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

[anglolawyer]

I agree with everything you write here, and that you make a very plausible case for what might really have happened. However, I still believe that this particular evidence (the differing lacing configuration of the trainers) suggests a number of different scenarios. As I wrote before (and as Grinder also alluded to), the different lacing configuration of the two shoes is also actually consistent with Meredith herself removing both shoes - first by kicking or prising off the right shoe (using either her hand or her left foot), then being unable to remove the left shoe in the same way, and being forced to bend down and untie the laces.

But I count the above as the least likely possible scenario. I therefore think that the shoe evidence strongly suggests that it was not Meredith alone (or Meredith at all) who removed her trainers that night. However, even with that suggestion, there are still (in my view) three different scenarios that all make sense:

1) Meredith is in the process of removing her shoes, and has just got to the point of untying the laces in the left trainer (or has just untied and removed her left trainer) when she is confronted and attacked in her own room; then the assailant (again, let's call him "Guede"....) removes either both trainers or just the remaining right laced-up trainer in order to be able to remove Meredith's jeans. He removes the right trainer by pulling it straight off Meredith's foot, leaving the laces tied.

2) Meredith has just untied her laces in her left trainer (and possibly removed the shoe from her foot) when she hears commotion near the front door. She leaves her room - either with her left trainer untied but still on her foot, or with only her right trainer still on - and the confrontation ensues in the hallway or kitchen; the assailant subsequently removes the trainer(s) as in point (1) during the assault.

3) Meredith has not yet attempted to remove either of her trainers when she is confronted and attacked (i.e. both trainers are still laced up). The assailant removes both trainers in order to be able to remove Meredith's jeans, and is able to pull the right trainer off while still laced up, but finds that the left trainer is laced too tightly to be able to remove in that way, and he is therefore forced to unlace it before pulling it from Meredith's foot.


In the first two scenarios above, there is a strong implication that the confrontation and attack must have occurred shortly after Meredith arrived back at the cottage (which I think is the truth in any case, for many other reasons related to other evidence). In the third scenario, there is perhaps less direct implication that the attack happened soon after Meredith's arrival home: if she was still wearing her trainers laced up normally, then it's possible that she had been walking/lounging around with her trainers on for any length of time after getting home. However, I think that other evidence that she was a) tired, and b) intending to read a study book before returning it the following morning, indirectly implies that it's unlikely that Meredith would have kept her trainers on for anything longer than a matter of 10-15 minutes after getting back home.

Therefore, I think the most one can say about this particular piece of evidence is that 1) it tends to suggest that Meredith's two trainers were not both removed by her in a "normal" way; 2) this in turn tends to suggest that someone else - the assailant - was involved in the removal of at least one of the trainers; 3) both of these things (coupled with other evidence) tend to indicate that Meredith became involved in a confrontation and attack shortly after she arrived home just after 9pm.

I think the different lacing configurations of the trainers is interesting and relevant evidence in trying to assess what might really have happened (although I'd suggest that it has next to no relevance in a strictly legal context). I think that this evidence tends to support and bolster the opinion that Meredith was confronted and attacked very soon after arriving home, but I don't think it can tell us much more than that regarding the more detailed dynamic or location of the confrontation.

For myself I think the shoes deserve to be added to the lengthening list of factors which point, both individually and cumulatively to an early TOD. These facts reinforce each other and all of them point in the same direction - no kitchen confrontation and a rapid assault in the bedroom only a few moments after the victim arrived there, we have:
a) the shoes b) the book and notebook on bed, probably right in the middle pre-attack, so no lying down c) no computer use (the lid is down) d) no cell phone use e) the mushroom (yes, I insist on the mushroom) f) the jacket not removed g) the house socks not put on h) the washing in the washing machine i) very important - Meredith's own words to her friends and mother as to what she intended to do that evening j) no use of her chair (I know it's shoved in but look at the mess on the table in front of it) k) the absence of any reason for Rudy to hang around unobserved for, how long, half an hour, an hour? Two and half hours? l) the hot water bottle not made on a cold evening;

Almost everything in that room tells us something.

 

[RoseMontague]

First time poster, long time reader. Well done to everyone who called this case correctly. I've enjoyed the debates.

If the AG doesn't appeal, can Maresca launch his own appeal serperate from the state?

Welcome to the forum! Here is a link to the Criminal code regarding appeals:

http://translate.googleusercontent....=36867&usg=ALkJrhhWTj07h_xzCI5RHu-c2A_h1y7fpw

It seems to me to indicate that the answer to this is no, but it is a Google translation and I am not a lawyer or an Italian speaker.

 

[LondonJohn]

Welcome to the forum! Here is a link to the Criminal code regarding appeals:

http://translate.googleusercontent....=36867&usg=ALkJrhhWTj07h_xzCI5RHu-c2A_h1y7fpw

It seems to me to indicate that the answer to this is no, but it is a Google translation and I am not a lawyer or an Italian speaker.

Ah yes, I had meant to address this point too, but forgot (and welcome to the thread too, Murdoch - I hope you're not James or Rupert though )

Yep, as I see things I don't think Maresca has the right of appeal at the Supreme Court level. He was only ever a directly-interested (from a legal definition) plaintiff in the civil case for damages that ran concurrently with the criminal trial. In the criminal element of the trial, he was representing the victim (the victim's family in this case, of course), but was not a prosecuting authority per se.

I believe that the only parties who have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court are defence lawyers (appealing on behalf of the defendant(s)) and prosecuting authorities (appealing on behalf of the State). And, as has been pointed out previously, the prosecution appeal has to come from the Attorney General of the relevant Italian region - the local prosecutors' office which prosecuted the case in the previous two trials is not directly involved in any prosecution appeal.

 

[LondonJohn]

Once again, certain pro-guilt commentators appear to be too ignorant or too biased to understand the nuanced argument regarding the issue of splitting low-template DNA samples for testing purposes.

Here's the conundrum: if you have a tiny amount of DNA to work with, then regardless of the sensitivity of the testing equipment (and in fact, the more sensitive the equipment, the bigger the potential problem), there is always going to be background "noise" and other artifacts that produce false peaks or stutters in the results charts. This is somewhat analogous to the difference between identifying someone's voice if they are speaking loudly at a party, versus identifying the same person's voice at the same party if they are now speaking very softly: the background noise will interfere far more with the second scenario than with the first one.

One way to address this inherent problem in low-template DNA typing is to split the sample. If the split sample is tested twice, then the charts for the two tests can be compared and contrasted. If certain peaks and stutters are repeated exactly on both samples, then it's possible to say with a fair degree of confidence that these peaks/stutters derive from the sample itself, rather than from any background "noise" (which tends to be somewhat random in nature).

But of course there's an inherent paradox here: if the sample only contains a tiny amount of DNA to start with, then splitting it into two "sub-samples" is obviously undesirable (and may indeed be impossible). However, regardless of this clear paradox, there is one overarching factor which informs the entire argument on this issue (and which some pro-guilt commentators seem either unable or unwilling to understand): if the state is going to use DNA evidence to convict someone of a crime, then the DNA evidence needs to be robust, reliable and replicable. That is a fundamental tenet of not only justice, but also of the science underpinning the DNA evidence itself.

What it means in practice is this: if there is so little DNA on a sample that it cannot be split for the purposes of conducting two separate LCN tests, then that sample must - almost by definition - be deemed inadmissible for use as probative evidence in a criminal trial. That's because the unreliability of a single-test result at these low levels is simply too high for the result to be meaningful in the context of proving identity in a criminal trial.

And as a peripheral consideration, if there is so very little DNA on a given sample that it can't be split for testing, then - quite apart from the unreliability of test results - the underlying issue of transfer/contamination also becomes significant in and of itself. In other words, if there is a huge amount of someone's DNA on an item, one can not only get a very reliable test result, but one can be very confident that there was a genuine transfer between the person and the item at some point. If, on the other hand, there are only a few molecules of a person's DNA on an item, the problems of test reliability are compounded by the possibility that such a minute amount of DNA arrived on the item by secondary/tertiary transfer or by contamination.

 

[Bill Williams]

For myself I think the shoes deserve to be added to the lengthening list of factors which point, both individually and cumulatively to an early TOD. These facts reinforce each other and all of them point in the same direction - no kitchen confrontation and a rapid assault in the bedroom only a few moments after the victim arrived there, we have:
a) the shoes b) the book and notebook on bed, probably right in the middle pre-attack, so no lying down c) no computer use (the lid is down) d) no cell phone use e) the mushroom (yes, I insist on the mushroom) f) the jacket not removed g) the house socks not put on h) the washing in the washing machine i) very important - Meredith's own words to her friends and mother as to what she intended to do that evening j) no use of her chair (I know it's shoved in but look at the mess on the table in front of it) k) the absence of any reason for Rudy to hang around unobserved for, how long, half an hour, an hour? Two and half hours? l) the hot water bottle not made on a cold evening;

Almost everything in that room tells us something.

Add to this that Guede himself, in the wiretapped conversation with a friend, said he was in the house between 9 and 9:30 pm.... so, even allowing for Guede mistaking the time by 1/2 hour either way, Hellmann's ToD begins to look very accurate.

Where people begin to lose the memory of Meredith Kercher, or where they begin to allow her name to be forgotten in the tempest that ensues from rabid speculation about other people there - is precisely where people forget it was Guede and Guede alone. I have a word I want to apply to him, but it will not survive moderation.

 

[anglolawyer]

Add to this that Guede himself, in the wiretapped conversation with a friend, said he was in the house between 9 and 9:30 pm.... so, even allowing for Guede mistaking the time by 1/2 hour either way, Hellmann's ToD begins to look very accurate.

