Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

So what the end result is, they keep saying Amanda is a liar, she 'changed her story' three times, five times, whatever, but it really amounts to is they got those poor kids in that backroom and rattled their brains, which produced one story from Raffaele which couldn't have been the night of the murder, and gibberish from Amanda that will be thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Well said.

The rest of the world thinks they've assembled a 'mountain of evidence:' bleach receipts, missing sweatshirts, CCTV camera shots, a Harry Potter book not where she said it was etc--all mis/disinformation. The 'shoeprints of Raffaele's' are mistakes too, as we know.

I wonder if Mignini believed some of this stuff. According to Frank, he asked every witness and officer that arrived at the house if the washing machine was still warm or running.

So what real evidence do they have a week after the arrests? Here's a piece from that time showing what they say they have, do you understand what I'm getting at here, Platonov Rose?

But remember Amanda said Meredith always locked her door probably because she remembered at the last minute that she left that pesky lamp in there, and she called her Mom at noon and woke her up at 3AM Seattle time (in the middle of the night) and that was before anything had happened and then "forgot" it completely, trying to cover that she really had no need to call unless she was worried her crime would be discovered. And let us not forget the staged break-in, perfectly obvious to the highly trained professional law enforcement first responders. And of course, the infamous cartwheel, who does such a thing unless they are a cold blooded killer. The hip swivel, missed memorial, sexy underwear, smooches and kisses and hugs, mark on the neck, see you later, so long, farewell, meet you at the court. And that email to everyone and then some and the troubling mop even before it was gift wrapped. This is a veritable mountain of evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Talking to the dead or to god (or your cat even) is fine, there's no bar there.
Its when they start talking back the problems arise.

As for the rest - I and others have dealt with this eleventyseven times (and that's a conservative figure).
Here, for example, at some length.

'We' need to get past Nov 5th* - the fact that they were arrested - and deal with the situation as it now exists.

*Further past than Nov 8th

But as Wittgenstein once said: "Ja, mit milch und zucker, bitte."

I last pointed this out here and here, and the cast-iron case for Knox's/Sollecito's acquittal has already been decided beyond all doubt in the 7,256,000 previous posts.

Now, on the question of the green handkerchief, once again I would direct you to simply look at the court reports of March 16th 2009. All will become clear.

One look at the prevailing wind shows that Massei's court made a dreadful error in its findings of fact and law. That's clearly shown to be the case here, here and here. It's tiresome to have to keep repeating it, when it's been cleared up so many times.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well said.



I wonder if Mignini believed some of this stuff. According to Frank, he asked every witness and officer that arrived at the house if the washing machine was still warm or running.



But remember Amanda said Meredith always locked her door probably because she remembered at the last minute that she left that pesky lamp in there, and she called her Mom at noon and woke her up at 3AM Seattle time (in the middle of the night) and that was before anything had happened and then "forgot" it completely, trying to cover that she really had no need to call unless she was worried her crime would be discovered. And let us not forget the staged break-in, perfectly obvious to the highly trained professional law enforcement first responders. And of course, the infamous cartwheel, who does such a thing unless they are a cold blooded killer. The hip swivel, missed memorial, sexy underwear, smooches and kisses and hugs, mark on the neck, see you later, so long, farewell, meet you at the court. And that email to everyone and then some and the troubling mop even before it was gift wrapped. This is a veritable mountain of evidence.

That's before you even start on the "lost blonde hair" mystery

 

[LondonJohn]

Curatolo - he's the drug addict that was probably talking about a different day? Disco buses not running, right? So if all they have is that someone heard a scream, later - colour me unimpressed.

Rolfe.

My thoughts on the reliability of Nara Capezzali (the main alleged earwitness) are well documented elsewhere, including here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7086974#post7086974

And let's not forget Massei's world-class reasoning on why he saw fit to accept Capezzali's testimony seemingly without question:

If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it.

(Massei, p96, English trans)


That zinger will linger long in the memory of all who have read it and who have an ounce of scepticism/rationality in their bodies....

