Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

This is a remarkable statement.... it actually speaks to motive. Massei is saying he has a motive here, ie. bizarre, sick sado-sexual thrills.

Yes, AK wrote about something sordid in an on-line source. But, really, is this to be believed as a motive? Even in Massei's scenario?

Against someone who'd they had known a short time, and AK had known each other a week, and if Massei is to be believed, the two of them had known RG a couple of hours if that?

Really?

This is what I found so weak and unconvincing. There was not even an attempt to put the scenario within a context which one could relate to or at least envision. I came away from the Massei report feeling the convictions would certainly be overturned on appeal, and I was right, along with millions of others.

 

[Didaktylos]

... after reading Massei I thought he gave a completely inconclusive account of the evidence supporting guilt. I didn't think of this on my own, but I am a little convinced that Massei PURPOSELY wrote the report the way he did, so that it would be overturned. I have no way of proving that, and it is a little wacky to suggest it, it's just one of those gut feelings we love to criticize others for having! Again, sue me.
...

I speculated a bit further up this thread that Massei personallly favoured acquittal but was out-voted, so used the Motivation Report as a way of setting things right.

I can't remember whether or not anybody has posted any details of the procedures followed by the judges when they deliberate, so this is pure speculation on my part. I think that what happens when the judges deliberate their verdict is something like this. Discussion would be mostly on the part of the lay judges, the professionals mainly seving to advise on technicalities of the law and to keep discussion on the point. Discussion would continue until either a consenus emerged or it was clear that no consensus could be reached. The formal vote would then be taken, votes given orally first by the lay members in reverse order of experience, then the junior professional judge and finally the Court President (vote weighted double to ensure that there would always be an outright majority). If the lay judges are unanimous or split 5-1, the professionals would formally cast theirs with the majority, since I imagine it would be embarrasing for them to openly voting for the losing option. If the professional judges did not agree with the decision of their lay colleagues, the Motivation Report would be drafted so as to give the nod to the losing side as to what they should do in the appeal and to give a "heads up" to the judges in the next round.

 

[RoseMontague]

My favorite from Massei is still the large bag, large knife reasoning:

Amanda had with her a very large handbag, as Romanelli declared (page 51, hearing of 7 February 2009); in this handbag there could have been found a place for the knife in question. Amanda, in her various movements [about town], as for example to take herself to the le Chic pub situated in Via Alessi, could have found herself walking alone, even late into the night, on roads that could have seemed not very safe for a girl to be on at night time. It is thus possible and in fact probable, considering the relationship that Raffaele Sollecito had with knives (he never separated himself from his knife, as has been seen), that Amanda, advised and convinced by her boyfriend, that is Raffaele Sollecito, to take this knife with her, if not only to make her feel more secure, and that, if necessary, it could have served as a deterrent against possible ill-intentioned persons that, at night and on her own, she may have encountered. Furthermore, since it was a kitchen knife, Amanda, were she to be checked, would have been able to easily explain why she was carrying it.

It is thus possible and in fact probable that Massei has lost his mind with this one.

 

[smkovalinksy]

My favorite from Massei is still the large bag, large knife reasoning:



It is thus possible and in fact probable that Massei has lost his mind with this one.

I had to laugh at this satire. Maybe you should word it this way: It is thus possible and in fact probable that Massei could have lost his mind with this line of reasoning, and thus could have possibly and therefore probably been around the bend as he wrote it. For what else could make him write this way? It is quite possible that after ingesting a large quantity of wine (for we know he never separates himself from wine) that it became quite reasonable for him to view things in this manner.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I speculated a bit further up this thread that Massei personallly favoured acquittal but was out-voted, so used the Motivation Report as a way of setting things right.
I can't remember whether or not anybody has posted any details of the procedures followed by the judges when they deliberate, so this is pure speculation on my part. I think that what happens when the judges deliberate their verdict is something like this. Discussion would be mostly on the part of the lay judges, the professionals mainly seving to advise on technicalities of the law and to keep discussion on the point. Discussion would continue until either a consenus emerged or it was clear that no consensus could be reached. The formal vote would then be taken, votes given orally first by the lay members in reverse order of experience, then the junior professional judge and finally the Court President (vote weighted double to ensure that there would always be an outright majority). If the lay judges are unanimous or split 5-1, the professionals would formally cast theirs with the majority, since I imagine it would be embarrasing for them to openly voting for the losing option. If the professional judges did not agree with the decision of their lay colleagues, the Motivation Report would be drafted so as to give the nod to the losing side as to what they should do in the appeal and to give a "heads up" to the judges in the next round.

I think this is an astute analysis, and perhaps not so very far from what actually occurred.

 

[Kaosium]

This is true. In fact, I've come up with a fun new way to build a case that shows that Patrick is the one who committed calunnia against Amanda, not vice versa.

Premises

1. It is doubtful Amanda Knox wrote the statements she signed during the interrogations. Without recordings, we will never know whether she actually did accuse Patrick Lumumba at all; there is no solid proof.

• November 6, 2007, 1:45 AM: Amanda signs a statement that implicates Patrick in the crime. The statement is written in Italian and uses expressions an American would not use, such as, "One of these people is Patrik, a colored citizen who is about 1,70-1,75 cm tall, with braids, owner of the pub “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi." The statement also shows confusion and a lack of commitment, "I vaguely remember that he killed her."
  
• 5:45 AM: Amanda signs an additional statement, using a suspiciously uncharacteristic phrase, "I wish to relate spontaneously what happened," and going on to say, "because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi where I work periodically..." The statement is self-contradictory, because she also mentions having spoken to Patrick without fear in town the day of the interrogation.

2. Patrick Lumumba was arrested approximately six hours before Amanda Knox was arrested. After his release, Lumumba claimed to have been beaten and coerced by the police during the intervening six hours. Without recordings, we will never know what he said to the police to protect himself.

• Approximately 6:30 AM: Perugian police arrest Patrick Lumumba
  
• Approximately 12-1:00 PM: Perugian police arrest Amanda

3. In his interview with the Daily Mail, Patrick expressed a lot of hard feelings against Amanda.

• November 25, 2007: The Daily Mail features an interview with Patrick Lumumba, in which he describes Amanda Knox as a person without a soul, dead inside, an actress, a liar, jealous, flirtatious, troublesome, cold, two-timing, lazy, hyperactive and flighty, among many other negative characterizations. Lumumba claims to have fired Amanda Knox shortly before the murder took place because of her poor job performance.
• Lumumba also claims that when he was arrested by police the morning of November 6, 2007, the police brutalized him and tried to force him to confess to a crime he didn't commit, one that Amanda Knox had reportedly accused him of.

4. Amanda testified that she liked Patrick and had no hard feelings against him.

• June 12-13, 2009: During Amanda's trial testimony, Patrick Lumumba's lawyer, Carlo Pacelli asks Amanda, "What were your relations with Mr. Patrick?" Amanda responds, "I like Patrick a lot."
• She further testifies that Patrick treated her with respect, that she got along well with him and she was not afraid of him.

5. Patrick Lumumba was released after two weeks. Amanda Knox was ordered to trial, and to wait for it in prison for over a year.

Conclusion

It is entirely possible that after his arrest, Patrick Lumumba accused Amanda Knox of being the killer, resulting in her arrest and imprisonment. He had motivation to accuse her; she had no motivation to accuse him. The idea that he was released because of his alibi is open to question, because they held him for several days after the alibi was validated. Maybe Patrick made a deal. That would explain why he was hanging around with around with the prosecutors during the appeal.

I mean, Mignini must have gotten the idea that Amanda was the killer from somewhere or SOMEONE, right?

I think the reason I love this so much is it actually fits with the facts better than the police version of the arrest and release of Patrick. I think that's something forgotten occasionally as it comes up so seldom as it's ground that guilters fear to tread, that whatever guilty motivation is eventually attributed to Amanda about the interrogation, the real tough work is explaining the actions and motivation of the police in that scenario.

They have to be so gullible as to fail to notice the oldest trick in the book, the one they're trained to sniff out, that the suspect might try to place blame elsewhere. Somehow Amanda has to be able to convince them that her charge against Patrick is a credible one, yet what they get is vague nonsense. They send seven cop cars out to haul Patrick in, they interrogate him all day, and not only fail to corroborate his alibi they manage to find a 'witness' that the bar was closed instead. That's after they again raced through the streets sirens blaring and announced 'case closed' and that Amanda had 'buckled' and given a version of the facts they 'knew to be correct.' Except nothing was, what they produced before Matteini bore little resemblance to what Amanda had signed.

They also have to maintain this belief in Patrick's guilt despite the vague nature of the statements, that they don't actually match the crime they're going to prosecute, (doesn't even mention the 'staged' break-in!) and Amanda writing later in the day a litany of reasons that she's not sure of any of it and doesn't think she can be used as 'testimone' and wonders who the real murder(er) is. Then the next day, locked away safely from prying lawyer-types, she writes them that she cannot know who the murderer is because she is sure that she wasn't at the cottage that night. Shortly following their begrudging allowance to let her see a lawyer, her legal position becomes that the statements should be thrown out and that she never left Raffaele's.

Speaking of Raffaele, how come it never occurred to these intrepid investigators that if Amanda was involved in a rape-murder, the most likely suspect for her compatriot is Raffaele and no other? Why wouldn't they naturally challenge the idea that she doesn't know if Raffaele was with her and automatically go after someone else, almost on her whim, with Raffaele just sitting there on ice in another cozy little backroom? How come they never interrogated Raffaele about the events of the murder?

They held Patrick for two weeks after his arrest, about ten days after they knew he had the Swiss professional as well as the twenty claimed by his lawyer proffering him an alibi. They had that in addition to a full recantation of her statements beginning almost immediately and complete the next day before she even saw a lawyer. Why were they so loath to release him?

So anyone trying to explain the actions of the Perugian police commensurate with an actually guilty Amanda has a number of hurdles to overcome, as their actions belie much of anything outside they wanted Patrick arrested and charged with this crime and were blind to anything but what reinforced that desire.

Seriously, try to imagine the scenario where Amanda gives them Patrick's name in malice and it doesn't occur to them that she might be trying to deflect blame from herself and Raffaele. They're not going to believe a thing she says anyway, the Matteini Report (bottom of page) doesn't bear but a casual resemblance to the statements, other than the actors 'involved,' so why would they be so mindlessly devoted to her verity about Patrick? Especially to the point it would never even occur to them she might be trying to protect Raffaele, the guy she's been shamelessly cuddling in public, to the dismay of all Perugia as they'd eventually tell it?

 

[Dougm]

My favorite from Massei is still the large bag, large knife reasoning:

Amanda had with her a very large handbag, as Romanelli declared (page 51, hearing of 7 February 2009); in this handbag there could have been found a place for the knife in question. Amanda, in her various movements [about town], as for example to take herself to the le Chic pub situated in Via Alessi, could have found herself walking alone, even late into the night, on roads that could have seemed not very safe for a girl to be on at night time. It is thus possible and in fact probable, considering the relationship that Raffaele Sollecito had with knives (he never separated himself from his knife, as has been seen), that Amanda, advised and convinced by her boyfriend, that is Raffaele Sollecito, to take this knife with her, if not only to make her feel more secure, and that, if necessary, it could have served as a deterrent against possible ill-intentioned persons that, at night and on her own, she may have encountered. Furthermore, since it was a kitchen knife, Amanda, were she to be checked, would have been able to easily explain why she was carrying it.

And, as a side benefit, she could have made a salad if she got hungry in her walks around Perugia, which makes it possible and in fact probable that she would have carried this huge knife, since there are various places to buy vegetables in town!

 

[geebee2]

I enjoyed reading how you understand your own logic! Funny!




Of course, we all think in different ways. The way I approached the case (around the time after the Massei report and before the appeal started), I did not want to be influenced by people who had already made up their mind. I assumed guilt on a mild level, just because I feel it is rare that people are arrested for no reason -- they might not be guilty, but there is almost always reason to suspect them. So I was assuming there was some evidence against them, and wanted to see how convincing it was.

So I read Massei as one of the first things, because the websites and articles all had some point of view or spin. I thought a good place to start would be the reasoning that a real judge used to convict them. So I read Massei, not really assuming they were guilty for sure, but assuming there was, as you are saying, some logical narrative that they at least might be guilty.

Contrary to what you are saying, it was Massei that began to convince me they were not guilty. The judges consistent acceptance of each prosecution contention, and consistent dismissal of each defense contention, was illogical. I would read each point of evidence, and the farther I got, the more I was thinking "OK, where is the stuff that proves they are guilty?" And I was increasingly disturbed that each decision on each evidence point was more illogical than the last.

I didn't know these people, and if the judge had made an argument that made sense to me, I would have thought, "oh, I get it now". But Massei kept telling me that, if I looked at the sky through a dirty window while half asleep standing on my head at 6 a.m., the sky was indeed yellow. After reading the whole thing, not only was I not accepting the conclusion of the court, but I thought that the evidence they had used was completely inconclusive, and this was before reading any of the explanations on IIP or anywhere else advocating innocence. Massei just did not make sense to me.

I think that Hellmann had the same experience, and that is why the appeal went as it did. Although the case can be confusing if you only read periferal coverage, reading Massei was, to me, something that convinced me something was very wrong here.

When you are not too familiar with the case, you think at each stage "Ok, this is pretty vague, but it's just about plausible". One thing I thought quite clever is that in the staged break-in theory, he presents all sort of vague lines of reasoning first, to soften you up a bit, then in an almost throwaway line at the end mentions witnesses saying there was glass on top of the clothing (the only semi-solid evidence). That's somewhat harder to challenge, so you then don't bother so much about all the preceding arguments. I thought, hmm, maybe, I guess I will come back and look at this harder later.

Massei did have a problem - if you accept the DNA evidence, and believe your police to be fine upstanding honest types, it's almost impossible to reconcile everything. Well, he sort of did, but at the cost of a chain of very implausible steps.

 

[Mary_H]

I think the reason I love this so much is it actually fits with the facts better than the police version of the arrest and release of Patrick. I think that's something forgotten occasionally as it comes up so seldom as it's ground that guilters fear to tread, that whatever guilty motivation is eventually attributed to Amanda about the interrogation, the real tough work is explaining the actions and motivation of the police in that scenario.

They have to be so gullible as to fail to notice the oldest trick in the book, the one they're trained to sniff out, that the suspect might try to place blame elsewhere. Somehow Amanda has to be able to convince them that her charge against Patrick is a credible one, yet what they get is vague nonsense. They send seven cop cars out to haul Patrick in, they interrogate him all day, and not only fail to corroborate his alibi they manage to find a 'witness' that the bar was closed instead. That's after they again raced through the streets sirens blaring and announced 'case closed' and that Amanda had 'buckled' and given a version of the facts they 'knew to be correct.' Except nothing was, what they produced before Matteini bore little resemblance to what Amanda had signed.

They also have to maintain this belief in Patrick's guilt despite the vague nature of the statements, that they don't actually match the crime they're going to prosecute, (doesn't even mention the 'staged' break-in!) and Amanda writing later in the day a litany of reasons that she's not sure of any of it and doesn't think she can be used as 'testimone' and wonders who the real murder(er) is. Then the next day, locked away safely from prying lawyer-types, she writes them that she cannot know who the murderer is because she is sure that she wasn't at the cottage that night. Shortly following their begrudging allowance to let her see a lawyer, her legal position becomes that the statements should be thrown out and that she never left Raffaele's.

Speaking of Raffaele, how come it never occurred to these intrepid investigators that if Amanda was involved in a rape-murder, the most likely suspect for her compatriot is Raffaele and no other? Why wouldn't they naturally challenge the idea that she doesn't know if Raffaele was with her and automatically go after someone else, almost on her whim, with Raffaele just sitting there on ice in another cozy little backroom? How come they never interrogated Raffaele about the events of the murder?

They held Patrick for two weeks after his arrest, about ten days after they knew he had the Swiss professional as well as the twenty claimed by his lawyer proffering him an alibi. They had that in addition to a full recantation of her statements beginning almost immediately and complete the next day before she even saw a lawyer. Why were they so loath to release him?

So anyone trying to explain the actions of the Perugian police commensurate with an actually guilty Amanda has a number of hurdles to overcome, as their actions belie much of anything outside they wanted Patrick arrested and charged with this crime and were blind to anything but what reinforced that desire.

Seriously, try to imagine the scenario where Amanda gives them Patrick's name in malice and it doesn't occur to them that she might be trying to deflect blame from herself and Raffaele. They're not going to believe a thing she says anyway, the Matteini Report (bottom of page) doesn't bear but a casual resemblance to the statements, other than the actors 'involved,' so why would they be so mindlessly devoted to her verity about Patrick? Especially to the point it would never even occur to them she might be trying to protect Raffaele, the guy she's been shamelessly cuddling in public, to the dismay of all Perugia as they'd eventually tell it?

Thank you, Kaosium.

The common misconception of media consumers about the interrogation and the calunnia charge is that Amanda was trying to deflect blame. But the thing is, Amanda didn't feel blamed at that point. She didn't think of herself as a suspect and she had no idea she was going to be named as one or arrested for participation in the crime. From her point of view, her purpose was to help the police solidify their claim against Patrick, not to protect herself.

 

[Antony]

Miscarriages of justice (and alleged miscarriages of justice) have been an intellectual interest of mine for some years. I have developed a rule of thumb which basically says that in a high profile case with no immediate suspects, the police can pretty much be relied upon to go after the wrong target first off. I followed this case from pretty much the beginning in the British media and got such a whiff of police skullduggery from the start, that I didn't just presume innocence (of Amanda & Raffaele), I assumed it.

You speak for me entirely, although I only started following this case after the initial guilty verdict. The alarm bells were ringing for me from the moment I learned that the 2 accused were the 2 people who were at the scene when the crime was discovered.

That was even before I found out that the major argument of the pro-guilt faction was based on an all-night interrogation session for which, mysteriously, recording tapes were not available.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't often read at TJMK but I was interested in the recent Lawyer's strike in Italy and saw PQ's article Italian Lawyers Strategically Timed Strike This Week Causes Postponement Of Knox Calunnia Case.

PQ seems to imply that the main reason for the lawyers strike is the underfunding of police forensic operations.

The main lawyers union in Italy has chosen this week for their industrial action to protest the recent history of extreme political pressure by ex-PM Berlusconi’s party on the justice system, resulting in among other things the underfunding of the police’s forensic operations.

Seriously? The lawyers are so concerned about the cops funding, they go on strike? This is not making sense to me.

The information I have on this is that the lawyer's strike was done by the defense lawyers, protesting the attack in Italy on the right to a defense. The main issues are listed in the following articles.

It should be clear that lawyers no longer wish to tolerate the illegal intrusion in the relationship with his client, intimidation and violation of professional secrecy, and the intercepts of conversations overheard between client and attorney, the mocking violation of professional studies.

http://translate.google.com/transla...IwATgK&usg=AFQjCNE4g3AF1LDiyRWD5GFlSh5LaIx3nw

First, "the delayed registration of persons under investigation for some time that in fact are intended to act in such capacity," a loophole that would extend the life of pre-trial or deprive of necessary guarantees from the beginning defensive. Then, the collection of incriminate oneself by stopped being questioned by police without a lawyer present, "by specious use of the form of spontaneous declarations ". Then, "the appeal can not keep silent, more and more frequent inclusion of acts of investigation in excerpts of telephone conversations between counsel and his client, as well as the non-submission of tapes relating to phone tapping in time to reasonably be exercising the right of defense. "

http://translate.google.com/transla...qQIwCA&usg=AFQjCNEuy8TqYbDItpEzBlJI_duqqqb4Ww

Increasingly, lawyers complain about the lack of professional secrecy and coercion by the PM to disclose the discussions that took place between counsel and client.

Intimidation, raids in the studies and hearings that last for many hours without giving time to the lawyers to prepare the statement of defense for the next day.

http://translate.google.com/transla...qQIwAA&usg=AFQjCNE-_4F1vrpz_GGfxRZOMvqYIJzRNg

79 comments, not relating to the article. I don't get it.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Interesting argument, Bill, but no I do not agree.

I also watched the return to Sea-Tac, Marriott managed and manipulated press conference.
As far as any statement analysis of that 'performance'.....
My only thoughts were that Patrick Lumumba was indeed correct when he said "Knox was the World's greatest actress. She has no soul".
Patrick, BTW, had many more opportunities to observe Knox in action, at work, and in Court, than all the posters above combined]/i]

But, if psychologists' opinions are what apparently impress some arguing innocence, consider this:
Renowned psychologist Dr. Coline Covington wrote the following about Amanda Knox:
“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague."

ETA:
Please address all outcries of dissent and the inevitable, endless, mindless atta boys about the dissent, directly either to Mr Lumumba and/or Dr Covington.
Messengers who do little more than to transmit what you prefer not to hear should not be shot. (again)

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 12.

When watching the press conference at Sea-Tac were you personally able to conclude that Amanda Knox has no soul?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just interjecting a quick reflection

There is the basic assumption among PGers that Hellmann in his motivation report is going to acknowledge that Guede did not act alone but in light of the acquittals affirm that the identity of the accomplices is of course thus far unknown.

I think they are ignoring that Hellmann clearly and boldly claimed there was no simulation of the crime scene in any way. No staging and no clean up. Plus no transport of the knife to the crime scene. To my thinking, this points to Hellmann's suggesting that Guede was in fact a lone wolf.

And I at least can envision the supreme court accepting this, and moving on, rather than opening up a can of worms in the sense of: 1. Either having "the other 2" point right back to Knox and Sollecito, thus throwing out most of Hellmann's logic and forcing the whole 2007 mess to rise up from the grave ; OR 2. Having to start a frantic search on behalf of the Kercher family for "the others".

 

[smkovalinksy]

I don't often read at TJMK but I was interested in the recent Lawyer's strike in Italy and saw PQ's article Italian Lawyers Strategically Timed Strike This Week Causes Postponement Of Knox Calunnia Case.

PQ seems to imply that the main reason for the lawyers strike is the underfunding of police forensic operations.





Seriously? The lawyers are so concerned about the cops funding, they go on strike? This is not making sense to me.

The information I have on this is that the lawyer's strike was done by the defense lawyers, protesting the attack in Italy on the right to a defense. The main issues are listed in the following articles.



http://translate.google.com/transla...IwATgK&usg=AFQjCNE4g3AF1LDiyRWD5GFlSh5LaIx3nw



http://translate.google.com/transla...qQIwCA&usg=AFQjCNEuy8TqYbDItpEzBlJI_duqqqb4Ww



http://translate.google.com/transla...qQIwAA&usg=AFQjCNE-_4F1vrpz_GGfxRZOMvqYIJzRNg

79 comments, not relating to the article. I don't get it.

I read that piece also, and I think that as usual PQ is spinning out ideas from his inner perspective, with no real examination of the outward state of affairs or facts.

 

[Osterwelle]

PQ seems to imply that the main reason for the lawyers strike is the underfunding of police forensic operations.

Considering how miserably the police and their "experts" failed during the MK murder case, this might even be a valid point. On the other hand, I'm not sure if a budget increase would actually help something.

They'd maybe just buy new fancy analysis equipemt and then (again) fail to operate it according to the manufacturer's specs while the evidence is still being collected with dirty shoes and gloves because they can't "afford" enough shoe covers because the said equipment was so expensive...

However, I don't believe this is the defense lawyers main problem here.

-
Osterwelle

 

[Dougm]

Considering how miserably the police and their "experts" failed during the MK murder case, this might even be a valid point. On the other hand, I'm not sure if a budget increase would actually help something.

They'd maybe just buy new fancy analysis equipemt and then (again) fail to operate it according to the manufacturer's specs while the evidence is still being collected with dirty shoes and gloves because they can't "afford" enough shoe covers because the said equipment was so expensive...

