Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

This is in fact against the obvious and self-evident fact that there no such photos in the local press.

In Italy, do they have this new thing called the "internet"?

 

[Diocletus]

But that day - dec 17 - the phenophtalene had not been used in the bathroom.

What is your point here? Had the chemical not been used previously, and did the photo not capture the bathroom as it looked on Dec. 17.

Anyway there is no proof that the person selling pictures was one of the photographers. There is actually no reason to assert this.

Except for the fact that what was sold was a photograph and so it was created by a person with a camera, and in a video we can see a person with a camera snapping a picture from the vantage point that would have created the picture in question.

Or do you mean to say that we don't know whether that person who snapped the picture was the actual "seller." Why hasn't somebody asked him if he sold it or if he gave to to somebody who sold it? Where is the investigation of this leak? The prosecution is delinquent.

 

[Diocletus]

If one piece of information only appears into British tabloids and nowhere else, just any person of common sense would think, as first thought, that the source was probably in the UK, Italian or British, or at best was a British person in Italy. This is the normal thing you would think first.

That's not what I think of. I just think that the British tabloids were willing to pay more.

Anyway, what you suggest makes no sense. The originator of the photo is obviously an Italian who was at the crime scene (unless you are suggesting that the cops let a UK tabloid photographer into the crime scene, which would be quite interesting). Perhaps it did get into the hands of a UK press agent. But it got there from the hands of an Italian official.

 

[Dan O.]

But that day - dec 17 - the phenophtalene had not been used in the bathroom.

Is that a deliberate lie or simple ignorance? I already posted this piece in this thread:

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".​

It's also evidenced in the December crime scene video I referenced earlier showing a very pink bathroom.

And furthermore, can you tell us exactly who was in the cottage on December 17th the day before it was officially unsealed?

 

[LondonJohn]

The photos are not actually fused but just placed side by side. I also note that only the mail showed that copyright, the sun and Perugia-Shock had the same photo without the copyright stamp. The Mirror also had those photos but no longer displays them. Does the mail perhaps own Barcraft and this is their way of advertising the photos for sale?

No, the Mail (or, more accurately, DMGT) has no ownership stake in Barcroft. Barcroft is a media agency that typically buys photos from freelancers or non-media organisations and sells them to media publications.

I would say that the most likely scenario regarding the bathroom photo (and the other crime scene photos) is this: either the Perugia police, or an individual within Perugia police with access to the photos, negotiated a deal with Barcroft to market the photos. I suspect that Barcroft then rang round their numerous media clients, starting with the UK national newspapers, but probably also including international press (including Italy) and worldwide periodicals. One of the main USPs of an agency like Barcroft is to be able to accurately estimate the market value of photos, so they would have set a certain asking price for use of these photos. It's almost inevitable that the UK national tabloid and mid-market newspapers would be not only the most natural market for such photos, but also that they would pay the most for their use.

I suspect, therefore, that the Sun and the Mail both paid a significant amount for the rights to these photos - and that this amount was considerably more than any other non-UK publication was willing to pay. And that's why the photos only appeared in a handful of UK newspapers (I suspect the Mirror might have paid slightly less for a limited-time usage, and I suspect that the Mail might have negotiated a small discount for advertising Barcroft alongside the photos).

For me, the most interesting angle to this story is what might have happened to the money paid for usage of the photos. Barcroft would have received a sizeable percentage in commission, but who received the balance?

 

[LondonJohn]

That's not what I think of. I just think that the British tabloids were willing to pay more.

Anyway, what you suggest makes no sense. The originator of the photo is obviously an Italian who was at the crime scene (unless you are suggesting that the cops let a UK tabloid photographer into the crime scene, which would be quite interesting). Perhaps it did get into the hands of a UK press agent. But it got there from the hands of an Italian official.

That's exactly what I think too. Our posts crossed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is that a deliberate lie or simple ignorance? I already posted this piece in this thread:

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".​

It's also evidenced in the December crime scene video I referenced earlier showing a very pink bathroom.

And furthermore, can you tell us exactly who was in the cottage on December 17th the day before it was officially unsealed?

I was about to post the same. I wonder where Machiavelli's false certainty came from?

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ's reasoning has two major flaws.

First, you have to figure out that there was a press conference where the police (ad the Daily Mirror calls their source) shows the bloody bathroom picture and gives false information while only British tabloid press is present.
Is that a plausible scenario? A press conference in Perugia where only British tabloids are invited? Or the "Police" who send documents only to Britis tabloids via a trackable mea (as an e-mail)?
As any absurd claim could be teorathically true, this could be true in the abstract as any other. But whoever claims such a scenario has to bring elements of evidence. LJ uses an implausible and unsupported assumption as a basis for a conclusion.

