Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaosium said:
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.



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?
Click to expand...

Yes, I had posted the images of those 2 pages from Matteini (as a Google translation) a good while back. I would love to have a human translation but I have not seen that one.
 
Danceme said:
Are they recalling the coroner? Or the expert witness for Raffaele's defense, forensic pathologist Professor Introna, Or the expert witness for Amanda's defense, forensic pathologist Professor Carlo Torre? Or completely new experts?
Is anyone scheduled to speak on the stomach contents proving time of death to be between 9 and possibly 9:30pm, and if not why not?
Click to expand...

Does the defense need new experts? The prosecution never presented any evidence to suggest a later time of death concerning the stomach contents. All the prosecution did was put an expert on the stand that said the coroner did the autopsy wrong without actually watching the autopsy tape.
 
Chris, haven't you read all the posts determining the stomach contents PROVE they couldn't have done it? I think this argument is germaine to their defense and possibly the only argument that will get them off. if this is proven, knives and bra clasps go out the window IMO, as contamination becomes a given, not a possibility.
 
The first trial, as someone pointed out, referred mostly to stomach emptying and various experts gave varying time frames for this to happen. If the empty duodenum tells the story then this is what needs to be heard, this time around.
 
Danceme said:
Are they recalling the coroner? Or the expert witness for Raffaele's defense, forensic pathologist Professor Introna, Or the expert witness for Amanda's defense, forensic pathologist Professor Carlo Torre? Or completely new experts?
Is anyone scheduled to speak on the stomach contents proving time of death to be between 9 and possibly 9:30pm, and if not why not?
Click to expand...


From my linked post:

There might be extra dates scheduled earlier in July for further additional witnesses, and similarly there might be further witnesses called after the July 30th date.
Click to expand...

Presiding Judge Hellmann has continued to reserve the right to allow further expert witnesses, investigations and evidence after the DNA review has been received, digested and discussed.

I believe that Hellmann would be wrong to refuse to allow additional expert testimony specifically regarding a ToD estimate from the stomach/intestine contents. My belief is based upon two things: firstly, at the time when the pathologists for all parties gave their testimony in the first trial, the ToD was not a particularly germane issue; and secondly, when the prosecution changed the ToD during their closing arguments, the defence clearly didn't have a proper opportunity to counter-argue, since it was beyond the point in the trial where new witnesses could have been called.

However, even with all that in mind, there's still enough expert testimony from the first trial to fatally dent the prosecution (and court) acceptance of an 11.40 ToD from the first trial. Not one of the experts on any side stated that the meal would still be entirely within the stomach for any longer than four hours (i.e. a 10.30pm ToD at the latest), and Lalli stated (correctly) that there was a three-hour maximum (i.e. a 9.30 ToD at the latest). But, as I said, these estimates appear to have been given without a full understanding of the potential importance of the information.

I believe that new testimony which focussed exclusively on this one issue (ToD from analysis of Meredith's stomach/intestinal contents) would produce irrefutable evidence that Meredith very likely died before 9.30pm, and almost certainly before 10pm.
 
Danceme said:
Chris, haven't you read all the posts determining the stomach contents PROVE they couldn't have done it? I think this argument is germaine to their defense and possibly the only argument that will get them off. if this is proven, knives and bra clasps go out the window IMO, as contamination becomes a given, not a possibility.
Click to expand...

You asked are they recalling the coroner or any new experts. My question is do they really need new experts since the prosecution never denied the 2 to 3 hours? The prosecution instead tried to claim the autopsy was done incorrectly. Yet to the best of my knowledge they never actually presented an expert witness that said they viewed the autopsy to confirm it was done incorrectly. Given that information do they really need new experts? Shouldn't instead it be the prosecution that should produce experts.
 
Danceme said:
The first trial, as someone pointed out, referred mostly to stomach emptying and various experts gave varying time frames for this to happen. If the empty duodenum tells the story then this is what needs to be heard, this time around.
Click to expand...


Well, you're partially correct. The expert testimony actually dealt with both parameters: the lag time before the stomach starts to empty, and the time for the stomach to completely empty itself. In fact, four different expert witnesses (Lalli, Bacci, Norelli and Introna) testified directly about lag times:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7183646#post7183646

But it does seem that Massei may have looked (erroneously) more at the stomach emptying times than the lag times when he applied his special brand of "reasoning"...
 
