Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

That's what it says Rolfe, and no one has refuted the transcription.

However both LondonJohn and Kevin_Lowe have repeatedly linked literature that showed that even three hours is at the extreme of possibility. However as you note that isn't what most the experts said in court, though I do believe Lalli testified to 2-3 hours max. Some dismissed his testimony as it didn't line up with the other two, others dismissed the other two as it didn't correlate with what literature was found with 'google and library cards.'

 

[RoseMontague]

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

Rolfe.

Even the CT Lalli used 2-3 hours, IIRC.

At the risk of rousing platonov, the start of the meal time should be earlier as well.

 

[Rolfe]

That's what it says Rolfe, and no one has refuted the transcription.

I said misqoted. What you posted wasn't his own words, it was someone else's account of what he is alleged to have said.

I have to tell you that I have heard my own expert medical evidence used to imply the absolute opposite of what I actually said and meant, by a barrister who was simply a weasel. If the bench had taken note of what the barrister said, and believed that the barrister was correctly summarising my argument, then a miscarriage of justice could well have resulted.

I don't believe the Italian courts are any less susceptible to that sort of problem than the English ones.

Rolfe.

 

[Danceme]

Rolfe, if Massei quoted Introna incorrectly, this would (or should) have been refuted and corrected by the defense team. I know it's a summary of Introna's words but we have no reason to believe he was misquoted.

 

[Draca]

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.

Those photos were from Dec 18th though.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, if Massei quoted Introna incorrectly, this would (or should) have been refuted and corrected by the defense team. I know it's a summary of Introna's words but we have no reason to believe he was misquoted.

Well, I don't know. My experience in the English courts is that this sort of nonsense often goes uncorrected, at least until quite a late date. Some witnesses fume and fret about being misrepresented, but others just move on.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

No. A trial has a number of phases. One of these is the introduction of evidence and witness testimony (including the right of the prosecution and defence - and the court itself in Italy - to examine the witnesses). But during this phase of the trial, no party is allowed to argue for the guilt or non-guilt of the defendants. That argument is ringfenced within the argument phase of the trial, which follows the evidence/testimony phase.

It is this phase (evidence/testimony) which the appeal trial will not be duplicating. In other words, all the evidence from the first trial, together with all the witness testimony and witness examinations, is automatically introduced into the first appeal trial. The appeal judge can then receive representations from the prosecution and defence requesting additional evidence, testimony or testing - in order to supplement the evidence/testimony/testing from the first trial. If the appeal judge reasons that the introduction of such additional evidence/testimony is in the interests of justice and reaching a fair verdict, (s)he will allow it. If (s)he feels that there is already sufficient evidence or testimony in that area - and that therefore any additional evidence or testimony will not alter the basis for arguments - then (s)he will disallow it.

So, once the evidence/testimony phase of the appeal trial has concluded (it's this phase that the Knox/Sollecito appeal is currently going through), the argument phase will begin. The prosecution and defence will both argue their case, based on the evidence/testimony introduced form the first trial, together with any additional evidence/testimony allowed by the judge in the appeal trial. These arguments will be entirely separate from the arguments in the first trial, and the appeal court must base its verdict purely on the arguments that it hears in its court (i.e. the arguments, reasoning and verdict from the first trial are totally irrelevant in the appeal trial).

So you have to draw the distinction between evidence/testimony and argument. Even if no additional evidence or testimony were to be allowed by an appeal judge, the argument phase of the appeal could proceed very differently from the argument phase in the firs trial (even though it would be based on exactly the same body of evidence/testimony). And of course if the appeal judge does allow significant additional evidence or testimony (as Hellmann has already done in this case, with a possibility that he may allow even more), the argument phase may turn out to be even more different from that in the first trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

Rolfe.

Unfortunately I don't think Introna has been misquoted. As I pointed out earlier, I think that the truth is that Introna didn't realise (and probably couldn't have been expected to realise) the potential significance of the timings he gave in this testimony. And this, coupled with a lack of personal experience in determining ToD from stomach/intestine contents, led him to take no more than a semi-educated and under-researched guess at human stomach lag times (in my opinion).

It's also clear that the defence teams were seriously remiss in not realising the situation sooner. In particular, once the prosecution moved the ToD back to 11.40pm in closing arguments, the defence could have shot down that ToD using nothing more than the existing testimony from the four experts which they'd heard in the same court only a few months earlier (and which they would have had in their trial transcripts on their desks throughout the entire argument phase).

Even if they had quoted Introna's "3-4 hour" testimony, they could have (in my view) successfully argued that the ToD could have been no later than 10.30pm - thereby blowing a large hole in the entire prosecution narrative and discrediting numerous prosecution witnesses. But they could also have pointed to Lalli and Bacci, who (correctly) testified to a 3-hour upper limit. This, however, would have meant that they would have had to somewhat throw Introna to the wolves, but I don't think he offered any crucial defence testimony in other areas, so it would probably have been worthwhile to do so.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Rolfe, if Massei quoted Introna incorrectly, this would (or should) have been refuted and corrected by the defense team. I know it's a summary of Introna's words but we have no reason to believe he was misquoted.

I tend to agree with Danceme here. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Introna was misquoted as opposed to just plain wrong.

However if I was on the appeals team I think I'd spend half an hour with the transcript of the original trial just to make sure Massei didn't get it wrong, because it's an egregious error for an "expert" and it's perfectly rational to look for other explanations.

 

[Draca]

I tend to agree with Danceme here. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Introna was misquoted as opposed to just plain wrong.

However if I was on the appeals team I think I'd spend half an hour with the transcript of the original trial just to make sure Massei didn't get it wrong, because it's an egregious error for an "expert" and it's perfectly rational to look for other explanations.

Itrona was wrong about the bra being cut off vs. torn off. It woudn't surprise me if he made more mistakes.

 

[LondonJohn]

I tend to agree with Danceme here. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Introna was misquoted as opposed to just plain wrong.

However if I was on the appeals team I think I'd spend half an hour with the transcript of the original trial just to make sure Massei didn't get it wrong, because it's an egregious error for an "expert" and it's perfectly rational to look for other explanations.

Personally, I think the explanation for his flawed testimony in this area is fairly apparent: he had little or no personal experience of determining ToD from stomach/intestine contents, and he did not realise the potential future significance of his time estimates in this area.

Here's a link to Introna's professional publications and job titles:

http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/614561/Francesco_Introna

He is primarily interested in forensic entomology (the use of known insect lifecycles, feeding patterns and behaviours to inform the time and manner of human deaths) and forensic anthropology (the use of knowledge of body structure - usually skeletal - to assist in forensic determinations of time and cause of death).

He is also a professor at the University of Bari, and was injected into the case at the request (insistence?) of Sollecito's father. He may well not have been the best man for the job (as with Bongiorno, who was also employed by Sollecito's father despite being badly unqualified for the role). I wonder whether anyone in Sollecito's legal team had had any prior experience in evaluating and hiring forensic pathology experts. I can be virtually certain that Bongiorno did not have any such experience, and would question Maori's previous exposure to such experts as well.

And this is yet another reason why specialised criminal defence lawyers with significant prior experience of murder cases should have been retained by both Knox and Sollecito. Such lawyers usually have not only a good knowledge of the qualities and expertise of the various different types of expert witness who are required in a murder trial, but they also usually know from experience which ones are good trial witnesses (and which are not). I strongly suspect that in the case of the hiring of Introna, Sollecito's defence team had very little idea whether or not he was the most appropriate expert to speak on Sollecito's behalf, and nor did they have any idea how he might perform in a courtroom.

 

[theRealBob]

I think we (Massei included) might be barking up the wrong tree with the staged breakin. It's possible that Rudy, after a days handbag snatching in the city, might have asked his personal butler to carry a ladder to the window.

I wonder if the cops checked to see if there was a ladder on the property.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think we (Massei included) might be barking up the wrong tree with the stagee breakin. It's possible that Rudy, after a days handbag snatching in the city, might have asked his personal butler to carry a ladder to the window.

I wonder if the cops checked to see if there was a ladder on the property.

1) I'm pretty sure that there was no ladder on the property or anywhere in the immediate vicinity, and

2) It would in any case have been somewhere between difficult and impossible to have placed a ladder securely on the sloping ground underneath Filomena's window. The only other means of using a ladder would have been to lay it almost horizontally between the elevated parking area of the driveway and the window - but this seems a very difficult manoeuvre that would probably end in failure.

So I think we can almost certainly discount the ladder possibility. However, it's entirely feasible that a lithe, fit Guede easily got onto the grate of the lower window, and from there he reached up to the windowsill of Filomena's window and levered his body onto the sill (probably without even needing to touch any of the wall between the two windows). Or he accessed the window via the planter on the porch, using the edge of the roof as a handhold.

 

[Kaosium]

Those photos were from Dec 18th though.

Do you mean that 40 days after they presented it before Matteini they gave that picture to the press?

So even if they were rushed and made a mistake for the court, they deliberately gave the press a picture of the 'bloody' bathroom and didn't tell them that wasn't blood. Here's some excerpts from a Daily Mail article dated January 16th, which means if they released one on December 18th that said blood, they were doing it again a month later as well:

"The bathroom (left) and the corner of Meredith's bedroom are covered in blood"

"The images also show the apartment's bathroom sink and walls smeared with blood."

 

[Chris C]

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.

Its accepted by the first court, which uses Curatolo as a witness. If you read Massei's version you will notice he left the reservation when using his math skills and deductive reasoning concerning the stomach contents. The new court doesn't have to accept Massei's reasoning concerning the stomach contents. They are allowed to come up with their own version using the same information in the first trial. So if they are allowed to do that, then does the defense need any new expert witnesses concerning stomach contents?

 

[RandyN]

TOD... the blanket was taken into consideration. Unfortunately the DR. forgot to weigh the body and a initial guess was 50 KG later 55, 57, and even 60. I guessed closer to 60 than 50. The oft mentioned mushroom is probably apple and unimportant anyway. The meal is from 5:30 - 6:30 start time thus 8:30 -9:30 for transit to begin. The phone patterns gives us a clue that the attack started near 9. Blood flow was heavy and death likely occurred within 10 minutes or less. TOD is likely to be 9:12 - 9:35.

Nothing indicates a staged break-in. No evidence or witness is available that shows a staged break-in. In fact the opposite is available. A rock was thrown thru the window from outside. This rock weighed aprox. 9 lbs and was clearly launched from the low wall that enclosed that side of the flat. It is irrelevant if this was a certain point of entry as the burglary could have been interrupted after this point and the burglar simply entered the front door by surprising the arriving victim.

Remove these two legs of the prosecution case and the whole thing tumbles into the nothing this case always was.

Did anyone ever consider what Edgardo Giobbi actually meant when he said he was mathematically certain he called RS and AK in for interrogation? Was this a literal translation?

 

[Dan O.]

Those photos were from Dec 18th though.

Do we have any note on when the photos were taken? The best I've been able to extablish is that the bathroom was sprayed on or before the 6th of November:

Domenico Profazio Hyacinth, then leader of the Flying Squad in Perugia, after hearing of 27.2.2009 (Massei page 94)
"I did not enter the small bathroom at via della Pergola at all on November 4, and I only saw it on the 6th when it was totally pink because an appropriate substance had been used to enhance the forensic traces".​

 

[Kaosium]

I tend to agree with Danceme here. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Introna was misquoted as opposed to just plain wrong.

However if I was on the appeals team I think I'd spend half an hour with the transcript of the original trial just to make sure Massei didn't get it wrong, because it's an egregious error for an "expert" and it's perfectly rational to look for other explanations.

I wonder if they might have incorporated something like the possibility that Meredith might have had a hidden gastrointestinal condition into their estimate? That might be some of the 'many factors' influencing digestion that Massei refers to repeatedly.

 

[RandyN]

I think when AK is cleared of the murder case they will drop calunnia. Then it will be time for AK and her parents to start suing the lying police, prosecutor and certain news agencies and who knows...maybe even a few particularly idiotic posters to internet forums. I can track down a dozen nasty idiots anyway.

 

[Draca]

Do you mean that 40 days after they presented it before Matteini they gave that picture to the press?

So even if they were rushed and made a mistake for the court, they deliberately gave the press a picture of the 'bloody' bathroom and didn't tell them that wasn't blood. Here's some excerpts from a Daily Mail article dated January 16th, which means if they released one on December 18th that said blood, they were doing it again a month later as well:

"The bathroom (left) and the corner of Meredith's bedroom are covered in blood"

"The images also show the apartment's bathroom sink and walls smeared with blood."

The photos were TAKEN on Dec 18th. The photo with the chair is from Dec 18th also. It sounds like they were LEAKED in January? What was going on around Jan 16th? They usually leaked things to coincide with something.