Second, LJ has quitely abandoned the first theory due to failure and is changing the claim and the topic. The original claim was about an alleged purpose to build prejudice among jurors and local population by disseminating false iformation; the claim was that the police (and the prosecution ) had leaked falese information to the press in order to influence the judges and maybe - for some reason - the perception of the case by the locals. And this is what is obviously absurd, given that the locals never saw the bloody picture of the bathroom nor ever read about it in any Italian newspaper; this meaninig, the alleged source in fact skipped the direct and only way to give of telling the Italian people (aka: obviously the source did not mean to prejudice the opinion of local people by releasing false information). The trial takes place in Umbria, Italy, and this the only context in which prejudice would possible influence the ongoing of the trial.
But given he realizes this obvious contradiction in the original claim, LJ simply has changed the claim: the police and prosecution are no longer blamed of organizing a manoeuver to produce prejudice, no longer to influence the ongoing of the trial; now he blames them of waging a branch of "propaganda war" exclusively in the UK media.
This is a different claim. Attempt to influence the jurors by releasing information in the local environtment, and waging a propaganda in the UK media which the Italians don't know about, are two different things. You have changed the topic of the accusation without admitting it. And the second allegation, media propaganda in the UK, is something something not related to a prejudice in the local environment and judges, it is not something related to the ongoing of the trial at all.
On the point of the bloody bathroom, this second allegation simply contradicts the first. Also the other allegations of leaking false information are nonsense and contradictory in their arguments; but this one about the bathroom picture is contradictory even as a claim iteself. Either you claim a media operation aimed at creating prejudice in Perugia, and that was determinant to the locals' perception of the case, or not.

1) Why must there have been this mythical "press conference" surrounding the release of the photos? Are you not aware of the mechanisms for photos to find their way from an originator to a publication?

2) Only you seem to think there had to have been a press conference, so don't accuse me of arguing that there was a press conference to which only the UK media were invited (or other similar nonsense). Your false assertion that "...LJ uses an implausible and unsupported assumption as a basis for a conclusion" is incorrect and insulting.

3) What position have I "abandoned"? I never claimed that the photos were released in order to influence the Italian public. So, once again, please refrain from accusing me of reverse-ferreting (look it up if you don't know what it means) when I have done no such thing.

4) As I've already written, I think it's perfectly possible that Mignini and the police had the intention of influencing public opinion in the UK or US. But (as I've also written) I happen to think that the most likely scenario is that the photos were sold to the highest bidders. The UK tabloids and mid-market dailies have far larger pockets and bigger appetites for this sort of material than, I suspect, nearly every other publication in the World (maybe the National Enquirer comes close, depending on the subject matter). And that's why the photos were published where there were published. But who do you think got the money for their publication?

 

[Grinder]

Another thing they miss (or refuse to acknowledge) is that, because of the nature of this specific crime, it is virtually impossible for one or two other people to have participated, and not left a trace. With a violent struggle in a small bedroom, and a stabbing to the windpipe with blood being aspirated onto the floors, walls, Meredith's clothing and body -- there is no way that someone could have committed this particular crime and not left a trace.

If, for example, Meredith had been asleep, and someone snuck in and killed her in another fashion, I can see that it might have been possible. But for this specific crime, it really isn't. And since there was clear evidence left behind by one person, and none for the two other defendants, it is quite clear who was there and who wasn't.

Yes, I was trying to say that as well.

What they also miss is that if someone could have been in the murder room at the time of the murder and not leave any evidence then it could be anybody, for example Kokomani. In fact, since they found some evidence that didn't match anybody they had reference samples for, that is more evidence that someone besides the kids was with Rudy.

 

[Dan O.]

Except for the fact that what was sold was a photograph and so it was created by a person with a camera, and in a video we can see a person with a camera snapping a picture from the vantage point that would have created the picture in question.

The photographer we see in the video taking a picture of the pink bathroom is tall and carrying a Nicon D50 with a flash separated from the camera. The photo sold to the UK press was taken someone that is much shorter and with a camera that has a built in flash that is much closer to the lense. There was a short person standing in front of the door to the bathroom just before the photographer took his shot but she was carrying a mop and I don't think mops are very good at taking photos even when they aren't gift wrapped.


ETA: ... and what do we have here...

This is in the Dec. 18 part 1 video at time index 35:04. The guy in the blue cap appears to have given the instruction to take that shot.

Were all the photos from that little camera placed in the case file or was this more evidence withheld from the defense?

 

[Grinder]

I don't buy it. It might work better with Rudy and associates enter through Filomena's window, Rudy immediately heads for the bathroom while the associates search the appartment for cash. Meredith enters and is immediately attacked. But this too falls apart because the associates leave little if any evidence behind while Rudy's evidence is all over and in the victim.

The simplest explanation consistent with the known facts is still that Rudy acted alone. There may have been associates waiting outside but nothing draws them in.

