Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

Oh he's totally clutching at straws. There are simply no proper grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court on this issue: the Supreme Court would only have to look at the the way in which Comodi and Stefanoni prevented important discovery information from reaching the defence (and in fact actively campaigned to prevent the information from being passed across), and look at the way in which Massei dismissed all defence efforts to get the DNA evidence re-examined. Not only would the Supreme Court dismiss an appeal immediately if it were brought on these grounds, I also reckon that the judges might have some very strong words aimed at prosecutors for even trying to bring an appeal on such grounds in the first place.

Yes, even if there were a valid legal point to be made, the fact the police and prosecution withheld important information from the defence until late in the trial would have to invalidate that point anyway. The defence requested an independent review of the evidence not long after that, as well as stressing how crucial the withheld information was, so I can't see that the prosecution would have a leg to stand on if they try to argue this in the Supreme Court.

My prediction is that by this time next year, Mignini will no longer be practising law in Perugia (or anywhere else). I predict that he will be disbarred and sacked following his ultimate conviction for the abuse of office charges, and that he will also probably be subjected to an official inquiry (and possible criminal charges) relating to his conduct in the Knox/Sollecito case. And my personal opinion is that if/when some or all of this actually happens, it will be entirely warranted and right. Mignini deserves to be called fully to account for what he's done in this case and others.

I am perhaps less optimistic; the police and prosecution have gotten away with so much already (claiming they didn't record any of the interrogations, giving false information like the 112 call issue and withholding forensic evidence, threatening witnesses with slander) and nothing has been done so far, so I'm not sure anyone will be held to account. But I hope you're right!

 

[katy_did]

During the Massei trial, the defense asked for independent expert witnesses to re-evaluate various types of the evidence. Massei rejected all the requests, but never because honoring the requests would be illegal.

Massei Report, English Translation, page 21: "The Court disallowed all the requests, on the grounds that the additional expert reports requested did not appear necessary, since the very ample dialectic contribution from the expert witnesses of the private parties offered sufficient material to take a position without additional expertise."

///

Nice catch Fine. I think Mignini is talking as much nonsense here as he was when he suggested the Supreme Court judgment would force Hellmann to accept there were multiple attackers (even if Hellmann had access to information the Supreme Court didn't which contradicted that theory).

 

[Diocletus]

During the Massei trial, the defense asked for independent expert witnesses to re-evaluate various types of the evidence. Massei rejected all the requests, but never because the requests were made too late and so honoring the requests would be illegal.

Massei Report, English Translation, page 21: "The Court disallowed all the requests, on the grounds that the additional expert reports requested did not appear necessary, since the very ample dialectic contribution from the expert witnesses of the private parties offered sufficient material to take a position without additional expertise."

///

Could you imagine the following scenario: (i) Knox is acquitted at least in part on the basis of the C&V report, generating intense media coverage, (ii) Mignini appeals because he thinks the defense should have requested the independent report sometime earlier than they did, (iii) the Italian Supreme Court reinstates the conviction, ruling in effect that the C&V report never existed because of some timing technicality, and (iv) Knox goes back to jail even though Italy's best forensics scientists have said the evidence is bogus.

That ain't gonna happen.

 

[Grinder]

The only thing I'd take issue with is relying too much on the timing of it. I believe Guede didn't have a watch, so I'm not sure he'd be able to narrow down the time at which things happened with any real accuracy, though of course he'd have had a general idea. For example, he estimated he left the house at 10:30, but this was based on the time he claimed he arrived at his friend's house (11:30pm) not on anything more precise. Of course, even if his estimate wasn't exact, it still indicates 'the scream' happened much earlier than Massei says.

Maybe he stopped by the plaza and got the time from Curatolo - we know he was there and had a watch

 

[Grinder]

My prediction is that by this time next year, Mignini will no longer be practising law in Perugia (or anywhere else). I predict that he will be disbarred and sacked following his ultimate conviction for the abuse of office charges, and that he will also probably be subjected to an official inquiry (and possible criminal charges) relating to his conduct in the Knox/Sollecito case. And my personal opinion is that if/when some or all of this actually happens, it will be entirely warranted and right. Mignini deserves to be called fully to account for what he's done in this case and others.

maybe he and Patrick can reopen Le Chic.