 

[platonov]

That (the last post but one) does it for me. Completely. Though I can see why, tactically, the defence might want to go for a rather later time-slot "to be on the safe side".

Where is the evidence that weighs against this? There simply isn't.

Rolfe.

Gee, I don't know

If I had an alibi up till 9.10 and my defence could show that ToD was 9 at the latest I wouldn't describe their strategy which just got me 25 / 26 yrs as being "on the safe side".

YMMV - I don't have first hand experience in these medico-legal matters.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Wait a second, I'm lost

Has platanov yet agreed that the time of death is before 10:30 ?

 

[LondonJohn]

Wait a second, I'm lost

Has platanov yet agreed that the time of death is before 10:30 ?

Haha you must be kidding! Although for some strange reason, I keep getting mental images of Nero playing a violin when I read his "arguments"....

 

[Rolfe]

Gee, I don't know

If I had an alibi up till 9.10 and my defence could show that ToD was 9 at the latest I wouldn't describe their strategy which just got me 25 / 26 yrs as being "on the safe side".

YMMV - I don't have first hand experience in these medico-legal matters.

You know, sidestepping the actual points is often the mark of someone who is losing the argument.

The defence seem to be going for a time of death no later than 10pm. Personally, I think that's pushing the envelope further than the physiology will reasonably allow. However, I've worked with a lot of bloody lawyers, and they seem to think differently from us mere scientists. They may see it as a binary choice - either the time the defence allege, or the time the prosecution allege. So they go with a later time, as insurance against someone producing a paper somewhere that allows for an empty duodenum up to four hours after a meal, maybe.

If this still leaves it possible that either Amanda or Raffaele could have been present at the scene, it's a daft strategy indeed. However, that does not appear to be the case.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

You know, sidestepping the actual points is often the mark of someone who is losing the argument.

The defence seem to be going for a time of death no later than 10pm. Personally, I think that's pushing the envelope further than the physiology will reasonably allow. However, I've worked with a lot of bloody lawyers, and they seem to think differently from us mere scientists. They may see it as a binary choice - either the time the defence allege, or the time the prosecution allege. So they go with a later time, as insurance against someone producing a paper somewhere that allows for an empty duodenum up to four hours after a meal, maybe.

If this still leaves it possible that either Amanda or Raffaele could have been present at the scene, it's a daft strategy indeed. However, that does not appear to be the case.

Rolfe.

See, you know and understand that, I know and understand that, and I would imagine that most other rational people know and understand that. But there remains a small subsection of people who either cannot understand it or who choose to disregard it. When they do so, it lends further weight to the proposition that they are either arguing in bad faith or from a position of ignorance.


The main issue with ToD is to throw out the associated witness "evidence". Curatolo has already done a first-class job of discrediting himself in front of Hellmann's court, but even notwithstanding that, a pre-10pm ToD makes a mockery of his testimony in any case. Since Curatolo was the only person who claimed to have seen Knox and Sollecito on the streets on that late evening/night, his original testimony was very powerful - in that it seemed to directly contradict Knox's/Sollecito's claims to have been in Sollecito's apartment from around 8pm onwards. In addition, the alleged earwitness testimony - whose main use to the prosecution was to bolster Curatolo's testimony - is also shown to be wrong if the ToD was pre-10pm.

Lastly, Sollecito's defence team claims to have solid evidence that there was near-continuous interactivity with Sollecito's laptop throughout the evening and night. If this is shown to be correct (and of course we can't be certain of that at this stage, but presumably the defence teams are pretty confident themselves), then it makes the ToD rather moot in and of itself, and tends to strongly support Knox's/Sollecito's version of events. Under such a circumstance, a demonstration of a pre-10pm ToD would simply serve to show how weak a case the prosecution has, once it has thrown out Curatolo and the "earwitnesses".

 

[RoseMontague]

You know, sidestepping the actual points is often the mark of someone who is losing the argument.

The defence seem to be going for a time of death no later than 10pm. Personally, I think that's pushing the envelope further than the physiology will reasonably allow. However, I've worked with a lot of bloody lawyers, and they seem to think differently from us mere scientists. They may see it as a binary choice - either the time the defence allege, or the time the prosecution allege. So they go with a later time, as insurance against someone producing a paper somewhere that allows for an empty duodenum up to four hours after a meal, maybe.

