Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Chris_Halkides]

livor mortis

Rosie at Sharon Feinstein's blog wrote, "Lividity as found by the forensic scientists does not develop in 10 minutes. Livor mortis showed that she had been left on her side wearing her bra. Had she been moved shortly after death a secondary pattern of lividity would have developed. None has ever been discussed by scientists or defence. So it was quite a long time before she was undressed, moved and the scene set for a rape scenario." I don't believe this to be correct, but does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

I did not find anything in the Massei report by searching on "livor," but by searching on "lividity" Professor Bacchi (prosecution expert witness) came up on p. 121: "He dismissed the possibility of interpreting these ecchymotic areas in terms of hypostasis [death lividity], noting that 'such peripheral areas are ... typical of scratches and small haemorrhages and small abrasions' (page 16, transcripts)."

ETA
"Forensic scientists find livor mortis somewhat useful in helping determine when a person died. By gently pressing on areas of the deceased's skin that show livor mortis, pathologists and examiners can try to estimate when a person died.

If the area turns pale and then becomes colored again, that means the blood has not fully congealed yet and the person may have passed within the last 12 hours or so. If the area remains the same darker color, it suggests the victim may have been dead for longer than 12 hours." Link here.

ETA 2
At the Graveyard Shift the host wrote, "Rookie officers have often confused lividity with bruising caused by fighting. Remember, ambient air temperature is always a factor in determining the TOD (time of death). A hot climate can accelerate lividity, while a colder air temperature can slow it down considerably."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

addendum on lividity

The subject of livor mortis came up on the first continuation thread. There is some relevant information on page 110 in Massei: "wine-red hypostasis staining was located in the posterior region of the corpse, which became white when pressed with a finger;"

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just thought this was worth a mention:

Daily Mail censured for fictional story about Amanda Knox verdict

The Press Complaints Commission has upheld a complaint against the Daily Mail for publishing the incorrect verdict in the Amanda Knox case.

The Mail's website reported that Knox has lost her appeal against her conviction for murdering Meredith Kercher when, in fact, she had been successful.

The article, published on 3 October, was live for 90 seconds, after which it was replaced with an article reporting the correct outcome.

In addition to the main thrust of the complaint - which concerned accuracy - the complainants were also concerned about additional elements of the reporting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc-dailymail?newsfeed=true

 

[Bill Williams]

First of all it's a Porsche pronounce POR shuh which undermines your whole tale. http://german.about.com/library/blaudio_porsche.htm

Sheesh - Marriott spelled it "Porche" on the "Thankyou, this is for you," card. Now you're telling me it's a cheap knock-off? Last time I get involved in a massive multimillion dollar PR campaign. Looks like they're cutting corners on the gifts to loyal staff! Buggers.

Look Bill we've gone over this a billion times, once for every PR dollar spent.

She made it perfectly clear in the notes delivered with hours that she couldn't swear to the accuracy of what she had signed. She told Mignini that she was convinced when she signed that Patrick was involved. The police chief's comments make it clear that they squeezed the statement out of her.

The one thing that happened with Knox's note she freely wrote, could NOT be described as "making things perfectly clear"! Have you read it? I will not post here about it, becuase I've just finished a full rendering on the "why of conviction on calunnia" on the IIP open forum. Please reply there.

You keep saying she was convictable but not sentenceable, but she was sentenced by both of your witnesses.

Nobody's perfect.

Perhaps the Hellmann court saw that the supremes would overturn it because it should have been heard by the Massei court. If so she'll be as innocent as Mignini - do you think the PGP will see it that way?

At this point I really don't care what the PGP say, esp. ironically since I am partially one of them! I find the postings on the PMF sites and the TJMK site to border on the absurd. I mean, they are claiming things well, well beyond what Massei claimed. For instance, even Massei reasoned in his conviiction that it was a chance event. On PMF they claim some psychological expertise unavailable to Massei or Mignini, with the extreme psychological vilification of only one of the alleged perps. Proof positive is that Guede is portrayed as a poor misunderstood guy - he's hardly at the crimescene at all acc. to PNFers.

That's the part that strays well beyond Massei and Mignini. I imagine that neither Massei or Mignini is terribly impressed, either, with the loonier explanations of guilt.

 

[smkovalinksy]

At this point I really don't care what the PGP say, esp. ironically since I am partially one of them! I find the postings on the PMF sites and the TJMK site to border on the absurd. I mean, they are claiming things well, well beyond what Massei claimed. For instance, even Massei reasoned in his conviiction that it was a chance event. On PMF they claim some psychological expertise unavailable to Massei or Mignini, with the extreme psychological vilification of only one of the alleged perps. Proof positive is that Guede is portrayed as a poor misunderstood guy - he's hardly at the crimescene at all acc. to PNFers.

That's the part that strays well beyond Massei and Mignini. I imagine that neither Massei or Mignini is terribly impressed, either, with the loonier explanations of guilt.

I had garnered this as well. Unless they somehow have uncanny powers of intuition - and I have not ruled this out - what strikes me chiefly is that their scenarios take flight and go off into expansive vistas which Massei himself did not dare to conjecture: The premeditation, Amanda being the ring leader, the psychological deviance so pronounced in Knox it borders on the horrific, etc......even in recent pictures she still seems innocuous to me:
http://www.infdaily.com/2011/12/exclusive-pics-amanda-knox-shares-a-kiss-with-her-boyfriend.html

 

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Grinder
She made it perfectly clear in the notes delivered with hours that she couldn't swear to the accuracy of what she had signed. She told Mignini that she was convinced when she signed that Patrick was involved. The police chief's comments make it clear that they squeezed the statement out of her.

Bill Williams wrote:

The one thing that happened with Knox's note she freely wrote, could NOT be described as "making things perfectly clear"! Have you read it?

No Bill I never read it. I just made up the response like Marriott told me.

You are a guilter aren't you? Same style of misdirection. I said "She made it perfectly clear in the notes delivered with hours that she couldn't swear to the accuracy of what she had signed are you said ...""making things perfectly clear"!" see the difference Mr. Rag

Bill, you clearly enjoy your unique position and I doubt a third note found in the police garage saying "Patrick wasn't there" would do it for you. You'd say she didn't say Mr. Lumumba or she should have spelled it Patrik.

I'm not a member at IIP if you want to send a PM do so.

From the Nov. 6th note: " I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:
1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real."

Once again, clearly she states that the previous statements she made were under duress she doubts they were correct. Given that she was in jail with the same people that had threatened her just hours before with a rough road if she didn't finger Patrick, I'd say she was pretty brave to go as far as she did.

You seem to think that after hours and days of the police and the whole situation while sitting in solitary she should have put it all together in hours or at most days and strongly stated that she was sure the police were wrong about Patrick being there. The police were absolutely convinced.

As as a good self admitted guilter you follow the strong tradition of not explaining the police chief's day after remarks.

At what level of police abuse does your rule about figuring out the truth and telling that it was a false statement no longer apply?

The last note was even clearer. I don't have it handy but you've read it.

 

[Bill Williams]

From the Nov. 6th note: " I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:
1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real."

You stopped quoring at the crucial part! (Underlining is mine for emphasis, not in the original.

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

Once again, clearly she states that the previous statements she made were under duress she doubts they were correct. Given that she was in jail with the same people that had threatened her just hours before with a rough road if she didn't finger Patrick, I'd say she was pretty brave to go as far as she did.

Both Massei AND Hellmann disagree with you. And we're not talking about bravery here, we're talking about legal liability.

There's also the note of Nov 7 referred to in Knox's trial testimony:

Giuliano Mignini: I see. All right. I take note of what you're saying. Now, let's talk
about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without
anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the
murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did
think that it was Patrick." Then you add "But now I know that I can't know who
the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home." Can you explain
these concept to me?

AK: Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten. So in
that moment, I--

GM: So what you had said might have actually been true?

AK: Yes.

You seem to think that after hours and days of the police and the whole situation while sitting in solitary she should have put it all together in hours or at most days and strongly stated that she was sure the police were wrong about Patrick being there. The police were absolutely convinced.

As as a good self admitted guilter you follow the strong tradition of not explaining the police chief's day after remarks.

Your ad hominem remarks are noted. Taken as a whole, Knox's Nov 6 AND Nov 7 statements, with the police chief's remarks.... only add to the confused situation with regard to what Knox herself was saying. By Nov 10 she was expressing remorse to her mother for her part in it.

At what level of police abuse does your rule about figuring out the truth and telling that it was a false statement no longer apply?

The last note was even clearer. I don't have it handy but you've read it.

This is where you're going to have to look at IIP. I don't think the JREF folk want postings duplicated.

However, you're the first person I've heard say that Knox's own words, free from slaps to the back of the head, were clear. And, BTW, I am glad the interrogation itself was ruled illegal, as it should have been. But both Knox's notes of the 6th and the 7th were written free from coersion.

 

[Grinder]

Hey Bill how about this for a rule? No calunnia may charged against a person for a statement that a higher court has ruled was improper and inadmissible in the primary case.

 

[Grinder]

You stopped quoring at the crucial part! (Underlining is mine for emphasis, not in the original.

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

Bill, never said her whole statement was perfectly clear - what I said was "She made it perfectly clear in the notes delivered with hours that she couldn't swear to the accuracy of what she had signed" Do you argue that point?

Both Massei AND Hellmann disagree with you. And we're not talking about bravery here, we're talking about legal liability.

Bill we all know she was convicted of calunnia by both courts. You made the point up-thread that she as well as any adult should be able to recover from an interrogation within a short period of time and make things right. You repeat that she made these notes of her own free will. She was locked in solitary so I don't think of her as having free will.

Obviously the Italians convicted her. The question of interest is not the byzantine Italian system but whether a person treated like she was, should be convicted of a crime.

"I didn't lie when I said that I thought the
murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did
think that it was Patrick." Then you add "But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home." Can you explain these concept to me?

AK: Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten. So in that moment, I--

GM: So what you had said might have actually been true?

AK: Yes.

Yes, I would say that note made her state of mind during the interrogation clearer.

Your ad hominem remarks are noted. Taken as a whole, Knox's Nov 6 AND Nov 7 statements, with the police chief's remarks.... only add to the confused situation with regard to what Knox herself was saying. By Nov 10 she was expressing remorse to her mother for her part in it.

The police chief's remarks make clear that the police believed Patrick was guilty and they pressured and hit her until she kind of said what they wanted. I t has been noted that her "accusation" was also vague but that was good enough to run in Patrick.

However, you're the first person I've heard say that Knox's own words, free from slaps to the back of the head, were clear. And, BTW, I am glad the interrogation itself was ruled illegal, as it should have been. But both Knox's notes of the 6th and the 7th were written free from coersion.

Well i think sitting in jail is by itself coercive. Remember the saying "we'll just let cool his heels until he remembers" - sitting in jail loosens one up.

I'm not interested in whether the Italians can convict for what happened, I'm interested in what is just and right. The way she was treated was not right and the fruits of that treatment shouldn't be used against her in any proceeding.

 

[Bill Williams]

Hey Bill how about this for a rule? No calunnia may charged against a person for a statement that a higher court has ruled was improper and inadmissible in the primary case.

Agreed.

Which is why Knox should NEVER have written the Nov 6 and Nov 7 memorandums, which only furthered the fuzziness of what she was saying. If she hadn't written them, then there'd be no reference point for the calunnia as you point out. The higher court ruled that the first two signed "confessions" were inadmissable as they should have. So we're all agreed. It was memorandums #3 and #4 that are at issue.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, never said her whole statement was perfectly clear - what I said was "She made it perfectly clear in the notes delivered with hours that she couldn't swear to the accuracy of what she had signed" Do you argue that point?

Yes. I argue that point because she also said, "I stand by my statement made last night...."

Bill we all know she was convicted of calunnia by both courts. You made the point up-thread that she as well as any adult should be able to recover from an interrogation within a short period of time and make things right. You repeat that she made these notes of her own free will. She was locked in solitary so I don't think of her as having free will.

On that point we then disagree. She asked for pen and paper and started writing. No one forced that. She should not have.

Obviously the Italians convicted her. The question of interest is not the byzantine Italian system but whether a person treated like she was, should be convicted of a crime.

Hopefully you are not accusing the Italian system of being "byzantine", because that very same "byzantine" system got the murder conviction right. She simply did not participate in the murder. There is no evidence at all she did. The ONLY evidence that Sollecito participated in the murder was a single piece of DNA found 46 years later, after being kicked around the floor, and handled unprofessinoally by the evidence gatherers - on short, worthless as evidence. Somehow, this "byzantine" system managed to eventually get that right. I remain stunned as to why ad hominem remarks are deemed necessary when there are enough facts to toss around.

Yes, I would say that note made her state of mind during the interrogation clearer.

I disagree.

The police chief's remarks make clear that the police believed Patrick was guilty and they pressured and hit her until she kind of said what they wanted. It has been noted that her "accusation" was also vague but that was good enough to run in Patrick.

Just because the police commited (possibly criminal) errors, that at best makes them co-conspirators to the calunnia charge.

Well i think sitting in jail is by itself coercive. Remember the saying "we'll just let cool his heels until he remembers" - sitting in jail loosens one up.

Okay, I cannot disagree with what you say is your opinion. My opinion differs.

I'm not interested in whether the Italians can convict for what happened, I'm interested in what is just and right. The way she was treated was not right and the fruits of that treatment shouldn't be used against her in any proceeding.

When you and I start our own country (you be president, I want to be post master!), and they come to us to put together the rudimentary basis of law for that piece of real estate, I'm sure we'll come to an agreement of where calunnia itself sits.

In this imperfect world, we are talking Italian law, though. I'll let you in on a secret, I know nothing about Italian law, and less about calunnia. You have my permission for one free ad hominem remark because of that admission.

And for the umpteenth time, I agree with you: if your comment "the way she was treated was not right" refers to the interrogation. Usually people yell at each other in a Knox-thread for disagreeing. Here we are yelling at each other for agreeing. JREF is going to ban both of us for aggrevated mopery.

The Italian supreme court also agrees with you, which is why they threw out the contents of what she signed at interrogation. So this "byzantine" system actually agrees with you (and me) on that point.

It is memorandum #3 and #4 that is at issue.

 

[komponisto]

You stopped quoring at the crucial part! (Underlining is mine for emphasis, not in the original.

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

What the underlined part means, as indeed is stated explicitly in the Nov. 7 document (quoted below), is that she wasn't lying to the police when she described the strange visions involving Lumumba. She had given her statements in good faith. That is not the same thing as saying that the police should believe her statements, however. The above passage is an attempt to clarify that the statements were made in a state of confusion, and hence are not reliable.

She was undoubtedly trying to protect herself from getting into some kind of trouble for trying to deceive the police -- because she hadn't been trying to do that. That is why she said she "stood by" her statements. It did not mean "I continue to believe that Patrick Lumumba was at my house on the night of the murder, and that he killed Meredith". Indeed, as the highlighted portion explains, she is significantly more inclined to believe that she had stayed at Raffaele's house.

I really don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to understand this. People are imprecise and ambiguous in their language all the time. Here Amanda used a phrase ("stand by") whose literal meaning ("continue to endorse") is more precise than what she intended ("don't retract as a lie"). People do this kind of thing constantly. (I know, because I happen to be one of the few people who do tend to be rather precise in their choice of words, and I'm constantly getting annoyed by other people who aren't.) To understand the meaning, you have to look at context, and -- especially in a situation like this, where the presumption of innocence applies -- you have to be charitable.

The definition of calunnia requires that we look at Amanda's intentions and her knowledge. If she had wished for Patrick to remain in prison despite knowing that he was innocent -- remember, this is what the crime of calunnia requires: "awareness and a willingness to blame someone of a crime that the accused knows is innocent" (emphasis added) -- why would she be reporting doubts about the "verity of [her] statements"? Why would she be specifically telling them not to use her as "condemning testimone [sic]"? On the contrary, these statements sound like she is warning the investigators not to blame Patrick Lumumba on the basis of her statements.

There is no motive for Amanda to have committed calunnia against Patrick. She had nothing against him; and as you (and Hellmann) agree, she was innocent of the murder, so she didn't need to shift any blame away from herself. And there is a compelling alternative explanation for her statements: coercion (note spelling). In fact, as I understand it you even agree that the statements were coerced. So what basis is there for interpreting the facts from anything other than a charitable, innocence-presuming perspective?

Both Massei AND Hellmann disagree with you.

The argument I'm presenting to you is the same that I would present to Hellmann (with Massei I would of course have quite a bit more to argue about). So if you agree with Hellmann, you ought to be able to answer it. Unless the only reason you take the position you do is because it's Hellmann's position; but then why would you decide you agree with him before you've read the motivation?

And we're not talking about bravery here, we're talking about legal liability

I don't happen to know whether being insufficiently courageous is a crime under Italian law, but it certainly isn't what Amanda is charged with. She is charged with the specific crime of calunnia, which is something far worse.

There's also the note of Nov 7 referred to in Knox's trial testimony:

Giuliano Mignini: I see. All right. I take note of what you're saying. Now, let's talk
about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without
anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the
murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did
think that it was Patrick." Then you add "But now I know that I can't know who
the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home." Can you explain
these concept to me?

AK: Yes, because I was convinced that I somehow could have forgotten. So in
that moment, I--

GM: So what you had said might have actually been true?

AK: Yes.


[...] Taken as a whole, Knox's Nov 6 AND Nov 7 statements, with the police chief's remarks.... only add to the confused situation with regard to what Knox herself was saying. By Nov 10 she was expressing remorse to her mother for her part in it.

And yet despite this, you nevertheless believe she was guilty of calunnia?

But both Knox's notes of the 6th and the 7th were written free from coersion.

And exactly where in those notes does she commit calunnia?

Look, Bill, I appreciate that you're a reasonable fellow (and I certainly appreciate the compliments on my Less Wrong post you offered at IIP -- that is if you are the same Bill Williams ), but your position on this is incoherent. (If it makes you feel any better, the position of the Hellmann court almost certainly is also.) Others have already pointed out the absurdity of "convictable but not sentenceable" (a convicted person always receives a sentence, even if it's only "time served"; Amanda was in fact sentenced to three years in prison for this supposed offense against Patrick Lumumba); more serious contradictions include the fact that, while you willingly take a position on a legal question, and support this position with arguments that are entirely legal in nature, you disclaim any qualification to contemplate matters of Italian law as soon as you are challenged with argument to the contrary. If you're going to claim that the calunnia conviction was justified, and you agree with me about Knox's state of mind during her interrogation and the fact that the statements were coerced, then you have to be willing to discuss the details of Italian law and the definition of calunnia because there is nothing else to discuss.

And it should go without saying that simple appeals to judicial authority aren't going to fly if the very subject under discussion is whether the ruling in question was correct.

 

[LondonJohn]

Agreed.

Which is why Knox should NEVER have written the Nov 6 and Nov 7 memorandums, which only furthered the fuzziness of what she was saying. If she hadn't written them, then there'd be no reference point for the calunnia as you point out. The higher court ruled that the first two signed "confessions" were inadmissable as they should have. So we're all agreed. It was memorandums #3 and #4 that are at issue.

No, all the statements were admissible for the Lumumba slander charge. It's only the murder charge that they were ruled inadmissible for. In fact, the two later statements (the "gift" from later on the 6th, and the last written submission from the 7th) should have been properly considered alongside the two signed police statements. It's clear that, taken as a whole, Knox only ever made a confused and imprecise accusation of Lumumba, and that in fact she essentially fully retracted this confused accusation in the last statement on the 7th.

It's also worth reiterating here that if Knox had nothing to do with the murder, there was no way that she could state that Lumumba also had nothing to do with it. And on top of that, she had apparently been told by the police that they had solid evidence of Lumumba's participation. So, in her mind, it's highly likely that she was fairly convinced of Lumumba's culpability between 5th November and at least the end of that year. One can imagine that somebody who had become convinced that a certain person had murdered their housemate and friend might not be massively disposed towards assisting that person's defence. Yet Knox actively proffered two voluntary statements in order to attempt to clarify her position vis-a-vis Lumumba. In effect, she appears to have been willing to alert the authorities that - even though she almost certainly believed Lumumba to have ben involved - she was now certain that she had not met up with him that night and had no knowledge of him killing Meredith.

But it's also important to recognise that there may also have been an element of self-preservation in Knox's two "gift" statements. I think that Knox did not expect to be in serious trouble for what she had told the police on the night of the 5th/6th (she claims that the police told her she was being kept in custody purely for her own protection until Lumumba was brought in). Once Knox realised that she herself was under arrest, it's arguable that a significant motivation for her retractions in the two "gift" statements was to try to extricate herself from the mess.

 

[RoseMontague]

Agreed.

Which is why Knox should NEVER have written the Nov 6 and Nov 7 memorandums, which only furthered the fuzziness of what she was saying. If she hadn't written them, then there'd be no reference point for the calunnia as you point out. The higher court ruled that the first two signed "confessions" were inadmissable as they should have. So we're all agreed. It was memorandums #3 and #4 that are at issue.

Her apology in court to Patrick at the beginning of the appeal trial might be a part of the court's reasoning as well.

 

[LondonJohn]

A quick list of bullet points, to correct factual and interpretational inaccuracies being peddled elsewhere (whether through ignorance or bias):

1: Meredith's two mobile phones were not both left switched on. Her Italian handset was switched off when it was discovered the following day in Sig.ra Lana's garden (it was found because it was lying in plain view, not because it rang).

2: Meredith's UK mobile phone was indeed left switched on, and it was found because someone heard the incoming call ringtone (the phone was lying out of sight) - which was almost certainly one of Knox's calls to that handset.

3: It's therefore not a massive stretch to suggest that whoever took the phones from the house wanted to turn them off, and that (s)he succeeded with the Italian handset, but failed with the UK handset. This in turn is a reasonable explanation for the curious aborted calls from the UK handset at around 10pm.

4: The event concerning the UK handset at 10.13pm was an incoming MMS message - it was not generated by anyone in possession of the handset at that moment. What almost certainly happened was that the handset lit up and sounded a tone to alert to the incoming message, and that whoever had the handset pushed enough buttons to cancel the receipt of the incoming message. This in turn may well have precipitated the disposal of the two phones.

5: Massei is simply wrong to assert that the base station data suggest that Meredith's UK phone was still in the cottage at the time of this 10.13pm incoming MMS message. By contrast, the data strongly suggest that the handset was somewhere in between the cottage and Sig.ra Lana's house at this time. This also fits reasonably with the theory that the incoming MMS message "spooked" the person holding the handset, such that both phones were thrown away soon afterwards.

6: The evidence in the cottage simply does not support the "fact" that Guede left the scene very shortly after the murder. The shoeprints leading down the hallway towards the front door were a) extremely faint to start with (remember that the "crack" police trod all over these prints without noticing them for quite some time on the 2nd!), and b) tailed off well before the front door. All that one can therefore say in relation to these prints therefore is that at some point after the murder Guede walked down the hallway towards the front door. There is no way of knowing if he even reached the front door, and nor is there any way of knowing if he turned around and walked back towards the bedroom (since the blood on his shoe sole had all been deposited by then).