Chris, no, IMO, the prosecution's version is the accepted version by the court and the one which convicted them. It is now up to the defense to refute it or it stands. The defense must show the court and prosecution that it was wrong. If it doesn't this issue is a non issue and the later time of death stays, allowing all sorts of other prosecution evidence to be argued. If this point can be proved, it all falls apart.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Well, you're partially correct. The expert testimony actually dealt with both parameters: the lag time before the stomach starts to empty, and the time for the stomach to completely empty itself. In fact, four different expert witnesses (Lalli, Bacci, Norelli and Introna) testified directly about lag times:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7183646#post7183646

But it does seem that Massei may have looked (erroneously) more at the stomach emptying times than the lag times when he applied his special brand of "reasoning"...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link to that summary. Raffaele's defense, Prof. Introna, put the tod between 9:30 and 10:30, while discussing all these issues. Is he wrong?
 
Rolfe,
Here is Introna's argument, as summarized in the Massei report;



"He paid particular attention to the digestive process, preceding his explanations with the following [129] critical remarks: "the stomach contents represent a concrete problem...because there are so very many variables, above all at moments of stress...the analysis of the stomach contents implies technical knowledge, is physiologically quite difficult, and the results are always open to some doubt..." (page 15, hearing on June 20, 2009). Professor Introna maintained that in order to apply these criteria, it was necessary to know the values of certain initial parameters: the time when the last meal began; whether the stomach had any pathological problems which might slow down the digestive processes; whether the stomach was quite full or had already begun to empty itself.
He recalled the data from various testimonies, from which, as he observed, it emerged that at around 18:00-18:30 pm, Meredith began to eat a homemade pizza with various toppings (cheese, mozzarella, eggplant and perhaps also onions) and then ate apple crumble with ice cream. This meal ended at about 20:30 pm, so he considered that the mealtime lasted from 18:30 to 20:30 pm.
He recalled the reports by Dr. Lalli and the other experts stating that under macroscopic examination, the stomach contents revealed a piece of apple and floury fragments which might have been from the crumble or from the pizza. He also recalled that the emptying of the stomach under standard conditions starts around three and a half hours after the start of a meal, say between three and four hours after, and that the term "emptying" indicates the stomach emptying its contents (into the duodenum). He asserted that "knowing that Meredith's meal started at 18:30 pm, knowing that there were about 500 cc of stomach contents, and knowing from the autopsy that there was no pathology of the stomach...which could slow down digestion, and above all", as reported by Dr. Lalli, knowing that the duodenum was still empty "because the stomach had not even begun to empty itself" (page 19 of the transcripts), the time of death must lie between 21:30 pm (three hours after 18:30) and 22:30 pm (four hours after 18:30), and that this timing agreed with the less rigid
133
data provided by the analysis of the hypostasis, of the rigor mortis and of the body temperature, considering the uncertainty of the body weight which was guessed without weighing the body. He also observed [130] that the beginning of the attack must have been a moment of tremendous stress for Kercher and may have arrested the digestive process. One could and should obtain a precise indication from this, in the sense that the stress to which the victim was subjected must have started between 21:30 pm and 22:30 pm."
 
Danceme said:
Chris, no, IMO, the prosecution's version is the accepted version by the court and the one which convicted them. It is now up to the defense to refute it or it stands. The defense must show the court and prosecution that it was wrong. If it doesn't this issue is a non issue and the later time of death stays, allowing all sorts of other prosecution evidence to be argued. If this point can be proved, it all falls apart.
Click to expand...


Ohhhhhhh here we go again. I will repeat again, slowwwwwwly:

The appeal trial currently underway in Knox's/Sollecito's case in Italy is not the same as an "appeal" is defined in a UK or US court.

The appeal in Italian serious criminal cases is a whole new trial, in front of a whole new judge and judicial panel. Much of the evidence and testimony presented to the appeal court is identical to that presented to the first court (with additions at the presiding judge's discretion), but the whole argument process is entirely new and based in no way on the verdict or reasoning from the first trial.

