliberate attempt on the part of police to present false information in a court to ensure her detention.

Exactly. Although to be rigorously accurate, it's also possible that incompetence and lack of communication either within the police force or between the police and the prosecutors might have led to the incorrect interpretation of evidence and/or mistakes in the evidence that was offered to Matteini's court. However, this is of course hardly any form of mitigation - but it's possible (unlikely, but possible) that these false facts presented to Matteini were the result of incompetence rather than deliberate misinformation.

Either way, it's a shocking dereliction of the prosecution's duty to have presented false incriminating evidence such as the "bathroom sprayed down with blood" and the "fingerprints of Knox on Meredith" as facts in front of Matteini - particularly when the defence would at that point (only six days after the discovery of the murder, and only two days after the arrests of Knox and Sollecito) have very little chance to evaluate this "evidence" and counter-argue it. At this stage in the process, the onus is very much upon the prosecution (and, by extension, the police) to provide accurate and truthful information to the courts. In this case, they demonstrably did not do so, to the detriment of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Kaosium,

Re:
"Ya know, if he actually believes Amanda was there, this sick bastard prosecuted his best witness to the crime! Then he appealed her sentence to try to put her away for life, while letting the actual murderer skate away.

Excellent point!

 

[snook1]

When is the next hearing and what are the other court dates?

 

[LondonJohn]

When is the next hearing and what are the other court dates?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7216963#post7216963

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi Kaosium,

Re:
"Ya know, if he actually believes Amanda was there, this sick bastard prosecuted his best witness to the crime! Then he appealed her sentence to try to put her away for life, while letting the actual murderer skate away.

Excellent point!

Hey R! Good to see you around.

I think this whole thing with the interviews and the seeming change of story is indicative that Mignini is entering his own personal endgame. I think he (even he!) might be able to see the writing on the wall, and is desperately trying to create a defensive cocoon for himself.

The next thing you know, Mignini will be standing outside the courthouse in Perugia, shouting "Apres moi le deluge!"*

* Or he'd probably be shouting "Dopo di me il diluvio!"

 

[Kaosium]

Exactly. Although to be rigorously accurate, it's also possible that incompetence and lack of communication either within the police force or between the police and the prosecutors might have led to the incorrect interpretation of evidence and/or mistakes in the evidence that was offered to Matteini's court. However, this is of course hardly any form of mitigation - but it's possible (unlikely, but possible) that these false facts presented to Matteini were the result of incompetence rather than deliberate misinformation.

I see what you're saying, one hand not knowing what the other is doing. Those pics would have probably been taken by the polizia scientifica and it might have been the Flying Squad Mignini relied upon to assemble the 'evidence' for the court. So they just grabbed anything that looked damning to give to the court and then incorporated it into their 'theory.' Of course then they gave it to the press to distribute worldwide. This is another instance of 'constructive incompetence' at its best.

Either way, it's a shocking dereliction of the prosecution's duty to have presented false incriminating evidence such as the "bathroom sprayed down with blood" and the "fingerprints of Knox on Meredith" as facts in front of Massei - particularly when the defence would at that point (only six days after the discovery of the murder, and only two days after the arrests of Knox and Sollecito) have very little chance to evaluate this "evidence" and counter-argue it. At this stage in the process, the onus is very much upon the prosecution (and, by extension, the police) to provide accurate and truthful information to the courts. In this case, they demonstrably did not do so, to the detriment of Knox and Sollecito.

Yeah, you know what I suspect it might be? The Italian Courts are understaffed and overloaded and they just gundeck everything at this stage of the process, they don't even bother to think about it, they just accept anything the police offer them. As a result the police and prosecution just assemble anything that looks incriminating, then they sort it all out later.

Except it all ends up in the press in these high-profile cases. Which causes me to think of something else which implies it might be part of a determined disinformation campaign: to my knowledge no one was ever disciplined or any of this untrue crap retracted as long as it was to the detriment of the defendants. However anything that impugned the police theory, such as Dr. Lalli's statement about more than one attacker being impossible, and that one reporter who had charges filed on him who said there was something fishy about the statements, was punished...