However, I don't believe this is the defense lawyers main problem here.

-
Osterwelle

It seems more logical that defense lawyers would be striking over the issues that Rose mentioned, vs. being concerned about police funding.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

anonymous letter

Considering how miserably the police and their "experts" failed during the MK murder case, this might even be a valid point. On the other hand, I'm not sure if a budget increase would actually help something.
-
Osterwelle

Osterwelle,

I seem to recall that Judge Hellman received an anonymous letter from someone in the forensic branch. The gist of it was that they were indeed underfunded and the gloves and suits only came out when the cameras were rolling. Someone else might have a citation. If their budget were increased, I hope some of the money would be spent on retraining.

 

[smkovalinksy]

And, as a side benefit, she could have made a salad if she got hungry in her walks around Perugia, which makes it possible and in fact probable that she would have carried this huge knife, since there are various places to buy vegetables in town!

 

[Kaosium]

Osterwelle,

I seem to recall that Judge Hellman received an anonymous letter from someone in the forensic branch. The gist of it was that they were indeed underfunded and the gloves and suits only came out when the cameras were rolling. Someone else might have a citation. If their budged were increased, I hope some of the money would be spent on retraining.

Here's Draca's post on it including a translation and links. Re-reading it reminded me of this, something that came up during the Conti-Vecchiotti report when Stefanoni 'noted' their disuse of a fume hood. She even had that wrong it appears!

the public prosecutors’ consultant showed that during the testing operations, noted that the DNA amplifier was not placed under the fume hood contrary to what is done in the police laboratory. This is not the right place because the possibility is the highest that it can be contaminated if it is put under any fume hood”

Dr. Stefanoni notes that the Real Time PCR reaction was prepared on the counter without using a fume hood to guarantee the absence of contamination.

 

[Danceme]

From page 185 of "Murder in Italy:"

" Alone I imagine the horrors my friend must have gone through in her last moments.

I have to imagine what it must have felt like when she felt her blood flowing out of her. What must she have thought about. About her mom? Regret? Did she have time to come to any peace or did she only experience terror in the end? ..."
​

On the topic of statement analysis, while i don't subscribe to the notion it is an accepted tool for ascertaining the truth, I think we all do it to a certain degree, or at least something someone says will inevitably evoke a response based on our own way of interpreting other people's behavior or words, refined throughout our lifetime and informed by our experiences with other's deceit or truthfulness. It's human nature in a way but it doesn't prove anything one way or another as I'm sure all of us have times where we've been wrong just as often as we've been right.
In the quote above for example, I immediately wonder why Amanda would even imagine Meredith would have experienced regret, regret for what? Why regret? And what would she have to come to any peace about? This is a really weird statement when you think about it although i'm in no way attempting to analyze it. I just think it's weird, from my own perspective only. Others may think it's perfectly normal to imagine a girl being murdered having the time or presence of mind for experiencing regret for something or other. If I try to imagine Meredith's final moments my imagination can only come up with extreme terror and enormous panic, with not much time for anything else. If I were her friend or roommate I would have nightmares thinking about what she went through and wake up in a cold sweat myself. I would hardly imagine this extending to something she felt regret over or needed to make peace with. But that's just me.
I have always thought Amanda was a bit strange, or at least as quirky as she's been often described, and the above example simply illustrates to me the vast difference in thinking between her and me. Those words jumped out at me as "what a weird thing to say" but I couldn't ever go so far as to conclude it meant anything ominous although I'm sure Seamus might.
,

Gut instincts are sometimes good in situations that require very fast reactions/desicions or when there's no reliable information to decide on.

That can also apply to a murder case (or any other crime), especially during the initial investigation when there's only little data available yet.

But in cases where there's plenty of information and a long time to think about it, there's absolutely no justification to go for gut instincts, let alone putting them above logical analysis.

-
Osterwelle

I agree. Also, I believe gut instinct on the part of the investigators/prosecution is directly responsible for many wrongful convictions. Mignini was definitely a case in point.