Therefore you're wrong to say that "it is now up to the defense to refute it or it stands". That's the way it works in what we in the UK (or the US) would call an "appeal", but it's not the way it works in Italy. Instead, it's entirely incumbent upon the prosecution in Knox's/Sollecito's appeal trial to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from scratch. And in order to do so, it's incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the elements of its case against the two defendants. Nothing "stands" in relation to the argument, court reasoning/deliberation and verdict - it's all done again from scratch.

So, in the specific case of ToD, Hellmann's court starts with a completely open mind about this issue, and the testimony of the expert witnesses from the first trial. Let's also assume for simplicity's sake that Hellmann does not allow any new testimony or evidence in this area. At some point in the argument phase, the prosecution will (presumably) argue for a certain ToD, based on a variety of factors (including perhaps some medical evidence/testimony, and the testimony of Capezzali, but probably not Curatolo...). The defence will then at some point in its argument attempt to show that the prosecution's ToD is not supported by certain evidence or testimony. The defence may also argue that the evidence and testimony actually supports a ToD which tends to rule out the involvement of Knox and Sollecito.

The court will then weigh up the arguments, and may decide to accept the prosecution's argument, or the defence's argument, or it may (as is allowed in Italian law) decide upon its own different conclusion on ToD. What emphatically does NOT happen is that the ToD is set at 11.40pm (as per the first court), unless or until the defence can convince Hellmann otherwise.
 
Danceme said:
He also recalled that the emptying of the stomach under standard conditions starts around three and a half hours after the start of a meal, say between three and four hours after, and that the term "emptying" indicates the stomach emptying its contents (into the duodenum). He asserted that "knowing that Meredith's meal started at 18:30 pm, knowing that there were about 500 cc of stomach contents, and knowing from the autopsy that there was no pathology of the stomach...which could slow down digestion, and above all", as reported by Dr. Lalli, knowing that the duodenum was still empty "because the stomach had not even begun to empty itself" (page 19 of the transcripts), the time of death must lie between 21:30 pm (three hours after 18:30) and 22:30 pm (four hours after 18:30)....
Click to expand...


That's bonkers. Are you sure the man hasn't been misquoted?

Rolfe.
 
How can it be said then that it is a completely new trial, starting from scratch and several lines down you say Hellmann may decide not to allow new testimony or evidence in this area. Isn't this a contradiction?
 
LondonJohn said:
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...).
Click to expand...

Indeed I do! :)

I do believe I was obliquely accused of using 'rhetoric' at IIP the other day by an 'interlocutor' there. I felt like replying that it was so much fun employing words when 'your cause is just and your quarrel honorable.' I demurred as while I can usually maintain an even keel, at this point in the debate someone who thinks they can deliberately take something out of context and condemn two poor college kids to a 'lifetime' in prison, and had this case not received the attention it had he might be right considering the 'logic' of the Italian Courts, just makes me want to reach for a flamethower--in more ways than one. ;)

LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

My guess would be damage control, he knows it's all falling apart. The chickens are coming home to roost. However he forgot something, he might just be about to receive an object lesson in what it's like to deal with a free press he can't cow with defamation charges. The cardinal rule from what I've seen is you never outright lie to them. They expect to be spun, they realize talking points will be assembled and memes introduced by those hoping to get them into their stories, but if someone deliberately tries to get them to print outright falsehoods--and they do--they can get downright brutal.

I read British papers for years, the four main broadsheets, along with the Mail, Sun, and Daily Express, and I'd never seen anything quite like what was done to Amanda Knox. They're usually hyperbolic of course, and like those easy to read one-line line 'paragraphs' but this was extraordinary in my experience. I was usually interested in their take on international events and domestic politics, not crime news, so I've wondered if I'd just 'missed' that part of their coverage and it was not that unusual. However, perhaps something else might have happened, maybe along with that immunity from libel laws they didn't quite get that in Italy a dishonest prosecutor can get away with just about anything in the early stages of a crime, and then produce whatever they want in court without fear of reprisal. The Italian press plays the game because they've been cowed, and that attitude just 'seeped in' to coverage from British reporters who didn't quite understand how the game was played there.
 
Danceme said:
Thanks for the link to that summary. Raffaele's defense, Prof. Introna, put the tod between 9:30 and 10:30, while discussing all these issues. Is he wrong?
Click to expand...