 

[Grinder]

It is interesting that Pilot accepts this report as gospel (were there quotes) but had so much issue with Mignini being reported to have said that he wasn't even sure if she were in the room and anything else harmful to the PG POV.

Pilot et al. also didn't believe Comodi had said the judge and his assistant were against them.

Anytime something of this nature makes it into a story, they question the accuracy first and then point the finger at the supertanker PR effort and the lies of the FOA.

The case is not over and cheering on the release, if and when, will be hard to resist.

 

[snook1]

It's hard to believe that Mignini would say anything so stupid. If a review of the evidence had to be requested immediately, why was Mignini himself ---at the last court hearing---requesting appointment of new experts to review the DNA evidence???????????

///

That's what I was thinking.

And, what Rose said - the defense should ask for the review even before Amanda met Raffaele. That would be the best.

 

[christianahannah]

During the Massei trial, the defense asked for independent expert witnesses to re-evaluate various types of the evidence. Massei rejected all the requests, but never because the requests were made too late and so honoring the requests would be illegal.

Massei Report, English Translation, page 21: "The Court disallowed all the requests, on the grounds that the additional expert reports requested did not appear necessary, since the very ample dialectic contribution from the expert witnesses of the private parties offered sufficient material to take a position without additional expertise."

///

I am not sure the requests made by the defense were for independent experts but rather additional experts acquired by the defense on various matters and various reports. I will have to re-read the October 9, 2009 request from the defense to be certain.

During the preliminary hearing there were several independent experts appointed by the GUP (for the autopsy review I think). I am not sure if there were other experts appointed by the GUP.

If it is true that independent experts have to be appointed at preliminary hearing there should be an article which specifies this. I seriously doubt, even if one should exist, that the prosecution would appeal to the Supreme Court on this one issue.

 

[Dougm]

Oh he's totally clutching at straws. There are simply no proper grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court on this issue: the Supreme Court would only have to look at the the way in which Comodi and Stefanoni prevented important discovery information from reaching the defence (and in fact actively campaigned to prevent the information from being passed across), and look at the way in which Massei dismissed all defence efforts to get the DNA evidence re-examined. Not only would the Supreme Court dismiss an appeal immediately if it were brought on these grounds, I also reckon that the judges might have some very strong words aimed at prosecutors for even trying to bring an appeal on such grounds in the first place.

My prediction is that by this time next year, Mignini will no longer be practising law in Perugia (or anywhere else). I predict that he will be disbarred and sacked following his ultimate conviction for the abuse of office charges, and that he will also probably be subjected to an official inquiry (and possible criminal charges) relating to his conduct in the Knox/Sollecito case. And my personal opinion is that if/when some or all of this actually happens, it will be entirely warranted and right. Mignini deserves to be called fully to account for what he's done in this case and others.

I agree that Mignini is clutching at straws here. If this is the best he can do at this point, the case in the courtroom must be going worse for his side than we have even speculated here. This is weak, and he is already speculating about what might happen after an acquital at the appallate level.

I too, am less optomistic than you re: Mignini being punished in any way for this case. But I also hope you are right!

 

[Grinder]

If they are found not guilty of the murder and have served enough time on other charges that could be kept intact such as calumnia or even the staging (makes no sense but much of this case hasn't), would they be released and allowed to leave Italy?

 

[snook1]

The machine's latest news flash:

I heard some very encouraging news about the appeals last week which I can't share on PMF.

 

[Dougm]

I am not sure the requests made by the defense were for independent experts but rather additional experts acquired by the defense on various matters and various reports. I will have to re-read the October 9, 2009 request from the defense to be certain.

