Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

According to the police there was activity on Sollecito's computer at 9:10. They were last seen by someone else at 8:40, but there is evidence to support their alibi until 9:10. Perhaps there might have been more if the police didn't destroy the hard drives.

The drieves were not destroyed, they were recovered and read. And there was nothing later than 21:10. But I am not speaking about computer activity: I am speaking about alibi(es). There is a difference between the two things. An interaction with the screen ant 21:10 does not make an alibi, and certainly not an alibi for two people.

It's not my opinion, it's a calculation based on scientific study. Meredith and her friends ate between 6 - 6:30pm.

For example, the defense experts Bacci and Liviero define the meal as a "discontitnuous meal eaten between 18:00 and 20:00". This yet sounds different than "they ate between 6 and 3.30".

This meal had not yet made it to her duodenum by ToD. Since this typically takes between 2-4 hours, her ToD would need to be between 8pm and 10:30pm.

You are putting a lot of certainities and making a lot of assumptions, where in fact there is a number of variants.

We'd have an even better estimate of ToD if the police didn't screw up and not take core body temperature, but that's for another discussion.

The forensic police operated correctly. They chose to value the most important information.
Later, Lalli determined that, at the time of police discovery, it was already about 12 hours from time of death. So it is just false that there was much information to get about the time of death. It was already too late to get any accurate determination.

Interesting how with Curatolo, you just accept "timing uncertainties" yet with the two very questionable 'audio' witnesses you have no issue with their time estimates.

But the wording of each witness must be listened to.
First, listen carefully to what Curatolo says about timings: what is exactly the last time when he recalls he saw the two defendants? He is absolutely not stating he saw them after 22:30, he is not sure they were still there. He only notices they were already gone at around 23:00, but also says he did not follow what they were doing and did not notice the time they left.
Second, Antonella Monacchia and Nara Capezzali are two witnesses in accordance, Curatolo is one.
Third, Nara and Antonella recall a spcific context: they were gone to bed, they had slept for a while. Nara goes to bed usually after 21:30 and Antonella even later. Nobody goes to bed at 21:00 and nobody has already slept for a while at about 21:00, this is the time when Italians have dinner, being asleep would be something extremely unusual. And this unlikeliness has a weight. So the testimony is anchored to a strong context.

Curatolo's testimony was he repeatedly saw them between 9:30 and just before midnight.

No. Not just before midnight. He said he was sure they were already gone "before midnight". But he also said he didn't see them any more at the time of the last bus departure (which is around 23:00).

Yes you can. That's called cherry picking.. something bias people do a lot of.

Also unbiased people.
Also innocentisti do that, as they cite Guede's testimony about a time of death around 9:30.

I agree, I do not dismiss Curatolo because of his drug use, though it does make him extremely unreliable at best. Personally, I still believe their alibi as it makes perfect sense; two young kids, dating only a week, and incredibly they both get unexpected notice that they are not needed that evening. Hmmm... get high and make love or head over to the cottage and kill Meredith. Easy choice for me. But let's assume for a moment that Curatolo was correct and Knox and Sollecito lied about their alibi. That most definitely is NOT evidence of guilt. It simply means what they were really doing they didn't want others to know. Yes, this *could* mean they were busy killing her roommate. But it could also mean a host of other things. It's only you who chooses to automatically assume this must mean they were busy killing Meredith.

Yes, but I claim the right to do it. Because obstructing the research of the truth about a crime, is like claiming the crime, it makes someone accomplice to the crime. It's like favouring and supporting crime. If you lie about your alibi you are acting, in my point of view, against the victim. This is not an automatic proof of guilt, but it is evidence. This is codified by the law: hampering the finding of truth by providing a false alibi must be considered evidence (Supreme Court ruling 5060). Because the interest of justice is not just scientifical, not just to determine facts, but to deter. Maybe the were lying in order to hide some secret different from their involvement in a killing; but the concern of the justice system is that next time other suspects do not make this choice.

 

[Diocletus]

That would be Nov 5 according to the cable. Or is there something wrong with it that everybody keeps ignoring it?

-
Osterwelle

My understanding is that she was detained on 11/5, just as the police apparently described to the consulate (and is stated in the cable you have cited). The detention occurred, I think, around 10:40 pm. She was thereafter interrogated and her first (coerced) "statement" was signed at 1:45 am on 11/6, without notification of consul or counsel.

 

[pilot padron]

Kinda odd

Rolfe, I don't it would have been the same. Peg and some of her crew truly seem to have something against American women in Europe. She has bashed any American woman that has backed Amanda at all. Most recently it was Burleigh - read the crud Peg wrote about her bad attitude toards the French. Peg left the US for France and made her living doing commercial translating (easiest profession next to teaching English). She seems very resentful that she, for some reason, needed to come back. Remember her story about being angry with her mother when the mother couldn't use the locks on Peg's French home properly? Perhaps, Peg needed to come back for her, but I digress.

Peg thinks that Amanda is a boor along with her parents (I can't argue that point too much) and resents Amanda being young, from the US and in Europe where Peg wants to be. Peg likes other aging US Ex-Pats like Barbie and Andrea because they have given up the US as she did herself and are mediocre.

I never thought the anti-Americanism came from Italy - I always thought it was centered right here in Amanda's backyard.

I doubt PQ would have done a TJAK page. She's not his type.

For someone who joins frequently in the mindless arguments bashing everything about PMF and particularly about its Administrator.

Your above argument certainly shows that you do give almost uncanny attention to almost every detail written by/about Skeptical Bystander.
You even seem to claim enough familiarity and knowledge of her that you consider your arguments able to to see inside her mind, her thoughts, and her reasons for doing things.

Very ....errrr.... unusual.
Just sayin............

 

[Diocletus]

The drieves were not destroyed, they were recovered and read.

Well, everything was recovered except what the cops had already overwritten when they were surfing the web. And only some of the remaining "recovered" stuff was read, by an idiot, who didn't know where to look or what he was reading.

 

[Diocletus]

For someone who joins frequently in the mindless arguments bashing everything about PMF and particularly about its Administrator.

Your above argument certainly shows that you do give almost uncanny attention to almost every detail written by/about Skeptical Bystander.
You even seem to claim enough familiarity and knowledge of her that you consider your arguments able to to see inside her mind, her thoughts, and her reasons for doing things.

Very ....errrr.... unusual.
Just sayin............

Just like some people pay uncanny attention to Meredith Kercher Amanda Knox.

Just sayin.

 

[Grinder]

But on the other hand, there are witnesses (two) who place a very disturbing woman's scream, obviously to be related to the murder and nothing else (corroborated by the testimonies of two suspects), at a time that is not between 9 and 10 pm. And this is also something called evidence.

One heard a couple arguing in Italian before the scream. Would you suggest that was Amanda and Raffaele? Or Rudy and Meredith? Or ???

Nara didn't report the scream for months and only came to the attention of the police because she went on TV. She had no real idea of what time it was. It is very doubtful she could hear the running with the windows closed but Massei wouldn't test it Why not? It should be tested and she should be charged with false denunciation if the running can't be heard.

I doubt she heard Meredith's scream either. Most likely if she heard anything it was someone playacting the night before.

False. Curatolo's testimony does not consist in a continous observation, and if read literaly, based on the calculation on buses leaving, the last time he spots the defendants may well be at 22:30.
But the overall combination of the uncertainities allows a bigger game between the elements. Even a ToD at 9.00 does not really imply anything about defendants' innocence. They both don't have an alibi after 8:40. They could well have met again at 9:30 after Meredith had been killed, and one of them was present as she was killed while the other was not.

Mignini said the murder was at 11 - 11:30. Nara said the murder was around that time and the other woman said 10:30. All of those times were alibied by Curatolo. The kids had alibis until at least 9 from Popovic and later from computer activity.

Now you argue that the TOD was earlier than 10 - later you will say that it could have been at 5 am if it fits a new theory.

It's not just the stomach contents - it's every piece of evidence - phone records, Rudy's Skype call, conditions in the cottage that point to TOD before 10.

Absolutely not. I can also believe parts and discredit other parts of a testimony, if I deem there are founded reasons to do so.

So can everybody. I choose to believe his testimony that they were there from 9:30 to just before midnight - or choose to believe none of his testimony.

I also reject the reasoning that Curatolo might exonerate Raffaele and Amanda in some cases: it cannot, in principle, because a false alibi constitutes itself always evidence of guilt. And guilt is a wider concept depending on the concept of responsability, not directly depending from a scenario. A false alibi is the covering of a crime.

Oh please, if an innocent man told the police he was in a bar instead of with a woman because she didn't happen to be his wife, no one would look at that as proof he was guilty. I can think of many alibis that could be given falsely to cover up behavior that has nothing to do with a murder.

The verdict of guilt comes from the demonstration that both took part to the cleanup and alteration of the scene, both cover the event by tampering with evidence and lie about their knowledge of facts. And also, both physically touched things and the victim's body and committed crimes in the context of the murder, and there is evidence at least one second person took part to the aggression. There is also obvious physical and logical evidence that the third suspect (who had a link to Knox) did not leave all the physical evidence on the crime scene.

There is no such evidence

 

[Kaosium]

I think your link put forth a bit of a confused and perhaps wrong description on the issue of consular notification. The state department document, Consular Notification and Access, makes it clear that notification of the right to consular assistance is required when a foreign national is arrested in the US. There are 57 countries that require consular notification even when the defendant doesn't want it. The state department states that the arresting agent should comply with that requirement for the 57 listed countries. The 57 countries that require notification are listed in the CNA document. The document is here: http://travel.state.gov/pdf/cna/CNA_Manual_3d_Edition.pdf

It says it, unfortunately I can't copy and paste from that document, so if you look above 'reciprocity' on page 13 and see where it says notifications, and then on the next page in the first full paragraph in the right hand column it says that bit about the 'mandatory' countries and then to treat everyone else as if they signed the document and comply with notification anyway. The 'notification' is in fact complying with notifying the arrestee of their rights to consular access. You're probably right it's confused the way they put it, this is not the first time I recall having this conversation!

Currently although there are US regulations requiring notice of the right to consular assistance for foreign detainees the rule is not always followed and not following it is not necessarily an error that automatically results in having a conviction overturned.

I just posted that as a reminder of the realities of the situation; with 19k separate different policing agencies, until that death penalty case many of them probably assumed the Miranda reading was good enough. It is true that many never even knew about this, thus there wasn't a separate notification, and most traveling to another country ought to know they could contact their consulate. I don't think anyone thought it mattered, I think it is possible to make too much of this.

However, as a practical matter, the fact that a suspect must be informed of his right to counsel before his statements can be used against him in the US would help a bit in this regard. Assuming a suspect invokes his right to counsel presumably his lawyer would tell him about his right to consular assistance. Not overturning convictions automatically because of a failure to notify a defendant of his right to consular assistance seems right to me. However, I also would not allow any statement to be used against a suspect that he made before he was informed of his right to consular assistance. And whether that is in fact the rule or not I'm not sure. I couldn't find an opinion on that specific issue.

It's a reciprocity agreement, not holy writ!

As noted in the document itself, there's no real recourse in that manner, the idea here is to make sure everyone has access to their consulate in a foreign land, not a neat-o trick for lawyers to get criminals off because the arresting authority doesn't say the magic words. As it notes, people have tried it though:

Q. What remedy might the foreign national or
his or her country have if I failed to go through
consular notification procedures?

A. The judicial remedies available to a foreign
national alleging a violation of consular
notification requirements vary by jurisdiction.
Foreign nationals have sought money damages
for alleged violations, though such suits are
rarely successful. Some foreign nationals
have also sought review of their convictions
or sentences, claiming trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance by not raising the
consular notification violation at trial. The most significant consequence, however, is that the United States will be seen as a country that does not take its international legal obligations seriously.

I wonder if it ever occurred to them at Vienna to make it mandatory that all passports of the signature countries would have the reminder that they have the right to contact their consulate if arrested or detained by foreign officials on the inside of the first page or something? That might have been an easier way of handling it.

As an aside, Italy, is not a must notify country, so that an Italian arrested in the US could opt to not have his consul informed. The situation with Mexico is interesting. Mexico requests that it always be informed of the arrest of juveniles, pregnant women and people with mental problems. The state department recommends that the arresting agency comply with this if it can be done without violating local privacy laws.

One thing that interested me because of the discussions here is the timing of the right to consular notification. Can a suspect be interrogated before it is given in the US. The document that I reference above has this to say about that:

Which is probably why, as you noted earlier, most police forces assumed the miranda warning was sufficient. What's really the difference between the two? Refusing to talk until provided with a lawyer who will get you in touch with the consulate, or refusing to talk until you contact the consulate that will get you a lawyer?

The issue, related to this thread, is what the governing policies are in Italy and not the US. My assumption is that they would be similar and based on that Knox should have been notified that she had a right to consular notification at the beginning of her custodial interrogation. However, the issue may be complicated. Apparently there are a lot of bilateral agreements with regard to this issue and those bilateral agreements between the US and Italy on this that could modify that requirement.

In Italy the reality is none of this matters, the police bend or break their own laws with impunity, thus aren't going to pay the slightest mind to the exact wording of a reciprocity agreement like this one. They did inform the US consulate eventually though.

The failure in my view were those US consulate officials not doing a damn thing when that note of Amanda's was published suggesting clear violations of her rights. That was their duty and in an instance like this, it's on them.

 

[Osterwelle]

Your opinion puts the ToD between 9pm and 10pm. There is no scientific certainity, despite I know that posters on this board are used to claim there is such certainity. There isn't.

That's true and this is the reason why the lawyers ask scientists if they can state something by "a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" in trials.

However, if we apply this to the issue at hand, a TOD later than 21:00 - 21.30 is not just not reasonable according to the knowledge we have about "gastric emptying".
I don't know how much research you've done yourself on this matter, but I've read some articles about related studies (mostly from the Journal of Nuclear Medicine) but I've yet to come across any scientific paper where a TLAG (for solid food) of even 120 minutes has ever come up during a study of healthy persons. Most people are in the range between 30 and 90 minutes, with some going even below that.
Of course there are deseases (like diabetes mellitus) which extend the TLAG, but this adds about 40 minutes tops.

So a TLAG of 150 minutes (TOD = 21:00) is therefore already very exceptional and probably should've been reviewed by a doctor. Most healthy people would've passed most of that meal already.
In any case, a much later TOD is just not reasonable by the available scientific data and > 23:00 is bonkers.

Of course it is not "certain" that Meredith was some sort of exceptional medical oddity but if you want to apply that standard, you have to throw out almost everything else about this case and end up with a big nothing except for a dead British student...

-
Osterwelle

 

[Grinder]

Now, there seems to be possible not full understanding of the systems of the kind of the Italian system. The “absolute” right to remain silent in fact does not exist at all for normal citizens in Italy, there is not even the slightest right to remain silent, unless one decides to accept the status of formal suspect. So its’ not really a small wiggle room: you cannot refuse to provide information unless there are legal grounds that change your status. But on the other hand there is a different system of protections, which consists, for formal suspects, in the right to lie or to make spontaneous statements without a questioning or to refuse to answer to any question at you like, and the right for a formal suspect to speak to a judge before speaking to anyone else. For police witnesses, the protection consists in a prohibition on the use of to use any declaration by a witness against himself for the crime for which the witness releases declarations.

Mach earlier you said that no shopkeeper would tell the truth and become involved in a case when you defended the fact that Quintavalle didn't tell the police about seeing Amanda when questioned the week of the murder.

So he should be charged, correct?

 

[Osterwelle]

My understanding is that she was detained on 11/5, just as the police apparently described to the consulate (and is stated in the cable you have cited). The detention occurred, I think, around 10:40 pm. She was thereafter interrogated and her first (coerced) "statement" was signed at 1:45 am on 11/6, without notification of consul or counsel.

Ok, so is there any possibility she was detained as a witness?

-
Osterwelle

 

[Diocletus]

Ok, so is there any possibility she was detained as a witness?

-
Osterwelle

The police lie is that (i) she wasn't detained, and (ii) she was a witness and was not a suspect until 1:45.

The truth is that (i) she was detained, and (ii) she was a suspect at the outset of the interrogation.

The Vienna Convention is violated by the "detention," and for purposes of consular notification I do not believe is concerned with the witness/suspect issue. The witness/suspect issue is relevant to the right to counsel and the right to remain silent under Italian law.

 

[Kaosium]

So far she has been "convicted" in 2 of the 3 Italian courts of the crime of accusing an innocent man of murder.

That is why 3 of the 4 years she was incarcerated were 100% deserved, appropriate and not subject to Marriott managed PR talking point whines about her being "unjustly" imprisoned.

I wonder how long you and others would deserve jail time for the absolutely untrue things you've said about Amanda and Raffaele?

Amanda makes it clear the same day she didn't think that gibberish they bullied out of her with coercive interrogation techniques was accurate, if it wasn't obvious to the most casual observer from the statements themselves. She then made it perfectly clear the following day she now knew it was just pig manure fed to her that she spit back out. Then her lawyers did the same thing again a few days afterward.

However she gets three years in prison for that because she said it about someone the police suspected of murder. You, and more to the point others, accuse Amanda of murder don't you? The police and prosecution sure seem to suspect her even still. Italy doesn't have double-jeopardy protections. So...why shouldn't you be forced to defend your statements and provide proof they're true lest you spend the rest of your natural lives in an Italian prison?

In the US she is "convicted" as of now, and must so state on all US Applications requesting that information.

It's not a real crime, it's a Crackerjacks box crime, with a toy surprise inside!

(Please spare us the usual chorus about all 3 *Italian Courts* need rule to be 'guilty' *in Italy*.
We all know that long in tooth verse very well by now.)

What you don't seem to know is how Hellmann is going to put together a Motivations for it, do you?

'All the King's bunnies, and all the Queen's men,
Can't put Amanda back in Capanne!'

Additionally, Knox has been unanimously "convicted" in the first Italian Court of senselessly murdering Meredith Kercher.
The not guilty due to 'lack of evidence' decision of the second Court must still be upheld by the definitely requested and definitely still to be heard future Court of Cassation ruling

There is virtually no chance that the ruling will be struck down, in fact it even being appealed by the prosecution is dubious. Mignini isn't the lead prosecutor, and it's possible he will be contemplating his own future in prison instead.

Therefore your.... "Of course, since Amanda wasn't convicted of a crime" is not by any stretch of imagination a valid.... "of course".
In fact your statement is premature at best and more probably downright incorrect at any standard.

'Conviction' is just a word we use so we don't have to memorize more Italian words and put them in italics.

 

[Grinder]

For someone who joins frequently in the mindless arguments bashing everything about PMF and particularly about its Administrator.

Your above argument certainly shows that you do give almost uncanny attention to almost every detail written by/about Skeptical Bystander.
You even seem to claim enough familiarity and knowledge of her that you consider your arguments able to to see inside her mind, her thoughts, and her reasons for doing things.

Very ....errrr.... unusual.
Just sayin............

I suggest that before you comment that you review all the PMF posts made by Peg and those she has made under other names on other sites. I'm sure she will provide you with those names - she used one starting with an L.

I've always said that I followed this case from day one. I've never denied reading P**. I am fascinated by the mental states of those posting over there.

 

[Osterwelle]

The police lie is that (i) she wasn't detained, and (ii) she was a witness and was not a suspect until 1:45.

So they lie about that although they've notified the embassy?

The truth is that (i) she was detained, and (ii) she was a suspect at the outset of the interrogation.

And most likely already 2 days before that (wiretapped phones).

I'm still wondering it they could have - theoretically - detained her as a witness, though.

-
Osterwelle

 

[TruthCalls]

The drieves were not destroyed, they were recovered and read. And there was nothing later than 21:10. But I am not speaking about computer activity: I am speaking about alibi(es). There is a difference between the two things. An interaction with the screen ant 21:10 does not make an alibi, and certainly not an alibi for two people.

Can you provide me a link re; the drives, as everything I have read consistently reports three destroyed (burned) drives and a forth that was corrupted due to Internet access by the police. Regardless, yes, interaction (i.e., key strokes) on a computer does provide an alibi, and since it's the activity both claim was going on, it does provide an alibi for both.

For example, the defense experts Bacci and Liviero define the meal as a "discontitnuous meal eaten between 18:00 and 20:00". This yet sounds different than "they ate between 6 and 3.30".

From court testimony: "From about 4pm or 4:30pm onwards, Meredith Kercher spent the evening with her English friends Robyn Butterworth, Amy Frost and Sophie Purton. They prepared and ate a pizza, looked at Halloween photos from the previous evening, watched part of a film and prepared and ate an apple crumble.". The sequence of events was provided by the witnesses. We agree on the meal beginning at 6pm (18:00). No one suggested Meredith stood around and watched everyone else eat. Of course the prosecution wants to stretch things out as far as possible, but it's not realistic to think Meredith waited two hours after everyone else to eat pizza. And there is still the matter of looking at photos, watching part of a two hour movie and then preparing and eating apple crumble, which isn't a 10 minute task. They left the house at 8:45'ish, so stretching out Meredith's first bite of food to 20:00 simply isn't logical.

You are putting a lot of certainities and making a lot of assumptions, where in fact there is a number of variants.

And there aren't a number of variants of two questionable witnesses, none of whom even looked at a clock? At least be consistent in the color of the glasses you look at the evidence with.

The forensic police operated correctly. They chose to value the most important information.
Later, Lalli determined that, at the time of police discovery, it was already about 12 hours from time of death. So it is just false that there was much information to get about the time of death. It was already too late to get any accurate determination.

This is wrong. Body temperature can be used to determine ToD up to 20-24 hours. Of course, many factors weigh into this, but proper forensic procedure should have been to take core body temperature asap. ToD is always critical to solving a crime.

But the wording of each witness must be listened to.
First, listen carefully to what Curatolo says about timings: what is exactly the last time when he recalls he saw the two defendants? He is absolutely not stating he saw them after 22:30, he is not sure they were still there. He only notices they were already gone at around 23:00, but also says he did not follow what they were doing and did not notice the time they left.
Second, Antonella Monacchia and Nara Capezzali are two witnesses in accordance, Curatolo is one.
Third, Nara and Antonella recall a spcific context: they were gone to bed, they had slept for a while. Nara goes to bed usually after 21:30 and Antonella even later. Nobody goes to bed at 21:00 and nobody has already slept for a while at about 21:00, this is the time when Italians have dinner, being asleep would be something extremely unusual. And this unlikeliness has a weight. So the testimony is anchored to a strong context.

We disagree on what Curatolo testified to.. will have to wait for the motivation report. As for the 'ear' witnesses; Capezzali claimed 23:30. Monacchia testified that she awoke some time after 22:00, and heard first loud arguing in Italian between a man and woman, followed by the scream. Another witness, Maria Dramis, claims she was awoken by the sound of running footsteps at 23:00. Three witnesses, three different times. Monacchia's location had by far the best sound/sight path to the cottage and she puts it some time after 10pm.

Witness credibility is not based on two vs one. If the one was very credible and the two were loose cannons, I think the one would carry far more weight.

No. Not just before midnight. He said he was sure they were already gone "before midnight". But he also said he didn't see them any more at the time of the last bus departure (which is around 23:00).

I'll reserve judge on this testimony to the motivations report.

Also unbiased people.
Also innocentisti do that, as they cite Guede's testimony about a time of death around 9:30.

Yes, but I claim the right to do it. Because obstructing the research of the truth about a crime, is like claiming the crime, it makes someone accomplice to the crime. It's like favouring and supporting crime. If you lie about your alibi you are acting, in my point of view, against the victim. This is not an automatic proof of guilt, but it is evidence. This is codified by the law: hampering the finding of truth by providing a false alibi must be considered evidence (Supreme Court ruling 5060). Because the interest of justice is not just scientifical, not just to determine facts, but to deter. Maybe the were lying in order to hide some secret different from their involvement in a killing; but the concern of the justice system is that next time other suspects do not make this choice.

I don't disagree that lying to law enforcement is, depending on locale, a criminal offense. But as it pertains to investigating a murder, if I claim to be in one place (my alibi) and it is proven I was somewhere else, while this might result in a charge for lying, it also ends up providing me an alibi. Personally I do not believe Curatolo. I think he saw different people. But if he did see them, then the combination of computer activity till 21:10, Curatolo seeing them repeatedly from 21:30 till (even by your interpretation) 22:30, stomach content analysis putting ToD between 22:00 - 23:00 (that should make you a little happier.. I still think it's earlier, but...) all makes it incredibly unlikely that they had anything to do with the death. Mind you, this isn't just an issue of 'technically could they have made it there and done the crime'. With absolutely no history of violence between either of them; with the good relationship they all shared; with the fact that Sollecito didn't know Guede at all and Knox only by having seen him with the guys downstairs -- it simply makes no sense for them to rush to the cottage and conspire with Guede to murder Meredith.

No disrespect intended but I believe people sometimes get so caught up in trying to see what they want to see that they leave common sense behind.

 

[JREF2010]

Can you provide me a link re; the drives, as everything I have read consistently reports three destroyed (burned) drives and a forth that was corrupted due to Internet access by the police. Regardless, yes, interaction (i.e., key strokes) on a computer does provide an alibi, and since it's the activity both claim was going on, it does provide an alibi for both.

The pc activity is an unknown.

The only fact I know is the bumbling squad destroyed several hard-drives, and this alone proves their incompetence or corruption. Therefore, its extremely difficult to even accept anything the police have submitted from their findings without high probability the data is also incorrect and other data is possibly missed and/or ignored.

In short, the pc activity is presented from a entity that has zero credibility.

 

[davefoc]

The police lie is that (i) she wasn't detained, and (ii) she was a witness and was not a suspect until 1:45.

The truth is that (i) she was detained, and (ii) she was a suspect at the outset of the interrogation.

The Vienna Convention is violated by the "detention," and for purposes of consular notification I do not believe is concerned with the witness/suspect issue. The witness/suspect issue is relevant to the right to counsel and the right to remain silent under Italian law.

Based on the US State Department's interpretation of the agreement I think that's correct. The detention is the issue and not the purpose. And the notice of the right to consular notification is supposed to be given early in the process before the interrogation began.

However there is some wiggle room. In the FAQ section it addressed issues like does a traffic stop require consular notification or does a brief arrest and release on a misdemeanor charge require notification. In both cases it seems like the State Department was saying that as a practical matter these detentions were too short or not important enough to trigger consular notification.

But it looks to me that the US State Department would share Diocletus' view that detention as a murder suspect would require notification of the right to consular assistance before the interrogation began, however the state department also said that the interrogation didn't need to wait until consular assistance was obtained.

I also doubt that the US State Department would buy the theory that Knox wasn't a suspect under these circumstances but it also wouldn't matter since she was detained.

But to be fair, it's not clear how often a foreign national is provided with notification of their right to consular assistance in the US before a custodial interrogation begins. It is certainly not uncommon for the requirement not to be met.

 

[Kaosium]

The drieves were not destroyed, they were recovered and read. And there was nothing later than 21:10. But I am not speaking about computer activity: I am speaking about alibi(es). There is a difference between the two things. An interaction with the screen ant 21:10 does not make an alibi, and certainly not an alibi for two people.

Machiavelli, the prosecution lost. That means their attempting to ignore the 9:26 opening of Naruto highly likely lost as well, it's pretty damned straight forward. What possible indication might you have that somehow the Hellmann Motivations Report will ignore Naruto? Did you ever post a link or evidence that they specifically denied the appeal addendum with the screensaver and keyboard light data? If so, I missed it, I look forward to seeing it so you prove how wrong I am to insist on it. Make me look stupid Machiavelli!

For example, the defense experts Bacci and Liviero define the meal as a "discontitnuous meal eaten between 18:00 and 20:00". This yet sounds different than "they ate between 6 and 3.30".

What matters is when she had her first bite, thus for that testimony it would be 6:00 PM that mattered. There was nothing in her duodenum, that's the first stop after the stomach, thus the moment she swallows, the clock starts on that first bite, no matter how many she has afterward or how long it takes her to eat.

The forensic police operated correctly. They chose to value the most important information.

All of which showed evidence of Rudy Guede in the murder room! Imagine that!

Later, Lalli determined that, at the time of police discovery, it was already about 12 hours from time of death. So it is just false that there was much information to get about the time of death. It was already too late to get any accurate determination.

It was just good fortune that the duodenum was empty, which along with the start of the meal and the time she returned home being known gives a very good indication of when she was stabbed.

But the wording of each witness must be listened to.
First, listen carefully to what Curatolo says about timings: what is exactly the last time when he recalls he saw the two defendants? He is absolutely not stating he saw them after 22:30, he is not sure they were still there. He only notices they were already gone at around 23:00, but also says he did not follow what they were doing and did not notice the time they left.

I was wondering how long it was going to take you guys to figure that out!

However it's too late, Toto is in jail, with all things considered he's probably a contender for the least credible witness in the history of man.

Second, Antonella Monacchia and Nara Capezzali are two witnesses in accordance, Curatolo is one.
Third, Nara and Antonella recall a spcific context: they were gone to bed, they had slept for a while. Nara goes to bed usually after 21:30 and Antonella even later. Nobody goes to bed at 21:00 and nobody has already slept for a while at about 21:00, this is the time when Italians have dinner, being asleep would be something extremely unusual. And this unlikeliness has a weight. So the testimony is anchored to a strong context.

Why don't you do a cool chart like LJ employing a normal distribution, a meal starting at 6:00 PM and show the odds that Meredith was still unstabbed at 10:00 PM? That's gotta be more fun than trying to rehabilitate Toto!

No. Not just before midnight. He said he was sure they were already gone "before midnight". But he also said he didn't see them any more at the time of the last bus departure (which is around 23:00).

Then do one for 11:00 PM. Incidentally, there were no disco buses on the 1st, you did that before, conflating Halloween and All Saint's Day like they didn't matter. Where is any evidence there were disco buses on the 1st? Why did the disco owners show up and testify at the appeal they were closed? Why did Monica Napoleoni fail to show up that day to testify and was fined as a result?

Also unbiased people.
Also innocentisti do that, as they cite Guede's testimony about a time of death around 9:30.

He was claiming to have been there when the murder happened, if he wanted anyone to believe his story he couldn't be lying about details that could possibly conflict with other evidence, like if the police had properly weighed the body and took the temperature, if anyone had heard a scream and noted the time exactly, or anyone had seen him leave. There's no reason to put himself there at the wrong time, especially when he was telling the story.

Yes, but I claim the right to do it. Because obstructing the research of the truth about a crime, is like claiming the crime, it makes someone accomplice to the crime. It's like favouring and supporting crime. If you lie about your alibi you are acting, in my point of view, against the victim. This is not an automatic proof of guilt, but it is evidence. This is codified by the law: hampering the finding of truth by providing a false alibi must be considered evidence (Supreme Court ruling 5060). Because the interest of justice is not just scientifical, not just to determine facts, but to deter. Maybe the were lying in order to hide some secret different from their involvement in a killing; but the concern of the justice system is that next time other suspects do not make this choice.

Then I'd say Toto got what he deserved! He's in jail and hopefully others will learn not to make his choice and lie in court.

 

[TruthCalls]

The pc activity is an unknown.

The only fact I know is the bumbling squad destroyed several hard-drives, and this alone proves their incompetence or corruption. Therefore, its extremely difficult to even accept anything the police have submitted from their findings without high probability the data is also incorrect and other data is possibly missed and/or ignored.

In short, the pc activity is presented from a entity that has zero credibility.

Except Mach is stating the drives were not destroyed and data was recovered. I've not heard or read anything, anywhere, that would support that which is why I asked for a link.

As for incompetence and/or corruption.. as noted a million times; no lawyer, no recording, destroy drives, one and done DNA tests, deliberately lying to elicit desired responses, etc. Mignini's criminal record speaks for itself. Preston and Spezi's experiences with Mignini a year earlier was all I needed to consider Knox's accusations as credible.

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>
As for the 'ear' witnesses; Capezzali claimed 23:30. Monacchia testified that she awoke some time after 22:00, and heard first loud arguing in Italian between a man and woman, followed by the scream. Another witness, Maria Dramis, claims she was awoken by the sound of running footsteps at 23:00. Three witnesses, three different times. Monacchia's location had by far the best sound/sight path to the cottage and she puts it some time after 10pm.
<snip>

People heard a scream, a clue or no big deal?
No one saw a white male who looked like Harry Potter and a white chick running away, nor how they were dressed. For all we know, anyone of any color skin could have made that scream.

Maybe it even had something to do with the crazy dude that was found the next morning with blood on him, heard saying something such as "I killed her".
Long time followers of the case will have heard of him...
RW