Many think that Rudy needed to be working with a pro to disable the alarm when the lawyers' office was burglarized. It is possible, I'd say more possible, that an accomplice, who had an extensive criminal background, could have left no trace that the ILE found. They did in fact find evidence they couldn't tie to anyone they had reference prints or DNA of.

Rudy finds himself with blood all over himself and stays to clean himself up while the accomplice leaves. Rudy could have returned to the scene all the while leaving evidence.

The major point here is that if RS and AK could have been involved and not left any evidence then somebody else could have as well. Kokomani was there at the time of the murder with a car which to me is more evidence than what they claim against AK and RS.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Too bad over at pmf they do not realize that "Body Language" - technically known as kinesics - is neither an exact science, nor a reliable tool for factually assessing what a person is thinking or feeling:

To me, a comment such as this found over there, is a very low-brow, sore-loser type tactic, wherein one can still secretly hold to one's theory, against judicial and media professionals running counter to it- and be "in the know" as the underdog, and kick against the goads. I do not know why I bother even to skim over there, as I always wind up disappointed, shocked, and baffled:

Those who hold to such beliefs ought to read something such as The Truth Behind the Smile and Other Myths - When Body Language Lies, which indicates that body language is often the inverse of what popular thinking purports it to be: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3123.html

If only body language was a science like DNA…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzwK4Guu ... re=related

comment below video:

"wow! face touch and head turn away from camera two classic lie tells. take a look also at Knoxies father's face as he looks at the attorney. no smiles there. lots of tension. shouldn't he be happy."

As Deanna says, "…innocent…" take a look at the younger sister's eyes, she looks up at Carlo, he touches his face and turns his head towards Curt. The little sister's eyes follow Carlo's gaze to her father. Curt looks up sharply at him and then looks down. Wow, if looks could kill…

That little sister is realizing (if she didn't already know) that her big sister is a murderer and her parents know it and did whatever it took to get her off. Look at what she's doing with her lips. She looks scared and confused, (and with good reason) poor kid.

 

[Grinder]

But where is concistence in this theory, and where is corroboration?
How can an incident occur on the release of material from "the police" (who?) to the Italian press? How is it that no Italian press source received it?
Were they physically incapacitated to reach the press conference room? Whas there a mail server breakdown in the whole country?
How can you realistically claim that no Italian paper spoke about it just by accident?

It is possible and therefore probable that the material was made available to all media but the Italian media fearing some sort of law suit refused to run the pictures. The fact they didn't run it doesn't prove they weren't offered it. Also possible and therefore probable that the british tabs paid for an exclusive.

You stated that these pictures were part of the case file and many had access to it. Why would they include a picture of the pink chemical all over the bathroom, that had no probative value, in the case file?

 

[davefoc]

Is the current view that the photos were not taken by the police or that the photos were taken by a second police officer.

Is there now a consensus that includes Machiavelli that:

• The photos were sold to Barcroft Media that then distributed the images for a fee.
• The images weren't displayed in Italian news sources probably because they didn't choose to pay the fee (ETA based on Grinder post above: or the Brits had negotiated an exclusive deal)

What is the current consensus on whether the photos were taken by the police or a private photographer?

At this point it appears the likely situation might have been that somebody sold the pictures for the purpose of making money. It seems probable that the seller would have gotten more money for a picture that showed blood in the bathroom and that his motivation may not have been to prejudice the case against RS/AK but rather to make money.

The situation suggests corruption on the part of the police. Who got the money for selling police images? If the images weren't police images who let a private photographer into the room?

The legal situation, I would assume. is that the copyright for the photos would have passed through the photographer to his employer. Assuming that the photographer worked for the police then it would seem that the police owned the copyright and for the copyright to have been sold official police approval of the sale would have been required and that supports the idea that the release of the photos was done by police officials probably with the goal of prejudicing the case against RS/AK.

If the sale of the photos wasn't done with official police/prosecution approval it seems odd that there would not have been an investigation into the release and sale of the photos.

ETA: What is this case file that people refer to. If it was the complete case file then I presume all photos would have been in it so the reason that the "bloody" bathroom photo was in this case file was because all photos were in the case file. At this point is there any information to suggest that the photos were derived from a case file rather than a collection of photos that were offered for sale?

 

[Machiavelli]

I could care less if you are the man with the megaphone or the man behind the curtain.

I am still waiting on a cite for your claim that Hellmann rejected the defense submission on the computers. Since I have already asked you twice with no response, I'll throw that out to the rest of the group, has anybody seen anything on this?

You also promised a post detailing your argument that the break in was staged.