During the preliminary hearing there were several independent experts appointed by the GUP (for the autopsy review I think). I am not sure if there were other experts appointed by the GUP.

If it is true that independent experts have to be appointed at preliminary hearing there should be an article which specifies this. I seriously doubt, even if one should exist, that the prosecution would appeal to the Supreme Court on this one issue.

I would also think that, if there were such an article, it would be extremely unjust. It would make the defense put forth requests for challenging evidence they have not even seen presented yet.

 

[AmyStrange]

I am not sure the requests made by the defense were for independent experts but rather additional experts acquired by the defense on various matters and various reports. I will have to re-read the October 9, 2009 request from the defense to be certain.

During the preliminary hearing there were several independent experts appointed by the GUP (for the autopsy review I think). I am not sure if there were other experts appointed by the GUP.

If it is true that independent experts have to be appointed at preliminary hearing there should be an article which specifies this. I seriously doubt, even if one should exist, that the prosecution would appeal to the Supreme Court on this one issue.

-

One way around all this, of course, is for Hellmann's court not to even use the C&V report as a basis for their acquittal, but rather use the collection video itself instead, or the new test done on the knife for blood. starch, and bleach or the state of the bra clasp itself as it exist today as a result of the poor storage techniques used yesterday.

All this would not be "technically" a review of the DNA results, but rather an introduction of new evidence and test, or an introduction of old evidence which was never presented at the original trial.

What could Mignini's (absolutely laughable) "technical" appeal then be based on?

Dave

 

[Fuji]

Why would Bruce Fisher photoshop/falsify an image of himself with Steve Shay? Is Steve Shay, of the profoundly incidental West Seattle Herald, so important that Bruce would somehow greatly benefit from being photographed in his company? If so, what would be the benefit in your mind?

I happen to work in the entertainment business. As a writer and an associate producer, I have several good friends whom most Americans -- and some non-Americans, I suppose -- would consider famous. I have their personal information, and, in some cases personal photos of them, in my iPhone. Given what I do, it is not a particularly big deal. They are people.

Bruce Fisher has spent the last two or three years acquiring a reputation as an important supporter of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Therefore it is not in the slightest bit unusual that he would meet and interact with individuals who have engaged in similar work, and had a similar impact. Given this, it is not a particularly big deal that he would have had personal interactions with, and even had a picture taken with someone like Steve Shay. I suspect Steve Shay would be among the first to tell you that he is just a person.

I personally do not find Shay's contributions to the Kercher case any more important or legitimate than Bruce Fisher's. In fact I consider Bruce's Injustice in Perugia website more important than the pieces Shay has written. I also find any perceptions excessively hostile to this way of thinking -- especially those requiring conspiracy theories about altering photos -- to be more than a little odd. Persons who would engage in such theorizing would perhaps be well served to take a time out, like a certain Michael/Fulcanelli has been forced to do on several fora. They likely have too much time on their hands, and have become too preoccupied with this case for their own good.

I do not know why he would do so, but I do know that he has done so.

A belief in "conspiracy theories" is not requisite for understanding this simple fact; rather, all that is required is a basic understanding of graphical perspective, shadow, and simple geometry.

This page provides an excellent, in-depth analysis of the principles of shadow formation. Most important for a basic understanding are the first two rules enumerated:

"1. Light appears to emanate as straight line "rays" from the surface area of a light source. Light appears to follow a straight line path from its origin at the light source. (This corresponds to perspective fact 1.) The origin is physical — it has a measurable surface area — and light radiates from all parts of the surface.

2. Light appears to radiate from the physical center of the surface or volume of the light source. When constructing perspective edges, light always appears to emanate from the point at the center of the volume of the light source (if it radiates in all directions) or from the center of its surface image (if it is a directed light or reflecting surface).

As a corollary, all shadow edges can be constructed as light rays from a point light sources. That is, the shape and edges of a shadow can be constructed on the image plane as if all light emanated from a single point on the image plane."

Put simply, there does not exist a single point on the image plane of Bruce's picture which can create the pattern of shadow as depicted. Although a camera's flash does not constitute a true point light source, as it does possess a not insignificant diameter, the source diameter is only a relevant concern when considering the shadow's penumbra, as will be discussed below.

You can easily confirm this for yourself by looking at flash photographs you may have taken. Most cameras with a built-in flash unit will house the unit in the upper left or right corner of the camera. As a result, flash pictures taken with these cameras will result in images in which the projected shadows from nearly all foreground objects will consistently be cast in one direction only - either down and to the right if the flash is in the upper left (from the photographer's perspective), or down and to the left if the flash is in the upper right. This page contains a diagram closely approximating the first situation described (i.e. flash in upper left).

In Bruce's image, the shadow simulated to the right side of his head suggests a point source to the right of and slightly below the optical axis. However, the shadow simulated to side of his left arm suggests a point source to the left of and slightly above the optical axis. These are mutually exclusive patterns - a single point source cannot be in two locations simultaneously!

Furthermore, the penumbrae simulated in this image are also indicators of its artificial nature. The width of the penumbra is directly proportional to the shadow distance (It is also directly proportional to the diameter of the light source. However, a camera flash is a much closer approximation of a point source than, say, a fluorescent light which, with a much larger source diameter, will cast correspondingly much "fuzzier" shadows.) In other words, the nearer an object is to the surface upon which its shadow is projected, the sharper will be its delineation.

In Bruce's image, the shadow from his left arm is simulated as projected on to the asphalt parking surface. The part of the shadow at the bottom of the image (near Bruce's left wrist) is being projected on to a surface which is ostensibly several meters closer to Bruce than that part of the parking lot onto which the shadow just beneath his left shirtsleeve is projected. We would therefore expect the shadow near his wrist to be much more delineated than that near his shirtsleeve - yet the exact opposite is the case! The shadows near his shirtsleeve are actually more clearly defined than those near his wrist.

Taken together, the impossibility of a point light source able to create the observed shadow pattern, and the violation of the penumbra width formula, clearly show that this is a doctored image, and is not - and cannot be - the result of an individual taking a simple snapshot of Fisher and Shay standing in front of Gino's East, as Bruce has implied.

 

[AmyStrange]

I do not know why he would do so, but I do know that he has done so.

A belief in "conspiracy theories" is not requisite for understanding this simple fact; rather, all that is required is a basic understanding of graphical perspective, shadow, and simple geometry.

This page provides an excellent, in-depth analysis of the principles of shadow formation. Most important for a basic understanding are the first two rules enumerated:

"1. Light appears to emanate as straight line "rays" from the surface area of a light source. Light appears to follow a straight line path from its origin at the light source. (This corresponds to perspective fact 1.) The origin is physical — it has a measurable surface area — and light radiates from all parts of the surface.

2. Light appears to radiate from the physical center of the surface or volume of the light source. When constructing perspective edges, light always appears to emanate from the point at the center of the volume of the light source (if it radiates in all directions) or from the center of its surface image (if it is a directed light or reflecting surface).

As a corollary, all shadow edges can be constructed as light rays from a point light sources. That is, the shape and edges of a shadow can be constructed on the image plane as if all light emanated from a single point on the image plane."

Put simply, there does not exist a single point on the image plane of Bruce's picture which can create the pattern of shadow as depicted. Although a camera's flash does not constitute a true point light source, as it does possess a not insignificant diameter, the source diameter is only a relevant concern when considering the shadow's penumbra, as will be discussed below.

You can easily confirm this for yourself by looking at flash photographs you may have taken. Most cameras with a built-in flash unit will house the unit in the upper left or right corner of the camera. As a result, flash pictures taken with these cameras will result in images in which the projected shadows from nearly all foreground objects will consistently be cast in one direction only - either down and to the right if the flash is in the upper left (from the photographer's perspective), or down and to the left if the flash is in the upper right. This page contains a diagram closely approximating the first situation described (i.e. flash in upper left).