Yes he is. As I've said (but perhaps you didn't notice), one of the reasons why I believe that there should be additional expert testimony on this issue is this: at the time that the experts were dealing with ToD, it was not thought to be of high relevance or importance in the case of the guilt or non-guilt of Knox or Sollecito. Therefore, the experts on all sides dealt with the ToD - particularly with relation to the stomach contents - in a somewhat offhand and under-researched manner (in my opinion).

You have to bear in mind that stomach/intestine contents are rarely used in this way as a key determinant of ToD: this is because a) residual body temperature can be uniformly reliable as ToD indicator if the temperature is first taken within some 6-18 hours after death, and b) in most cases, the stomach/intestine contents do not lend themselves to an accurate estimate of ToD.

But in this case, Meredith's stomach/intestine contents - coupled with the known information that she was still definitely alive just before 9pm - do provide the unusual circumstances where they lend themselves to an accurate estimate of ToD.

If you read the expert testimony of the four pathologists, two of them actually contradict one of the others (Introna with 3-4 hours, versus Lalli/Bacci with 2-3 hours). This is a further indication that insufficient care was taken in the accuracy of this testimony - after all, at least one of the experts must be wrong here. All the available evidence on stomach emptying available elsewhere suggests that it was Lalli and Bacci who were right in their 2-3 hour testimony, and Introna who was wrong.

And yes, I agree that it's ironic that the prosecution witness tends to support the defence on this point, and the defence witness slighly supports the prosecution (but only up to a 10.30 ToD, which still blows a hole in the prosecution case). Note also that none of the experts comes anywhere close to validating an 11.40 ToD in this testimony.
 
Yes, understood, but it doesn't diminish the fact that the time of death based on stomach content has become the definitive issue with the most traction to support the defense assertion they couldn't have done it. Why then is it not front and foremost in the appeal? In fact, why is it not the "smoking gun" ?
 
Kaosium said:
Indeed I do! :)

I do believe I was obliquely accused of using 'rhetoric' at IIP the other day by an 'interlocutor' there. I felt like replying that it was so much fun employing words when 'your cause is just and your quarrel honorable.' I demurred as while I can usually maintain an even keel, at this point in the debate someone who thinks they can deliberately take something out of context and condemn two poor college kids to a 'lifetime' in prison, and had this case not received the attention it had he might be right considering the 'logic' of the Italian Courts, just makes me want to reach for a flamethower--in more ways than one. ;)

My guess would be damage control, he knows it's all falling apart. The chickens are coming home to roost. However he forgot something, he might just be about to receive an object lesson in what it's like to deal with a free press he can't cow with defamation charges. The cardinal rule from what I've seen is you never outright lie to them. They expect to be spun, they realize talking points will be assembled and memes introduced by those hoping to get them into their stories, but if someone deliberately tries to get them to print outright falsehoods--and they do--they can get downright brutal.

I read British papers for years, the four main broadsheets, along with the Mail, Sun, and Daily Express, and I'd never seen anything quite like what was done to Amanda Knox. They're usually hyperbolic of course, and like those easy to read one-line line 'paragraphs' but this was extraordinary in my experience. I was usually interested in their take on international events and domestic politics, not crime news, so I've wondered if I'd just 'missed' that part of their coverage and it was not that unusual. However, perhaps something else might have happened, maybe along with that immunity from libel laws they didn't quite get that in Italy a dishonest prosecutor can get away with just about anything in the early stages of a crime, and then produce whatever they want in court without fear of reprisal. The Italian press plays the game because they've been cowed, and that attitude just 'seeped in' to coverage from British reporters who didn't quite understand how the game was played there.
Click to expand...


Nah: what the British press did to Knox was - unfortunately - very much par for the course. Google "Chris Jefferies" or "Colin Stagg" to see other examples of the expertise that the British press has in vilification of murder suspects - often in the absence of any decent judicial case against them. Indeed, in the two cases I've mentioned above, it's subsequently been shown that neither individual had anything whatsoever to do with the murder of which they stood virtually tried and convicted in the media (although the Joanna Yeates murder trial (Jefferies) is ongoing, but with a totally different defendant on trial).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom