Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Wow, you are good.

I just spent 15 minutes or so working with a photo manipulation program to compare an on-line profile image of Mignini with the crime scene image Dan O. posted and with my photo comparison skill level and the images available on-line of Mignini I would say that the two images match to the point that there is nothing that rules out the possibility that they are of the same individual and that the match is good enough that given the circumstances it is very likely that the crime scene image is of Mignini.

I wonder if Machiavelli has an opinion about this. He seems to be more familiar with Mignini than most of us. Perhaps he could look at the crime scene videos and make a better determination?

This certainly is consistent with what Dan O. noticed about the fact that the published images didn't quite match the image shown in the court file. And it certainly would explain the copyright issue. Mignini might view the situation that he owned the rights to the photo since he took the picture (a questionable legal view but plausible). It would throw a new light onto the issue of the intent of the individual who released the images.

At this point is it known whether any of the images taken by this unknown (but probably Mignini) were made available to the defense.

I still remain confused as to what is the source for all these pictures. Dan O. seems to have access to some kind of case file photos, and some kind of collection of photos used in the trial and a video of the crime scene. Would it be possible for links to all these sources to be listed here? Perhaps Machiavelli has some sources that he would like to post links to on this?

The second one looks like the guy holding the megaphone. Just saying.

 

[Dougm]

In the notorious YouTube video, the second investigator to handle the clasp is shown holding it by the metal hook. He even brandishes it right in front of the camera in this way.

Right. So we already have a more likely source of DNA being there than any touching of the hook by anyone in a murder scenario, especially since the bra was torn off.

 

[Fine]

Wow, you are good.

I just spent 15 minutes or so working with a photo manipulation program to compare an on-line profile image of Mignini with the crime scene image Dan O. posted and with my photo comparison skill level and the images available on-line of Mignini I would say that the two images match to the point that there is nothing that rules out the possibility that they are of the same individual and that the match is good enough that given the circumstances it is very likely that the crime scene image is of Mignini.

I wonder if Machiavelli has an opinion about this. He seems to be more familiar with Mignini than most of us. Perhaps he could look at the crime scene videos and make a better determination?

This certainly is consistent with what Dan O. noticed about the fact that the published images didn't quite match the image shown in the court file. And it certainly would explain the copyright issue. Mignini might view the situation that he owned the rights to the photo since he took the picture (a questionable legal view but plausible). It would throw a new light onto the issue of the intent of the individual who released the images.

At this point is it known whether any of the images taken by this unknown photographer (but probably Mignini) were made available to the defense.

I still remain confused as to what is the source for all these pictures. Dan O. seems to have access to some kind of case file photos, and some kind of collection of photos used in the trial and a video of the crime scene. Would it be possible for links to all these sources to be listed here? Perhaps Machiavelli has some sources that he would like to post links to on this?

ETA: It would also explain why Mignini didn't initiate an investigation of what looks at first glance like an illegal release of information about the case.

________________

Davefoc,

There are 18 crime scene videos posted HERE.

///

 

[Dan O.]

I still remain confused as to what is the source for all these pictures. Dan O. seems to have access to some kind of case file photos, and some kind of collection of photos used in the trial and a video of the crime scene. Would it be possible for links to all these sources to be listed here? Perhaps Machiavelli has some sources that he would like to post links to on this?

IIP is always a good source. The crime scene videos were hosted at the FOA site but they don't leave them up so you have to make a copy when you find them.

Here is the last link I've seen: http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/crime-scene-video-t725.html

I'm thinking of starting a project to index all known photos.

 

[Malkmus]

I have never commented on the bathroom-soaked-in-blood photo because it never looked like a bathroom soaked in blood to me, and I find it hard to believe that some people actually believed that's what it represented. It should be apparent the photo shows a bathroom soaked in chemicals.

I have found that it wasn't the photo itself that formed people's opinions of the matter, but rather the word of mouth that it created. I have seen it written several times, "She showered in a blood-soaked bathroom". That photo started a myth, and it didn't matter to people whether they saw the bathroom pic or not. They simply heard about Amanda doing this unthinkable act, and that's the damage.

