Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

Overdue reply to Kaosium

Sorry, I neglected to post this earlier:

Hi Komponisto! I'm glad you remembered us here, I'd missed your insights...and ability to read Italian!

Thank you for that reminder, I'd not heard about that in a while and I wasn't sure whether Mignini just pulled a sly one or if they outright cheated the law like you posted.

Incidentally, did you ever get a chance to read the Motivations report on Mignini's abuse of power charges? Some are trying to minimize his involvement and place blame solely on Giuttari, and Mignini is cast in a 'noble' role for refusing to turn on a friend.

I've glanced at it, but haven't really read it in detail.

Also, what's your take on the resolution of the calunnia charges, both Amanda's and her families as well as the one Amanda garnered from the 'accusation' of Patrick--is that even something she can appeal? How about the charges on the Sollecitos, are they doomed as well, or do they have a decent chance of fighting the charge, which as I recall was using 'undue influence' or somesuch to get that video on Telenorba?

The one concerning the "accusation" of Patrick is being appealed concurrently with the murder charges (and the "staged burglary", etc.). As for the rest, as far as I know the prosecution is still proceeding with the charges, and I honestly have very little idea of how likely a conviction is. I think the fact that the charges haven't yet been laughed out of court (as they should be) is a bad sign, quite frankly. My hope is that an acquittal by the Hellmann court -- especially if the motivation were to acknowledge the harsh nature of Amanda's interrogation -- will create pressure on the authorities to abandon these (frankly dystopian) prosecutions.

 

[Katody Matrass]

A Not necessarily/False - It was empty when checked at autopsy; See Massei regarding argument re ligatures.
Also state of digestion implied ~ 4 hours - see Massei again.

B False - Meal start time evidence varies from 5.30 to 7.00 (according to appeal docs the defence are going for a meal start time window of 6.30 to 7.00)

C False - this is not what the evidence shows. In fact the converse.

D Forget posters here - the defence (who had heard/seen) all the evidence went (in their wisdom) for 9.30 - 10.30 in the first trial.
Given all the other evidence, which they are obliged to take into account, a 9.00 ToD would never have been entertained.

Excuse me for the unrelated side note, but I just noticed platonov wrote something about the actual evidence (I am surprised) . Unfortunately some of it is far from truth.

A. Wrong. Stomach was full at the autopsy, not empty. Nonsense about ligatures is just Ronchi's speculation - Lalli definitely made the ligatures during autopsy and none of the experts that have seen the autopsy expressed any doubts about correctness of the procedure.

B. even 7:00 won't save it. Pushing the boundaries of probability to the limit is not exactly the best way to prove something beyond reasonable doubt.

C. Wrong. This is what the evidence shows. Physical evidence - state of digestion, phone records etc. With Curatolo discredited there's no evidence to the contrary.

D. Wrong. Professor Introna ( wasn't he an expert for the defense? ) put the ToD between 21:00 - 21:30 using the meal start time range of 18:30-19:00. Defense similarly argues the ToD before 22:00 - as is consistent with phone records and is sufficient for them.

Thanks, and please continue

 

[Katody Matrass]

For those wondering (there seemed to be some question about this earlier):

Massei and Cristiani's erroneous determination of the time of death is the subject of section IX.7 (pp.162-168) of Sollecito's appeal document. (The passage has even been previously mentioned here.) It is not discussed in Knox's.

Also, from page 199 onwards Meredith's phone activity is discussed. It is crucial for the determination of the course of events and supports the ToD argument.

Here the defense places the limits on the ToD:

L’analisi oggettiva dei dati relativi al telefono di Meredith, dunque, rivela elementi fondamentali ai fini della ricostruzione degli eventi e consente di collocare la morte di Meredith Kercher tra le 20.56 e le 21.58 del 1° novembre 2007.

 

[RoseMontague]

Franks new piece is questioning the police still.
http://perugiashock.com/

This is interesting. Frank seems to be focused more now on his personal situation. I can't really blame him for that but I was looking forward to a post on the last hearing.

 

[platonov]

Excuse me for the unrelated side note, but I just noticed platonov wrote something about the actual evidence (I am surprised) . Unfortunately some of it is far from truth.

A. Wrong. Stomach was full at the autopsy, not empty. Nonsense about ligatures is just Ronchi's speculation - Lalli definitely made the ligatures during autopsy and none of the experts that have seen the autopsy expressed any doubts about correctness of the procedure.

B. even 7:00 won't save it. Pushing the boundaries of probability to the limit is not exactly the best way to prove something beyond reasonable doubt.

C. Wrong. This is what the evidence shows. Physical evidence - state of digestion, phone records etc. With Curatolo discredited there's no evidence to the contrary.

D. Wrong. Professor Introna ( wasn't he an expert for the defense? ) put the ToD between 21:00 - 21:30 using the meal start time range of 18:30-19:00. Defense similarly argues the ToD before 22:00 - as is consistent with phone records and is sufficient for them.

Thanks, and please continue

A Empty referred to the duodenum. Wasn't that (very very very) obvious from the context

D See Massei again. Its not like this stuff hasn't been discussed before !
And you appear to have mistakenly taken my mention of the first trial to refer to the appeal.The fault was mine again no doubt

And I have already posted on ToD several times - HERE for example

 

[Katody Matrass]

A Empty referred to the duodenum. Wasn't that (very very very) obvious from the context

Let's revisit the context then:

Rolfe wrote:

Most importantly, when she was killed, her stomach had not even begun to empty.​

you replied:

Not necessarily/False - It was empty when checked at autopsy;​

You meant duodenum? That makes completely no sense in this context. So were you agreeing with Rolfe or trying to fool him?

D See Massei again. Its not like this stuff hasn't been discussed before !

Exactly, here's summary of Introna's reasoning about the stomach contents:

A first datum consists of what Dr. Lalli verified with respect to the presence of a quantity amounting to 500cc in the stomach; another element is the absence of material in the duodenum. Professor Introna therefore recalled the witness depositions of Meredith’s friends, from which it would have resulted that Meredith began eating her last meal at around 18:30 – 19:00 pm on November 1, 2007 (page 25 of the report already cited several times, and the declarations made in the court hearing of June 20, 2009). Based on these elements, and considering a time of gastric emptying of 2 to 3 hours after the commencement of the ingestion of the last meal, Professor Introna asserts that the violence suffered by Meredith, and which probably caused the cessation of the digestive process, began between 21:00 pm and 21:30 pm.​

And what about point C? What is that evidence that you regard so highly? Belief in honorable and credibilissimo Toto is what makes you transcend the scientific findings?

 

[platonov]

Let's revisit the context then:

Rolfe wrote:

Most importantly, when she was killed, her stomach had not even begun to empty.​

Ingesta will normally begin to appear in the duodenum between two and three hours after a meal -! You missed this part - platonov.
you replied:

Not necessarily/False - It was empty when checked at autopsy;​

You meant duodenum? That makes completely no sense in this context. So were you agreeing with Rolfe or trying to fool him?


Exactly, here's summary of Introna's reasoning about the stomach contents:

A first datum consists of what Dr. Lalli verified with respect to the presence of a quantity amounting to 500cc in the stomach; another element is the absence of material in the duodenum. Professor Introna therefore recalled the witness depositions of Meredith’s friends, from which it would have resulted that Meredith began eating her last meal at around 18:30 – 19:00 pm on November 1, 2007 (page 25 of the report already cited several times, and the declarations made in the court hearing of June 20, 2009). Based on these elements, and considering a time of gastric emptying of 2 to 3 hours after the commencement of the ingestion of the last meal, Professor Introna asserts that the violence suffered by Meredith, and which probably caused the cessation of the digestive process, began between 21:00 pm and 21:30 pm.​

Stop already Katody Matrass

Had the stomach been empty, the ToD could have been pushed back so late you would be trying to implicate the Postal Police not MK's english friends.


Introna (also ?) according to Massei in the main body of the report goes for 9.30 - 10.30.
See page ~ 132 eng. trans.
This has been covered 50 times already ! Take it up with Massei or Introna.

And we know from the defence docs they are now going for 9.30-10.00.

 

[Matthew Best]

platonov is going for an argument by authority. If the defence says something he thinks it must be correct. We'll have to see how consistent he is in that....

 

[Matthew Best]

Stop already Katody Matrass

Yes, Katody, please don't quote platonov's actual words at him in an effort to figure out what he's trying to say. That will naturally only tend to confuse things.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Introna (also ?) according to Massei in the main body of the report goes for 9.30 - 10.30.
See page ~ 132 eng. trans.

What I quoted was from the main body of Massei Motivation. We may agree that Massei can't get simple facts straight - it's not the first time, similar mess Massei made of the cell towers data and of Ronchi's testimony.