In Bruce's image, the shadow simulated to the right side of his head suggests a point source to the right of and slightly below the optical axis. However, the shadow simulated to side of his left arm suggests a point source to the left of and slightly above the optical axis. These are mutually exclusive patterns - a single point source cannot be in two locations simultaneously!

Furthermore, the penumbrae simulated in this image are also indicators of its artificial nature. The width of the penumbra is directly proportional to the shadow distance (It is also directly proportional to the diameter of the light source. However, a camera flash is a much closer approximation of a point source than, say, a fluorescent light which, with a much larger source diameter, will cast correspondingly much "fuzzier" shadows.) In other words, the nearer an object is to the surface upon which its shadow is projected, the sharper will be its delineation.

In Bruce's image, the shadow from his left arm is simulated as projected on to the asphalt parking surface. The part of the shadow at the bottom of the image (near Bruce's left wrist) is being projected on to a surface which is ostensibly several meters closer to Bruce than that part of the parking lot onto which the shadow just beneath his left shirtsleeve is projected. We would therefore expect the shadow near his wrist to be much more delineated than that near his shirtsleeve - yet the exact opposite is the case! The shadows near his shirtsleeve are actually more clearly defined than those near his wrist.

Taken together, the impossibility of a point light source able to create the observed shadow pattern, and the violation of the penumbra width formula, clearly show that this is a doctored image, and is not - and cannot be - the result of an individual taking a simple snapshot of Fisher and Shay standing in front of Gino's East, as Bruce has implied.

-

Interesting Fuji and thank you for sharing,

but didn't someone suggest that all the above anomalies could quite possibly also be a result of the algorithms used to compress the digital image or artifactual residue left over from same?

Dave

 

[JREF2010]

For two other local lawyers, Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile, the Kercher case has been a springboard to national fame after they defended Guede.

"They were smart to ask for a fast-track trial, which cut his sentence, before they got it down to 16 years on appeal," said the local reporter. "With good behaviour, Guede will be back on Corso Vannucci within seven or eight years."

Maybe the Perugia Police can give these lawyers an Award for Bravery or something.

They seem very proud of their great work.

Maybe Rudys buddie's can be playing basketball in no time.

Maresca finds Rudy very credible, it stated in a TJMK article. Maybe Maresca can retain him, like Curatolo, for other cases needing credible witnesses.

 

[Matthew Best]

I do not know why he would do so, but I do know that he has done so.

A belief in "conspiracy theories" is not requisite for understanding this simple fact; rather, all that is required is a basic understanding of graphical perspective, shadow, and simple geometry.

This page provides an excellent, in-depth analysis of the principles of shadow formation. Most important for a basic understanding are the first two rules enumerated:

"1. Light appears to emanate as straight line "rays" from the surface area of a light source. Light appears to follow a straight line path from its origin at the light source. (This corresponds to perspective fact 1.) The origin is physical — it has a measurable surface area — and light radiates from all parts of the surface.

2. Light appears to radiate from the physical center of the surface or volume of the light source. When constructing perspective edges, light always appears to emanate from the point at the center of the volume of the light source (if it radiates in all directions) or from the center of its surface image (if it is a directed light or reflecting surface).

As a corollary, all shadow edges can be constructed as light rays from a point light sources. That is, the shape and edges of a shadow can be constructed on the image plane as if all light emanated from a single point on the image plane."

Put simply, there does not exist a single point on the image plane of Bruce's picture which can create the pattern of shadow as depicted. Although a camera's flash does not constitute a true point light source, as it does possess a not insignificant diameter, the source diameter is only a relevant concern when considering the shadow's penumbra, as will be discussed below.

You can easily confirm this for yourself by looking at flash photographs you may have taken. Most cameras with a built-in flash unit will house the unit in the upper left or right corner of the camera. As a result, flash pictures taken with these cameras will result in images in which the projected shadows from nearly all foreground objects will consistently be cast in one direction only - either down and to the right if the flash is in the upper left (from the photographer's perspective), or down and to the left if the flash is in the upper right. This page contains a diagram closely approximating the first situation described (i.e. flash in upper left).