 

[Rolfe]

As an aside, it seems there is no longer a "white" PMF.org. No way am I reading that black insult to the eyes. Maybe that's the idea?

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

As an aside, it seems there is no longer a "white" PMF.org. No way am I reading that black insult to the eyes. Maybe that's the idea?

Rolfe.

Yes, I think they are pulling a Hamlet, and refusing to "cast off thy nighted colour".

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Why don't you replace your "feeling" with a research?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Nobody could have sold a copyright to Barcroft nor to anyone else for the picture. They could have sold the photos, not their copyright. Judicial acts don't have any copyright. The copyright doesnt belong to the police or to the judiciary: there is no copyright on material that is included in the investigation file.

 

[davefoc]

Nobody could have sold a copyright to Barcroft nor to anyone else for the picture. They could have sold the photos, not their copyright. Judicial acts don't have any copyright. The copyright doesnt belong to the police or to the judiciary: there is no copyright on material that is included in the investigation file.

I considered that. But then how could Barcroft get a copyright on the photos?

One answer is that Barcroft got the photos from Mignini. He seems to be the photographer of at least one of the pictures that Barcroft published and he might have assigned part or all of the copyright to Barcroft.

Do you have an opinion as to whether Mignini was at the crime scene when the crime scene videos were taken? Do you have an opinion as to whether the man seen taking pictures with the small point and shoot camera was Mignini?

I looked briefly at the crime scene videos and one of the things I noticed was that there was a guy walking around with what looked a small camera consistent with the small camera used to take the crime scene photos in his left breast pocket. Do you suppose that was Migniini?

How tall would you say Mignini is?

 

[Machiavelli]

One of Machiavelli claims is that the photo could have been in the case file. I had the same speculation some time ago but further research showed that the case file photo was in fact a different shot. Here you can see for yourself the different perspective and lighting in the two pictures

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5162[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=5161[/qimg]


The image on the right was found in the case file. The one on the left is what the Mail published. Machiavelli again has no support for his claim.

I don't need any support for a "claim", it's the one who makes a claim about a leak by someone to create prejudice the one who has to bring support to his opinion, not the other way around.
The claim that it does not come from an evidence file is unsupported, and leads to a nonsense, given that it seems you have found an almost identical, equivalent shot, in the trial files.
Given that there were about 10 days of video time shot in the apartment and hundreds of pictures taken, and prevented that the preliminary investigation file and the preliminary hearing file also exist and they are not the same of the trial file, the idea that there must be only one shot of the pink bathroom among the files is ludicrous.

 

[Machiavelli]

I considered that. But then how could Barcroft get a copyright on the photos?

One answer is that Barcroft got the photos from Mignini. He seems to be the photographer of at least one of the pictures that Barcroft published and he might have assigned part or all of the copyright to Barcroft.

Do you have an opinion as to whether Mignini was at the crime scene when the crime scene videos were taken? Do you have an opinion as to whether the man seen taking pictures with the small point and shoot camera was Mignini?

I looked briefly at the crime scene videos and one of the things I noticed was that there was a guy walking around with what looked a small camera consistent with the small camera used to take the crime scene photos in his left breast pocket. Do you suppose that was Migniini?

How tall would you say Mignini is?

I have no idea if Mignini took photos, and I don't see this person in the video, but could also be one of the parties technical consultants, since we know that also several private experts cam in and may have taken their own photos.
However, I think they could not sell the copyright to a private subject. The press company however may have decided to put anyway their copyright on the photos, as long as they are published in the UK. I don't know if that's legal, but may not be a violation of the Italian law, as long as the copyright is not used in Italy.

 

[Malkmus]

I have no idea if Mignini took photos, and I don't see this person in the video.

Dan O. just posted it. Here it is again. Now, do you see it?



Is this ^ Mignini or not?

 

[davefoc]

I have no idea if Mignini took photos, and I don't see this person in the video, but could also be one of the parties technical consultants, since we know that also several private experts cam in and may have taken their own photos.
However, I think they could not sell the copyright to a private subject. The press company however may have decided to put anyway their copyright on the photos, as long as they are published in the UK. I don't know if that's legal, but may not be a violation of the Italian law, as long as the copyright is not used in Italy.