If this still leaves it possible that either Amanda or Raffaele could have been present at the scene, it's a daft strategy indeed. However, that does not appear to be the case.

Rolfe.

I think it is daft and I believe platonov has made a good point on this issue. If she ate as early as 5:30PM per the testimony a 10PM TOD (defense) is 4.5 hours later which is just about impossible. If she ate as late as 7PM a 11:30 TOD (prosecution) is also 4.5 hours which is just about impossible. The fact that a 11:30 TOD with a meal time of 5:30PM is more impossible really makes no difference. Both indicate the stomach contents argument is unreliable.

But reality is another matter entirely, regardless of how stupid the defense is. It is clear to me that the meal began about 6PM and she was attacked almost immediately when she got home around 9PM. Whether the defense can recover from this blunder is beyond me.

 

[platonov]

You know, sidestepping the actual points is often the mark of someone who is losing the argument.

The defence seem to be going for a time of death no later than 10pm. Personally, I think that's pushing the envelope further than the physiology will reasonably allow. However, I've worked with a lot of bloody lawyers, and they seem to think differently from us mere scientists. They may see it as a binary choice - either the time the defence allege, or the time the prosecution allege. So they go with a later time, as insurance against someone producing a paper somewhere that allows for an empty duodenum up to four hours after a meal, maybe.

If this still leaves it possible that either Amanda or Raffaele could have been present at the scene, it's a daft strategy indeed. However, that does not appear to be the case.

Rolfe.

I may well be losing the argument but I'm not sure its very compelling.

So the defence lawyers didn't discuss this with the expert witnesses pre-trial. They went to the expense & trouble of paying a guy to show rocks could be hoofed through windows and yet neglected to co-ordinate with expert witnesses on how ToD vs alibi evidence could be addressed.

I will bow to your superior knowledge but it seems very (very very very) unlikely [to a mere layman]

If it was me in that cell I would be most unimpressed.

I'll wager Andreotti was counting his blessings he also had political influence.

 

[RoseMontague]

I may well be losing the argument but I'm not sure its very compelling.

So the defence lawyers didn't discuss this with the expert witnesses pre-trial. They went to the expense & trouble of paying a guy to show rocks could be hoofed through windows and yet neglected to co-ordinate with expert witnesses on how ToD vs alibi evidence could be addressed.

I will bow to your superior knowledge but it seems very unlikely.

If it was me in that cell I would be most unimpressed.

I'll wager Andreotti was counting his blessings he had political influence.

The rock throwing dude presented a good argument for the window being broken by a rock thrown from the outside. The prosecution and the court attack the dude but not the argument and present no counter to it, in my opinion.

I agree with you on the lack of collaboration. Another example is one defense expert saying she was attacked from the front and another defense expert saying she was attacked from the rear.

If it were my son in that cell I would also be unimpressed.

 

[Kevinfay]

I think it is daft and I believe platonov has made a good point on this issue. If she ate as early as 5:30PM per the testimony a 10PM TOD (defense) is 4.5 hours later which is just about impossible. If she ate as late as 7PM a 11:30 TOD (prosecution) is also 4.5 hours which is just about impossible. The fact that a 11:30 TOD with a meal time of 5:30PM is more impossible really makes no difference. Both indicate the stomach contents argument is unreliable.

But reality is another matter entirely, regardless of how stupid the defense is. It is clear to me that the meal began about 6PM and she was attacked almost immediately when she got home around 9PM. Whether the defense can recover from this blunder is beyond me.

Rose,

Looking at the TOD section in the appeal document above, it does seem that it all depends on when Meredith last ate?.

The girls were watching a romantic film, talking about boyfriends and eating 'discontinuously' while they did so .... sounds like they were sat on sofas and chairs, watching the film, chatting and occassionally eating, rather than sat at a table and eating a dinner that they all finished together, after, lets say 1 hour?.