7: Furthermore, Guede's own account has him performing various functions in the cottage (including a visit to the bathroom and an attempt to clean blood from his trousers) after the murder. The only reasonable way of explaining why Guede deemed it necessary to embellish his story with these details is that he was afraid that the police would find evidence of these activities, and that he therefore needed to weave them into his "innocence" narrative. I find it therefore highly likely (and entirely reasonable) that Guede remained in the cottage for some time after the murder, and that the faint bloody shoe prints are in no way indicative of a swift one-time exit from the cottage.

8: Knox's personal hygiene and interpersonal qualities while she was in prison are of essentially no relevance to any examination of her guilt/non-guilt/innocence of the crimes. I have no idea whether or not the accounts of the warden and "cellmate" are accurate or truthful - although there are some clear pointers towards a biased agenda on behalf of these two fine ladies. Regardless, I personally have no problem accepting their accounts as absolute truth (even though I doubt it to be the case). I don't care how often Knox showered (or showers), or whether she was cold to those around her in prison. It's irrelevant, and it doesn't make her a murderer.

6: One particular individual has committed the classic logical fallacy of stating the following:

Any fifth grader would agree that all people who are smelly, selfish, insensitive manipulative liars are not necessarily murderers. But the agenda driven FOAKers fail to understand the simple fact that that most murderers, ARE ....ice cold manipulative liars.

This is analogous to asserting that since most female rape victims are attacked by men, being a man does not "necessarily" make one a rapist (although the clear unwritten implication is that there's a reasonable likelihood of this being the case!).

 

[Antony]

6: One particular individual has committed the classic logical fallacy of stating the following:

Any fifth grader would agree that all people who are smelly, selfish, insensitive manipulative liars are not necessarily murderers. But the agenda driven FOAKers fail to understand the simple fact that that most murderers, ARE ....ice cold manipulative liars.

This is analogous to asserting that since most female rape victims are attacked by men, being a man does not "necessarily" make one a rapist (although the clear unwritten implication is that there's a reasonable likelihood of this being the case!).

Not only that, but the only "ice cold manipulative lying" Amanda is the fictional one invented by the Mignini team, and adopted with enthusiasm by every member of the "burn the witch!" brigade. So, by their own thinking, the real-life Amanda is a highly unlikely participant in their murder scenario (which is itself highly unlikely).

 

[Grinder]

Bill W wrote:

Hopefully you are not accusing the Italian system of being "byzantine", because that very same "byzantine" system got the murder conviction right. She simply did not participate in the murder. There is no evidence at all she did. The ONLY evidence that Sollecito participated in the murder was a single piece of DNA found 46 years later, after being kicked around the floor, and handled unprofessinoally by the evidence gatherers - on short, worthless as evidence. Somehow, this "byzantine" system managed to eventually get that right. I remain stunned as to why ad hominem remarks are deemed necessary when there are enough facts to toss around.

First of all I don't why you refer to a descriptive term for the Italian system as an ad hominem remark. The word byzantine means "( sometimes lowercase ) complex or intricate." Previously I referred to you as a term you used to describe yourself and even added a wink but you consider that an ad hominim attack? And attacking the Italian system, if that's what I was doing by using byzantine isn't an ad hominem.

I think a system that locks up two people for a year without charging them, after arresting them with no evidence placing them at the scene, with no witnesses to their whereabouts at the time of the murder, and statements made under duress is beyond byzantine, perhaps even a rotten system. The defense lawyers that went on strike last month definitely think the system isn't working fairly.

The fact that after four years of incarceration they were released, hardly makes it right or undermines that the system is deeply flawed.

Amanda was charged for calunnia for the statements IIRC, not the notes which referred to the statements. The statements were excluded from the murder trial but allowed in for the calunnia trial in front of the same jury. I think that the Corte Suprema di Cassazione may well send back the calunnia to the court of the first instance and they will not retry it. The byzantine nature of the Italian system may not allow the case to go forward again because the statute of limitations. This is how Mignini will survive and how Berlusconi has.