Just a quick word before I start mowing the lawn again. My wife has taken a dim view of my goofing off today and some effort at productive work is required for domestic tranquility.

Apparently in the US since 1989 all photographic works are immediately copyrighted when they are taken except for works taken by federal employees. The copyright would immediately transfer to the employer (including the police) if the photographs were taken as part of the photographer's work duties. Are you sure that Italy doesn't have similar laws?

Your thought here is that there is a technical consultant with a similar face and physique as Mignini that might have been walking around taking pictures with a small point and shoot camera at the crime scene? And that he sold the copyright to Barcroft? And that the police and Mignini thought this was OK so they just let him do it without any repercussions? Is this common practice in Italy to have private consultants walking around crime scenes taking pictures for profit?

 

[Antony]

As an aside, it seems there is no longer a "white" PMF.org. No way am I reading that black insult to the eyes. Maybe that's the idea?

Rolfe.

A black background gives less glare than a white one. In the days of dumb terminals, nearly all screens were green text on black background - I don't quite see why anyone should talk about it "insulting the eyes".

What causes me problems reading it is that the width of the text doesn't adjust to the size of my window (unlike the white screen options used to). Not having a high-resolution wide-screen that means I have to reduce the text size to a ridiculously small one, or else constantly scroll from side to side. That and putting up with the plethora of dancing emoticons they seem so fond of. Needless to say, it's not really worth the effort.

ETA: I now see that it seems to adjust the width for some pages but not others. That's puzzling, but it's not really worth the effort of tracking down the reason, just so as to read some weird rationalisations for entrenched beliefs.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

On a superficial level, the difference stems directly from the Vecchiotti and Conti report. This new material allows the necessary change to the evidence set between the first and the second trial, in order to motivate a different decision by the judges.
But on a deeper level, the difference was announced even before the start of the discussion, as Zanetti declared that "the only sure thing is that Meredith was killed" and they said that "reasonable doubt does not allow to share entirely the decision of the first instance". Those announcements - retrospectively - show that an intent was already present before the beginning of the discussion; in practice the had decided before the start.
On a deeper level, the difference between the first and the second trial is in how the whole discussion on evidence has been set. This reveals that there was an intent to consider the pieces of evidence differently.

About the deep "causes" of this, to have a clear opinion I need to read the sentencing report. But starting from the basics, by looking at the evidence set, and considering the features of some other - rare, but important - Italian precedents, my stronger suspicion is that the motivation beyond Hellmann's decision was corruption or personal interest. Not so much directly demending on the powers and media around Knox, but rather caused by those related to Sollecito.
Frankly, I feel this verdict is "dirty". I think it may be something like Tinebra's verdict on the via d'Amelio massacre, like the Cogne Appeal verdict, like the Andreotti-saving Cassazione verdict, like the Ustica criminal section verdict, or like many Carnevale's Cassazione verdicts. Or like Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia's acquittals, like the aborted Woodcock's investigation in POtenza, or like the aborted investigation by De Magistris in Catanzaro. May be instead only a wrong conclusion, like the Stasi first instance verdict; but more likely I feel it was like the above mentioned, I am more inclinded to think this, like the ones listed above, was not a mistake.

 

[Grinder]

On a superficial level, the difference stems directly from the Vecchiotti and Conti report. This new material allows the necessary change to the evidence set between the first and the second trial, in order to motivate a different decision by the judges.
But on a deeper level, the difference was announced even before the start of the discussion, as Zanetti declared that "the only sure thing is that Meredith was killed" and they said that "reasonable doubt does not allow to share entirely the decision of the first instance". Those announcements - retrospectively - show that an intent was already present before the beginning of the discussion; in practice the had decided before the start.
On a deeper level, the difference between the first and the second trial is in how the whole discussion on evidence has been set. This reveals that there was an intent to consider the pieces of evidence differently.

