Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

Surely it depends on both when she ate and when she visited the bathroom?

No. Going to the bathroom has nothing to do with the time it takes food to start moving into the duodenum.

I remember watching a lecture to medical students where an experienced doctor advised them that ' patients are always willing to talk about one end of the large intestine (i.e. when they vomit) but are less inclined to talk about problems at the other end' .... maybe posters here are similar?

Anyway, he made his point and got a laugh.

We don't know when she ate?, it was a 'girly get together' rather than a set meal.

Yes, we do know when she ate. Believe me, the guilters have already tried everything to try to shift the time they ate. We know when Meredith left the building, we know how long the movie they watched was, and we know they ate before they watched the movie. She ate in the 6pm-6:15pm timeframe, at the latest, and the autopsy evidence is most consistent with the latest possible time for her meal.

We can only guess at when she went to the bathroom .... I've noticed that girls tend to go before leaving to go out .... probably because unlike us, they can't just 'nip down an alley'? if necessary. Was it the first thing she did when she returned home?.

This interest in her bathroom activities is, once again, irrelevant.

Anybody interested in discussing these jailbirds we'll hear tomorrow?. Is it true that one is a child killer?

I haven't followed the matter in detail, since the time of death solves the case at a stroke. I think their testimony is more of a problem for those trying to whip up absolute faith in Knox and Sollecito's guilt, than it is of interest to those who have already figured out that there is proof they are innocent.

For the guilters, having a bunch of jailbirds come forward and say that Guede admitted to doing it all by himself is a bit hard to explain to themselves. So I guess it's either "Marriot PR conspiracy Sollcito is a Mason aargh!" or "he's a child killer shut up don't listen!". For the innocentisti, they are just confirming what we already established by other means, which is nice but far from game-changing.

Just a couple of points:

1. I think the statements Guede made to his buddy over Skype, before his arrest, will turn out to be more reliable?

Than what?

2. I've always ignored the testimony of Antonio, the vagrant, but if we are to believe jailbirds, why not him?

Er, because established facts show that Curatolo was lying or mistaken, and that the police had the dirt on him at the time he testified?

The problem isn't that Curatolo is a drug-dealing vagrant as such, it's that he was a drug dealer the police had blackmail material on, whose statements are provably false but suited the police's needs at the time.

 

[Fine]

Dan, I found the post on JREF where Rudy tells Mattieni he left the cottage around 10:30. So far I have been unable to link.

_________________________

Rose once posted this Google translation from Judge Micheli's MOTIVATION REPORT, wherein the grounds for Rudy's conviction are expressed:


"The accused indicated approximately 23:30 in the time that the other boy had come home, where he was held until half past midnight or so, then take a stroll downtown, meet another American friend and usually go to the «Domus» (but perhaps also A., who had disagreements with the staff of this pub) here had been more or less up to 02:30 / 03:00 and from there went the «Velvet», since one of his friends had to talk with anyone in the staff room.Going back to the times, even to distances covered on foot and the duration of his stay in Via del Canerino to clean, assumed to be out of the house on Via della Pergola around 22:30 or some minutes later."


This is, of course, is Rudy's account, though there was no independent confirmation that Rudy left the cottage at about 10:30 pm. It occurs to me that Rudy had a motive for exaggerating the time he spent at the cottage. There had to be time for he and Meredith to have their philosophical discussions, time for Meredith to discover her missing rent money and the ensuing search of the cottage, and time for he and Meredith to have their romantic encounter, involving heavy petting, leaving his DNA on Meredith's body. So I don't attach any credibility to Rudy's estimate for the time he left.

///

 

[Dan O.]

Dan, I found the post on JREF where Rudy tells Mattieni he left the cottage around 10:30. So far I have been unable to link.

Quoting the relevant text is as good as a link. Ie:
"Rudy tells Matteini he left apprx 10:30, but didnt have a watch"

 

[Kaosium]

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

We're working on it! Don't get too far ahead, we need to get to that magic date of December '07, when you think it should look like a 'tough case to win.'

Now, we were actually at about November 12th--how much of this 'evidence' is convincing to you? They have boatloads of crap that won't even be introduced at trial, but what is actually legitimate evidence of murder?

Now we add the 'murder knife,' that's next I do believe, it came out the following week, so when Rudy Guede is captured, what do they have now? Honestly? Raffaele's shoeprints, the most ridiculous 'murder knife' in the history of crime, a whole load of entirely worthless 'evidence' even you have to concede, and a 'staged break-in.' They have absolutely nothing legitimate of either person in the murder room, as we both know those are Rudy's shoeprints.

Now they have Rudy Guede, a break-in artist who left a bloody fingerprint, DNA on the clothes, DNA inside, and it's actually his shoeprints, and he admits to being at the scene, and says Raffaele and Amanda weren't. Patrick's alibi has checked out to their embarrassment, making Amanda's statement even more worthless, and Raffaele's wasn't even about the right night anyway, and the police know he was stoned and she freaked out.

What should a competent police force have done at that time?

 

[Antony]

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?

Reading the linked story from 12 Nov 2007, I start to understand how so many people formed such an entrenched view that Amanda was the murderer.

What's more difficult to understand is how when all of the details of the news story are shown to be false or misrepresented - and there is so much evidence of police negligence and mendacity - they should still cling to their initial judgement as an article of faith.

 

[Kaosium]

Reading the linked story from 12 Nov 2007, I start to understand how so many people formed such an entrenched view that Amanda was the murderer.

What's more difficult to understand is how when all of the details of the news story are shown to be false or misrepresented - and there is so much evidence of police negligence and mendacity - they should still cling to their initial judgement as an article of faith.