But we can consult additional documents to clarify what Introna really meant:

Sulla base di quanto accertato in sede di istruttoria dibattimentale e evidente che l’orario dell’inizio dell’aggressione debba comprendersi, cosi come documentato dal Prof. Introna, tra le ore 21,00 e le ore 21,30 del 1° novembre 2007​

It's from Sollecito's appeal. The wording is quite clear, but I highlighted the important part for even more clarity.

Hope we can drop the nonsense now and get to the more interesting part of your post:

What about that point C of yours? Was I right that the evidence you believe in, so persuasive that it justifies suspension of the rule of science is in fact magnificent Toto Curatolo and his visions?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

chiaroscuro

This is interesting. Frank seems to be focused more now on his personal situation. I can't really blame him for that but I was looking forward to a post on the last hearing.

I appreciate the chance to recall Peter Lorre in Fritz Lang's M. I hope Frank can also cover the DNA report in his next article.

 

[platonov]

What I quoted was from the main body of Massei Motivation. We may agree that Massei can't get simple facts straight - it's not the first time, similar mess Massei made of the cell towers data and of Ronchi's testimony.

But we can consult additional documents to clarify what Introna really meant:

Sulla base di quanto accertato in sede di istruttoria dibattimentale e evidente che l’orario dell’inizio dell’aggressione debba comprendersi, cosi come documentato dal Prof. Introna, tra le ore 21,00 e le ore 21,30 del 1° novembre 2007​

It's from Sollecito's appeal. The wording is quite clear, but I highlighted the important part for even more clarity.

Hope we can drop the nonsense now and get to the more interesting part of your post:

What about that point C of yours? Was I right that the evidence you believe in, so persuasive that it justifies suspension of the rule of science is in fact magnificent Toto Curatolo and his visions?

That's (what you posted) from Massei's 'summary' of Introna etc [~ p170] as opposed to where he dealt with Introna's and others evidence in detail as it were [~ p130]

Was I being too abstruse again - the distinction isn't that subtle surely.

As for the appeal docs your one line quotes aren't necessary.This was covered last year at some length - starting from here, for example.
On the 'gastric analysis' issue they (Sollecito's defence) are going for a 9.30 - 10.00 range.


On the rest - You were right if you surmise that I don't wish to expand a post on ToD into the various complaints about Curatolo and misunderstandings of Macavity.
That too has been covered at great length - But don't let me stop you.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That's (what you posted) from Massei'e 'summary' of Introna etc [~ p170] as opposed to where he dealt with Introna's and others evidence in detail as it were [~ p130]

Ahh, you mean the part where he waffles on about the stomach fully emptying and the many factors (which he never shows actually were factors, or what factors they should have been), then goes on to totally ignore both the expert testimony and witnesses to Meredith's last meal and just makes up stuff with no evidence, resulting in a ToD of 11:50pm.

 

[Katody Matrass]

That's (what you posted) from Massei'e 'summary' of Introna etc [~ p170] as opposed to where he dealt with Introna's and others evidence in detail as it were [~ p130]

Was I being too abstruse again - the distinction isn't that subtle surely.

I'm afraid so. Introna's position I quoted is confirmed in the appeal.

... This was covered last year at some length ...

On the rest - You were right if you surmise that I don't wish to expand a post on ToD into the various complaints about Curatolo and misunderstandings of Macavity.
That too has been covered at great length - But don't let me stop you.

No problem. I was just surprised that you're trying to resuscitate that dead horse in your post to Rolfe. The mole you popped had been whacked flat many times. I'm glad you agree it's indefensible

 

[platonov]

I'm afraid so. Introna's position I quoted is confirmed in the appeal.

No problem. I was just surprised that you're trying to resuscitate that dead horse in your post to Rolfe. The mole you popped had been whacked flat many times. I'm glad you agree it's indefensible

snippety snip

I didn't mention horse (dead or otherwise) - I referred to 'the evidence'.
You brought up Curatolo.

But if we are going over old ground - why not revisit 'Comodi's lies' which was mentioned recently.
That was fun ! - is it addressed in the appeal ?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I didn't mention horse (dead or otherwise) - I referred to 'the evidence'.

That was what surprised me.

You brought up Curatolo.

If I'm wrong and it's not him you meant as the evidence you believe is so strong that requires us to stretch ToD to the limits of scientific feasibility feel free to correct me. But honestly I expect more evasive maneuvers only.

But if we are going over old ground - why not revisit 'Comodi's lies' which was mentioned recently.
That was fun ! - is it addressed in the appeal ?