About the deep "causes" of this, to have a clear opinion I need to read the sentencing report. But starting from the basics, by looking at the evidence set, and considering the features of some other - rare, but important - Italian precedents, my stronger suspicion is that the motivation beyond Hellmann's decision was corruption or personal interest. Not so much directly demending on the powers and media around Knox, but rather caused by those related to Sollecito.
Frankly, I feel this verdict is "dirty". I think it may be something like Tinebra's verdict on the via d'Amelio massacre, like the Cogne Appeal verdict, like the Andreotti-saving Cassazione verdict, like the Ustica criminal section verdict, or like many Carnevale's Cassazione verdicts. Or like Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia's acquittals, like the aborted Woodcock's investigation in POtenza, or like the aborted investigation by De Magistris in Catanzaro. May be instead only a wrong conclusion, like the Stasi first instance verdict; but more likely I feel it was like the above mentioned, I am more inclinded to think this, like the ones listed above, was not a mistake.

Wow, just wow.

I thought all trials in the second instance were "new" trials and everything would be looked at with new eyes.

It seems very odd that you demand proof and names if anyone here thinks the police or Mignini did something untoward, but you allow yourself the luxury of this accusation of judicial malfeasance.

There was so much to doubt of the CSI work, I don't see how you feel C&V's work is questionable.

 

[Grinder]

Mach,

This is probably a hopeless endeavor, but the interrogation and your position on the statements continue to bother me.

As you know I believe that the police manipulated Amanda into signing a statement that they wanted her to sign. They had formed their theory about Patrick and wanted to arrest him.

Now what I would like to know is what would make you believe as I do? What proofs would you need? Clearly we can't expect the police to admit to this. There is no tape. But, the circumstantial evidence of what Amanda wrote in the last two statements makes it pretty clear she doubted the truth of the first statement.

The way I've read your opinion, there is no way that after her vaguely worded 1:45 statement it was all over. She had falsely accused Patrick and committed calunnia and that's that.

Is there really no way that you can imagine that she was led to her statement and never intended to make anything like she did but finally gave up and told them what they wanted.

 

[curi0us]

http://www.barcroftmedia.com/index.php?10049716221355947120.00008325627822452016324102011005632

^I am waiting on a registration email to properly view the site but it looks Barcroft is saying a large number of photos were "released" by "Italian police" on January 15th 2008. If that link doesn't work search Barcroft with "Italian police 15th 2008" to get 117 crime scene photos each with a description that says:

***BEWARE, GRAPHIC CONTENT*** PERUGIA, ITALY: A picture released by Italian police on the 15th of January 2008, shows the bathroom in the appartment that Meredith Kercher was murdered in Perugia, Italy. Italian investigators say they are confident of wrapping up the investigation into the murder of the British exchange student Meredith Kercher by the summer now that DNA evidence links all three suspects to the scene of the crime. The latest forensic science tests carried out have allegedly identified DNA belonging to suspect Raffaele Sollecito, 23, on Kercher's bra fastener, found in the bedroom of the Perugia apartment where she was sexually assaulted and fatally stabbed in the neck on November 1st 2007. PHOTOGRAPH BY IBERPRESS/ BARCROFT MEDIA LTD + 44 (0) 845 370 2233 www.barcroftmedia.com



A noteworthy detail, if you search Barcroft for "Amanda Knox Bathroom" there are pictures of the AK/MK stained bathroom, and pictures of Filomena's normal looking bathroom, but there are no pictures of a non stained Ak/MK bathroom.

ETA: full description from photos (I couldn't see it but still managed to copy paste it.)

 

[smkovalinksy]

But on a deeper level, the difference was announced even before the start of the discussion, as Zanetti declared that "the only sure thing is that Meredith was killed" and they said that "reasonable doubt does not allow to share entirely the decision of the first instance". Those announcements - retrospectively - show that an intent was already present before the beginning of the discussion; in practice the had decided before the start. On a deeper level, the difference between the first and the second trial is in how the whole discussion on evidence has been set. This reveals that there was an intent to consider the pieces of evidence differently.

Right: This is the whole point of the appeal. To take a fresh view, to clear away assumptions. Sort of like the Cartesian hyperbolic doubt, which allows the thinker to begin anew. This is a good thing, and it was the first verdict which was sullied and dirty.