Does anyone have a link to the appeal arguments on the calunnia charge? I'm guessing that charge was by far the least important to the defense. Obviously from the Mignini trial, the court of the second instance can rule on such issues as to whether the case was in front of the correct court, but did the defense ask and could Hellmann just have passed that one to the Corte Suprema di Cassazione.

Is improperly accusing someone of an ad hominem attack an ad hominem attack?

 

[LondonJohn]

Bill W wrote:

First of all I don't why you refer to a descriptive term for the Italian system as an ad hominem remark. The word byzantine means "( sometimes lowercase ) complex or intricate." Previously I referred to you as a term you used to describe yourself and even added a wink but you consider that an ad hominim attack? And attacking the Italian system, if that's what I was doing by using byzantine isn't an ad hominem.

I think a system that locks up two people for a year without charging them, after arresting them with no evidence placing them at the scene, with no witnesses to their whereabouts at the time of the murder, and statements made under duress is beyond byzantine, perhaps even a rotten system. The defense lawyers that went on strike last month definitely think the system isn't working fairly.

The fact that after four years of incarceration they were released, hardly makes it right or undermines that the system is deeply flawed.

Amanda was charged for calunnia for the statements IIRC, not the notes which referred to the statements. The statements were excluded from the murder trial but allowed in for the calunnia trial in front of the same jury. I think that the Corte Suprema di Cassazione may well send back the calunnia to the court of the first instance and they will not retry it. The byzantine nature of the Italian system may not allow the case to go forward again because the statute of limitations. This is how Mignini will survive and how Berlusconi has.

Does anyone have a link to the appeal arguments on the calunnia charge? I'm guessing that charge was by far the least important to the defense. Obviously from the Mignini trial, the court of the second instance can rule on such issues as to whether the case was in front of the correct court, but did the defense ask and could Hellmann just have passed that one to the Corte Suprema di Cassazione.

Is improperly accusing someone of an ad hominem attack an ad hominem attack?

To me, the length of time of detention without charge and detention without trial in Italy is one of the single biggest failings of the Italian criminal justice system. I don't think it's unfair to describe this "facet" of their system as byzantine and authoritarian. It's an unfortunate relic of Mussolini's police state system, and I find it incredibly hard to believe that it hasn't been addressed and corrected by now (but then it unbelievably took Italy more than 50 years after the fall of Mussolini to enshrine the fundamental tenet of "innocent until proven guilty.....).

In any other modern democracy, the notion of holding people for months on end without charges, and years on end without trial, is legally and ethically repugnant. Indeed, it's instructive that when legislators in such countries have attempted to increase pre-charge detention periods - even though they would only apply to terrorism suspects and are therefore proposed as extraordinary measures for an extraordinary situation - there is massive opposition from most non-bigoted groups. It's utterly inconceivable that the US or UK (for example) could ever dream of getting away with even proposing long pre-charge or pre-trial detention periods for non-terrorist suspects. In the UK, for example, arrested persons can be held for three days before being charged or released, although a senior police officer or judge can authorise up to a further two days if there are justifiable reasons for the additional time. Therefore, the very top limit to charge or release someone is within five days of arrest. And although there's no mandatory limit on detention before trial, even the most complex cases where the suspect is remanded into custody come before the courts within around nine months maximum of the charges.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, the long detention with no bail is very much a problem. They had next to nothing on the kids when arrested yet they didn't allow them any freedom to help with their defense.

It appears that they were offered very little privacy while in prison. Specifically they were recording their conversations with the parents for sure and perhaps their attorneys, but that is not clear.

It took two years to get through the first trial and another two years to get through the second trial and it will take another six months or longer to get through the supremes and if they were to send any or all back, it could take even more years.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is improperly accusing someone of an ad hominem attack an ad hominem attack?

Yes it is. The irony you meant in your first message was completely missed at this end. My bad. I apologize.