Yeah, I recall thinking the same thing, numerous times when I first looked into it, though I was often not seeing things in chronological order. There's a Youtube showing Curt Knox and a Fox commentator that was devastating even more so because of Raffaele's 'bloody fingerprint' on the bra clasp...

(she made a mistake and CK didn't catch it)

As for the latter, imagine there's people who became so convinced of Amanda's guilt, especially, they can use the police incompetence as an 'reason' why she could still be guilty even if there's no proof. The police didn't find the evidence they should have--so she's still guilty! That's what the dynamics of group polarization and some other factors can 'accomplish.' 'I've seen it before, it happens all the time, closing the door you leave the world behind.'

 

[Katody Matrass]

I wonder, all those jail witnesses today make me think that the next logical step would be putting Guede on the stand. I don't know if this is what defense is aiming at, but they must take it into account. Is Guede required to testify under oath when called in or can he refuse?




BTW LondonJohn, I really like the post you wrote.

 

[komponisto]

Update on hearing

Some breaking news:

According to various Italian news sources (example), Mario Alessi's testimony was interrupted when the prosecution announced that, since he is being investigated for making false statements to Sollecito's lawyers, he is entitled to decline to answer questions. Alessi then asked to confer with his lawyer, and the hearing was suspended. Then, apparently Alessi requested medical assistance on account of some unspecified illness.

No reports yet on when and whether the hearing will resume.

 

[pipelineaudio]

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.

Before you partake on another gish gallop, do you agree now that the time of death was before 10:30?

 

[pipelineaudio]

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 !

Platanov, before you embark on yet another gish gallop, do you now agree TOD is before 10:30?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Platanov, before you embark on yet another gish gallop, do you now agree TOD is before 10:30?

I think I have missed when the appeal court reviewed time of death evidence (medical opinions), when did this happen?

 

[Kaosium]

Some breaking news:

According to various Italian news sources (example), Mario Alessi's testimony was interrupted when the prosecution announced that, since he is being investigated for making false statements to Sollecito's lawyers, he is entitled to decline to answer questions. Alessi then asked to confer with his lawyer, and the hearing was suspended. Then, apparently Alessi requested medical assistance on account of some unspecified illness.

No reports yet on when and whether the hearing will resume.

So, if I have this right, they're planning to file charges on Alessi for telling Raffaele's lawyers Guede told him Amanda and Raffaele weren't involved? Then Alessi gets sick and needs a nurse?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Some breaking news:

According to various Italian news sources (example), Mario Alessi's testimony was interrupted when the prosecution announced that, since he is being investigated for making false statements to Sollecito's lawyers, he is entitled to decline to answer questions. Alessi then asked to confer with his lawyer, and the hearing was suspended. Then, apparently Alessi requested medical assistance on account of some unspecified illness.

No reports yet on when and whether the hearing will resume.

Barbie is twitting from the courtroom

Judge rules the convicts MUST answer all questions. Baby killer back on stand. Looks pale.

 

[Kaosium]

I think I have missed when the appeal court reviewed time of death evidence (medical opinions), when did this happen?

The science did, and found the lawyers and judges lacking. The latter will get around to it in their own sweet time, as per the absurd rules of their system.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I think I have missed when the appeal court reviewed time of death evidence (medical opinions), when did this happen?

I dont know anything about the court, just platanov's claims and then the rebuttals to them which he seemed to have ignored.

I was just hoping to get this one done once and for all so it doesnt get revisted for 20 pages and we could move on

 

[Kaosium]

Barbie is twitting from the courtroom

Just reading through that Twitter page makes me wonder how anyone could ever take her seriously as a journalist. She needs a nickname.

Snookered?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Pipelineaudio\Kaosium

Oh okay I thought I had a “Rip Van Winkle” experience based on posts discussing time of death. Science vs. law, it remains to be seen whether that is like mixing oil and water.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Just reading through that Twitter page makes me wonder how anyone could ever take her seriously as a journalist. She needs a nickname.

Snookered?

Must admit I have been finding it difficult reconciling the defence strategy of calling these 5 witnesses with the growing confidence of how well the appeal is unfolding according to many who support Raffaele and Amanda; just seems risky. Alessi is remembered by Italians for his emotional TV interview professing his innocence in the murder of a 18 month baby, only then to confess that he did indeed murder Tommaso Onofri, can’t help wondering how that will go down with the lay judges.

 

[Kaosium]

Must admit I have been finding it difficult reconciling the defence strategy of calling these 5 witnesses with the growing confidence of how well the appeal is unfolding according to many who support Raffaele and Amanda; just seems risky. Alessi is remembered by Italians for his emotional TV interview professing his innocence in the murder of a 18 month baby, only then to confess that he did indeed murder Tommaso Onofri, can’t help wondering how that will go down with the lay judges.

Maybe it's to remind the jury the contrast between the likes of the killer of Meredith, the killer of the little kid, and Raffaele and Amanda who've literally nothing in common with either and anyone should be able to see that?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Maybe it's to remind the jury the contrast between the likes of the killer of Meredith, the killer of the little kid, and Raffaele and Amanda who've literally nothing in common with either and anyone should be able to see that?

This appeal is about Raffaele and Amanda, many have posted that the Supreme Court ruling that Guede and unnamed others were responsible for Meredith’s murder are distinct and separate, if so the defence teams focus is on proving Raffaele and Amanda’s innocence rather than Guede’s guilt. I could be wrong but most people would find difficult accepting veracity of someone convicted of infanticide, hence my conclusion that this is a risky strategy.