Yes you are right; but I have a queue of unanswered posts to consider, which either came first or are about more sticking topics, and more interesting to me.
This about the computer data update is something I have learned by listening directly to the court discussion. This was mentioned in court in the days of closing arguments. As they talked about it I also recalled vaguely about that from a previous information, at the beginning of the appeal trial, but in the closing argument this rejection of the new computer report was addressed again by the prosecution, and I was there as the prosecution asked the chancellery to make the file physically available to give it back to the defence.
It was explained that the computer report had been previously dismissed by Hellmann’s court at the beginning of the appeal, the reason, as far as I understood, was its late submission, that was made by defense attorneys beyond expiration deadline.
The court had rejected the computer report, but this happened to be included by mistake in the trial file. It was still in there at the time of the closing arguments, even if formally should not have been. That was a chancellery topic.

The staged break in is an interesting topic; I have started a post about it, however if I recall correctly I had discussed on PMF about it quite extensively.

 

[Dan O.]

What is the current consensus on whether the photos were taken by the police or a private photographer?

Only the police had access to the crime scene (except perhaps overnight on November 13/14 when "somebody" left the cottage door open).

Did you miss the picture in my edit above?

 

[Machiavelli]

Is the current view that the photos were not taken by the police or that the photos were taken by a second police officer.

Is there now a consensus that includes Machiavelli that:

• The photos were sold to Barcroft Media that then distributed the images for a fee.
• The images weren't displayed in Italian news sources probably because they didn't choose to pay the fee (ETA based on Grinder post above: or the Brits had negotiated an exclusive deal)

What is the current consensus on whether the photos were taken by the police or a private photographer?

...

The photos were taken for sure by police photographers. But this does not make the photographer become the source of information. The pictures in fact may have been included and deposited in a preliminary investigation file or in a preliminary hearing file, and may be accessed by a large number of people.
Even Carlo Pacelli or Patrick Lumumba, or Mrs. Tattarelli could have sold the pictures to a UK media agency for money. In the same way, theoretically, anybody who came in contact with the investigation could have smuggled a picture for money, even the photographer himself. This is obvious.
But these hypothesis, any of which is plausible, have nothig to do with a prosecution or police responsibility or intent in creating prejudice (however, the prosecution and the police, and the police and single police officers, are all separate entities).
And also, in fact, they did not create any prejudice: there was no Italian source with any significant diffusion reporting of these pictures as the British tabloids did.

 

[davefoc]

Only the police had access to the crime scene (except perhaps overnight on November 13/14 when "somebody" left the cottage door open).

Did you miss the picture in my edit above?

I did not before I wrote my post but I saw it after I wrote the post, but it still doesn't preclude absolutely the possibility that the person taking the image wasn't a private individual just because he had on the protective outfit. However without any information to the contrary it seems very likely that the photographer worked for the police. I notice that Machiavelli agrees on this point.

Machiavelli seems to be saying that since the source of the photos is unknown we can't know the motivation of the person that sold the photos. I agree with that.

However, there is the issue of copyright. Could any individual that had access to the photos have copyrighted them and sold that copyright to Barcroft? That doesn't seem correct. It seems like the police owned the copyright and a person in position of authority needed to make the decision to sell that copyright. And if that is the case the possibility exists that the purpose of the sale of the photos included prejudicing the case against RS/AK by releasing misleading photographs without an explanation as to their true nature. But what is going on here seems unknowable without information about who sold the images. Maybe making the most money possible was the principle motivation behind the sale and maybe prejudicing the case against RS/AK was the principle motivation. The lack of a police/prosecution investigation into the sale suggests official involvement and that suggests the financial gain may not have been the only purpose of the sale. But right now it looks to me like nobody knows in this thread what the facts surrounding this are.

 

[Mary_H]

In Italy, do they have this new thing called the "internet"?

THANK YOU. Jeeze. I think everyone is giving Machiavelli way too much credibility here. I have a feeling that if we were to do some research, we would find quite a few tabloidesque pictures from the crime scene in the early Italian media coverage. Candace Dempsey was following this case in the Italian media from the beginning and I recall her publishing all kind of links to Italian articles, if not photos.

 

[Mary_H]

The photos were taken for sure by police photographers. But this does not make the photographer become the source of information. The pictures in fact may have been included and deposited in a preliminary investigation file or in a preliminary hearing file, and may be accessed by a large number of people.
Even Carlo Pacelli or Patrick Lumumba, or Mrs. Tattarelli could have sold the pictures to a UK media agency for money. In the same way, theoretically, anybody who came in contact with the investigation could have smuggled a picture for money, even the photographer himself. This is obvious.
But these hypothesis, any of which is plausible, have nothig to do with a prosecution or police responsibility or intent in creating prejudice (however, the prosecution and the police, and the police and single police officers, are all separate entities).
And also, in fact, they did not create any prejudice: there was no Italian source with any significant diffusion reporting of these pictures as the British tabloids did.

To what do you attribute the difference between the Massei court's decision and Hellmann's?