Why should it be if it didn't make it to the motivation? It was a trick to influence juries. It doesn't work without the audience. Besides, Massei avoids blatant lies in the motivation in favor for absurd conjecture and more subtle mistakes - like the one with cellphone towers or that one with "misunderstanding" what Ronchi said.

We'll see if they'll try to play it again and what Hellmann does then. After Curatolo and Stefanoni he's not in mood for prosecution's jokes I think.

 

[Dan O.]

I don't think they "picked up" Raffaele, they just wanted to make sure he was coming that evening for questioning. Most of the interrogations had taken place in the evenings to late at night (the previous night went until about 2AM) and this night they had planned to have an interrogation team available. I think the disturbing part for Giobbi was that they were eating pizza rather than attending the memorial. This is just the impression I have had, don't know if it is accurate or not.

It's a real stretch that they were eating pizza at 3pm. It's even less likely that they were "picked up" then.

On Nov. 5th, Amanda is meeting Patrick in front of the university at 1. At 2pm, Amanda and Raffaele are at his place when his housekeeper is there to clean. They have dinner planned at a friends house that evening so they would not have gone out for such a light late lunch. We have the receipts of Raffaele picking up 2 large pizzas the day before. And didn't they go out for a well deserved pizza after the interrogations the day before that? I suspect the pizzas picked up on the 4th were for the dinner Raffaele arranged with his friends so I seriously doubt that they would be out eating pizza so late that afternoon.

There is testimony that Amanda and Raffaele arrived at the police station at 22:15. At 22:29, Amanda is talking on the phone saying that she just arrived. Also, if they were "picked up" doesn't this shoot the theory that they were only witnesses?

I think Giobbi is inventing stories for the press.

 

[platonov]

That was what surprised me.

If I'm wrong and it's not him you meant as the evidence you believe is so strong that requires us to stretch ToD to the limits of scientific feasibility feel free to correct me. But honestly I expect more evasive maneuvers only.


Why should it be if it didn't make it to the motivation? It was a trick to influence juries. It doesn't work without the audience. Besides, Massei avoids blatant lies in the motivation in favor for absurd conjecture and more subtle mistakes - like the one with cellphone towers or that one with "misunderstanding" what Ronchi said.

We'll see if they'll try to play it again and what Hellmann does then. After Curatolo and Stefanoni he's not in mood for prosecution's jokes I think.

Yes, you are wrong if you believe the only evidence against the pair is Curatolo.


The issue of 'forgetting' the 12.47 call is most certainly in Massei and he was part of the 'audience'

We were assured by many, yourself included IIRC, at great length and with much indignation that this forgetting was due to 'Comodi's lies' therefore it would be remiss of the defence not to challenge this on appeal.

Simples, No ?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Yes, you are wrong if you believe the only evidence against the pair is Curatolo.

I was right expecting evasions Shifting goalposts qualifies
We were talking about evidence for the late ToD. Do you have any? I'm not expecting you to defend it - we both know it's impossible task. Just list it.

The issue of 'forgetting' the 12.47 call is most certainly in Massei and he was part of the 'audience'

Oh no it isn't. It may be a bit subtle for you, but it got transformed into something quite different. Most importantly Comodi's lie about the time of the call couldn't make it to the report and this somewhat defuses the whole thing and makes it into just another Massei's nonsensical conjecture.

We were assured by many, yourself included IIRC, that this forgetting was due to 'Comodi's lies' therefore it would be remiss of the defence not to challenge this on appeal.

I'm afraid you hadn't grasped my position

Simples, No ?

Apparently not so much.



I note with some satisfaction your rush to change the topic from the physical evidence that you yourself first brought up. You're right that it's thin ice for guilt supporters

 

[platonov]

I was right expecting evasions Shifting goalposts qualifies
We were talking about evidence for the late ToD. Do you have any? I'm not expecting you to defend it - we both know it's impossible task. Just list it.


Oh no it isn't. It may be a bit subtle for you, but it got transformed into something quite different. Most importantly Comodi's lie about the time of the call couldn't make it to the report and this somewhat defuses the whole thing and makes it into just another Massei's nonsensical conjecture.


I'm afraid you hadn't grasped my position
Apparently not so much.



I note with some satisfaction your rush to change the topic from the physical evidence that you yourself first brought up. You're right that it's thin ice for guilt supporters

It most certainly is - must I cite it for you.

We were assured by many, yourself included IIRC, that this forgetting was due to 'Comodi's lies' therefore it would be remiss of the defence not to challenge this on appeal.

Do you need links ?