When did Meredith last eat? ... maybe she had more boyfriends to talk about and therefore less time to eat than the others? .... then when the film finished, she quickly finished her food, said goodbye, and left with Sophie?

Did she therefore last eat after 20:30?. Who knows?.

Maybe it would be more useful to recall the girls to testify than that assortment of jailbirds we are going to hear later today?

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Rose,

Looking at the TOD section in the appeal document above, it does seem that it all depends on when Meredith last ate?.

The girls were watching a romantic film, talking about boyfriends and eating 'discontinuously' while they did so .... sounds like they were sat on sofas and chairs, watching the film, chatting and occassionally eating, rather than sat at a table and eating a dinner that they all finished together after say 1 hour?.

When did Meredith last eat? ... at the extreme, she could have had more boyfriends to talk about and therefore less time to eat than the others? .... then when the film finished, she quickly finished her food, said goodbye, and left with Sophie?

Did she therefore last eat after 20:30?. Who knows?.

Maybe it would be more useful to recall the girls to testify than the that assortment of jailbirds we are going to hear later today?

Kevinfay,

The time begins with the start of the meal, not when she last ate. Whatever she ate at 6:30 will pass on to the duodenum within 2 hours, 3 at the very far limit. It does not matter if she kept on eating all night long, that first bit of food goes through the process, through the stomach and out the other end into the duodenum "right on time."

ETA: It is interesting the appeal measure the ToD based on stomach contents backwards from the time of examination of the body and not forwards from the start of the meal.

 

[platonov]

Rose,

Looking at the TOD section in the appeal document above, it does seem that it all depends on when Meredith last ate?.

The girls were watching a romantic film, talking about boyfriends and eating 'discontinuously' while they did so .... sounds like they were sat on sofas and chairs, watching the film, chatting and occassionally eating, rather than sat at a table and eating a dinner that they all finished together, after, lets say 1 hour?.

When did Meredith last eat? ... maybe she had more boyfriends to talk about and therefore less time to eat than the others? .... then when the film finished, she quickly finished her food, said goodbye, and left with Sophie?

Did she therefore last eat after 20:30?. Who knows?.

Maybe it would be more useful to recall the girls to testify than that assortment of jailbirds we are going to hear later today?

Kevinfay

You are about to be pounced on from a great height here

It's meal start time that will set them free (apparently).

ETA Too late !

 

[Kevinfay]

Kevinfay,

The time begins with the start of the meal, not when she last ate. Whatever she ate at 6:30 will pass on to the duodenum within 2 hours, 3 at the very far limit. It does not matter if she kept on eating all night long, that first bit of food goes through the process, through the stomach and out the other end into the duodenum "right on time."

OK, fair enough, but if they were eating 'discontinously' persumably the time of any visits to the bathroom should also enter the equation?

I have not seen any discussion of that !!

 

[komponisto]

Kevinfay, my understanding is that even if she dragged the meal out over two hours, the parts of it that were eaten earlier should have passed into the duodenum; but the latter was completely empty.

Also, what do you mean when you keep talking about the "Court Registry"? The court's website does not contain any indication of any online repository of documents; there is only a form that lawyers can fill out to obtain copies.

As for Knox's and Sollecito's appeal documents themselves, they have long been available on IIP.

 

[Draca]

Kevinfay

You are about to be pounced on from a great height here

It's meal start time that will set them free (apparently).

ETA Too late !

LOL. Very true.

This thread has been there and back. It is the beginning of the meal that is important and that started about 6:00 p.m.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Kevinfay

You are about to be pounced on from a great height here

It's meal start time that will set them free (apparently).

ETA Too late !

Platonov,

But it is true - you know it is. Even when I was on the fence about guilt or innocence I knew it was measured from the start of the meal.

 

[platonov]

LOL. Very true.

This thread has been there and back. It is the beginning of the meal that is important and that started about 6:00 p.m.

I heard 5.30

You know, those Italians are always eating so perhaps they just dont get the concept of 'meal start time'.

Cultural differences again - which is where this started.

White (cute american) chicks (and their bf's) don't - black guys do.
Oh, and cartwheels also.