In Bruce's image, the shadow simulated to the right side of his head suggests a point source to the right of and slightly below the optical axis. However, the shadow simulated to side of his left arm suggests a point source to the left of and slightly above the optical axis. These are mutually exclusive patterns - a single point source cannot be in two locations simultaneously!

Furthermore, the penumbrae simulated in this image are also indicators of its artificial nature. The width of the penumbra is directly proportional to the shadow distance (It is also directly proportional to the diameter of the light source. However, a camera flash is a much closer approximation of a point source than, say, a fluorescent light which, with a much larger source diameter, will cast correspondingly much "fuzzier" shadows.) In other words, the nearer an object is to the surface upon which its shadow is projected, the sharper will be its delineation.

In Bruce's image, the shadow from his left arm is simulated as projected on to the asphalt parking surface. The part of the shadow at the bottom of the image (near Bruce's left wrist) is being projected on to a surface which is ostensibly several meters closer to Bruce than that part of the parking lot onto which the shadow just beneath his left shirtsleeve is projected. We would therefore expect the shadow near his wrist to be much more delineated than that near his shirtsleeve - yet the exact opposite is the case! The shadows near his shirtsleeve are actually more clearly defined than those near his wrist.

Taken together, the impossibility of a point light source able to create the observed shadow pattern, and the violation of the penumbra width formula, clearly show that this is a doctored image, and is not - and cannot be - the result of an individual taking a simple snapshot of Fisher and Shay standing in front of Gino's East, as Bruce has implied.

Suggest you take this, which is pretty well unrelated to the discussion of the Amanda Knox case, to the relevant sub-forum. It's called "Conspiracy Theories" and it's thataway ------>

You will find some people who posted pretty much the same stuff (only they were talking about the moon landing, but other than that it's the same). You might find you have much in common with them.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see that "The Machine" is still trying to propagate the utter nonsense that he has some "inside source" who has told him with confidence that the outcome of the appeals is that Knox/Sollecito will be found guilty but receive reduced sentences.

Now, notwithstanding the rather obvious fact that if they are found guilty of the same charges there is actually little scope for Hellmann's court to reduce their sentences, this entire claim by "The Machine" is ridiculous. If it were true, it would make a mockery of the justice of this entire appeal trial. It's false, incorrect and fantastical. And since all the available signs point strongly towards Hellmann's court leaning increasingly towards acquittals, it looks even more stupid.

I wonder if this "secret reliable source" is one Sig. Maresca? And I wonder if "The Machine" knows anyone named John or Lyle.........?

 

[Grinder]

I must say that I have never fully bought that Rudy entered through the window, at least not with a little help. Kokomani was there with a car, multiple cell phones and olives (?). I have always thought he came forward after his vacation in Albania because he knew he had been there with his cell phones and feared the Postal Police would track him down.

Why was he there? He says Rudy asked to rent his car, seemly he was acquainted with him. Kokomani was a drug dealer of some greater significance than Rudy. Could Rudy have owed some money and he and Koko went to the cottage to cash in? Did Koko aid Rudy in getting into the window?

If Koko was associated with the bigger drug dealers even Albanian gangs (I've read they are in Perugia) maybe Rudy has no named him out of fear.

 

[codyjuneau]

The only food I might nibble on is to mention to you that Raffaele Sollecito's sister, Vanessa, was an officer in the Carabinieri at this time.
I find it quite reasonable and not conspiratorial at all that Raffaele should call the Carabinieri.
......

I agree but I don't think it is relevant to my point which I may not have made clear. I will restate.

If the Postal Police had reported the correct arrival time then the Caribinieri might have been able to claim dibs on the case because Raffele phoned the Caribinieri BEFORE the Postal Police arrived.

Therefore the Postal Police had a reason to fudge their arrival time in order to ensure that they and not the Caribinieri got dibs on the case.