Where people begin to lose the memory of Meredith Kercher, or where they begin to allow her name to be forgotten in the tempest that ensues from rabid speculation about other people there - is precisely where people forget it was Guede and Guede alone. I have a word I want to apply to him, but it will not survive moderation.

Add even further the persuasive analysis over at IIP that puts the cellphone a long way from the apartment at 22.13.

 

[codyjuneau]

For myself I think the shoes deserve to be added to the lengthening list of factors which point, both individually and cumulatively to an early TOD. These facts reinforce each other and all of them point in the same direction - no kitchen confrontation and a rapid assault in the bedroom only a few moments after the victim arrived there, we have:
a) the shoes b) the book and notebook on bed, probably right in the middle pre-attack, so no lying down c) no computer use (the lid is down) d) no cell phone use e) the mushroom (yes, I insist on the mushroom) f) the jacket not removed g) the house socks not put on h) the washing in the washing machine i) very important - Meredith's own words to her friends and mother as to what she intended to do that evening j) no use of her chair (I know it's shoved in but look at the mess on the table in front of it) k) the absence of any reason for Rudy to hang around unobserved for, how long, half an hour, an hour? Two and half hours? l) the hot water bottle not made on a cold evening;

Almost everything in that room tells us something.

Hi Anglo

I totally agree with the ToD being minutes after Meredith arrived home but I don't understand the conclusion that all of those factors listed rule out a kitchen confrontation. The only one I see that could do that is the shoe lace interpretation if it indicates Meredith was removing her shoes when attacked. However as others have noted there are other possible explanations for the laces. A few more I can think of are:

• One of Meredith's shoelaces was already undone
• One of Meredith's shoelaces came undone during the struggle
• One of Meredith's shoes came off during the struggle
• Rudy pulled one of Meredith's shoes off when dragging her body by the feet. He removed the other by untying the lace.

I think your interpretation of a kitchen confrontation may be different than mine. If there was a kitchen confrontation I think it would be a brief encounter with very little if any physical contact other than the possibility that Meredith cut Rudy's hand with a kitchen knife (might she have pointed a kitchen knife at Rudy in self defence but Rudy instinctively grabbed it because he thought she was offering him something). Meredith would then flee to her bedroom but Rudy would follow her and attack her there.

 

[Grinder]

Since my shoes were taken off my me and look just like Meredith's as to lace status I see no addition to information regarding the time line or how she was attacked. No one here has given a reason for her alcohol reading of a full drink in her system. I believe she had a drink after arriving home perhaps with Rudy. The school of Rudy had no charms and Meredith would never have made a date with him doesn't resonate for me.

All duly noted and absorbed. And while we're setting out what we would like, I would like:
1 a detailed description of the clean up, describing the methods employed, the equipment used, the clothing worn, the rooms involved, the disposal of clothing and equipment and the timing

Yup. They PGP never address the specifics of the grand cleanup. Massei seems to say that there was a cleanup because the evidence he wants to be there isn't there.

The disposal of all the cleaning related things has always intrigued me. It's not easy to dispose of mops, rags, shoes, pants and not have somebody notice. One would assume that the police would have checked all nearby garbage cans and alerted the garbage-men to be on the lookout.

The mop and bucket turned up no residue of bleach or blood and no DNA. The theories on why the clever killers would haul them to Raffaele's has never made sense. If as you put forward they wanted to clean it with the bleach (not purchased that morning but rather have been his for some time) , wouldn't putting the bleach in a bag be a little easier? They could have done the theorized cleaning outside to not leave a bleach smell in the cottage.

An even bigger question is what did they clean with a mop? The hallway Luminol prints would have been mopped away and large area of smeared residue would have been found, but alas no they weren't found.

Take that mop. It was taken back to Raffaele's place. I only recently understood the guilter theory about that: it was so as to clean it with the bleach we know Amanda bought early in the morning on 02/11/2007 from Mr Q at Cardo. Fine. So, was it tested and found to be saturated with bleach? What about the bucket which is used with the mop oftentimes? How did the tests for that come out - any blood, hair etc? Why didn't they clean it at the apartment, where there was some bleach (I believe)? Why walk the thing around town saying - 'Hey! We've just been involved in a clean up?'

It may be out there somewhere but, if so, I have yet to come across the blueprint for the crime scene clean. I don't even mind if it doesn't explain how they left Rudy's stuff there. I just want an approximate, but detailed, description.

Wish all you want but Massei is the best you'll get.

There was no organized cleanup of any scale. The footprints in the hallway prove that, as do the bloody spots on the sink and the bathmat print.

If the kids had wanted to clean the place they could have mopped up Meredith's room, the hallway, the bathrooms, and more in no more than 30 minutes. The cottage is pretty small and the cleaning wouldn't need to be perfect unless they needed to recover their microscopic droppings while leaving Rudy's.

 

[Grinder]

Small LCN sample need to be split in order to do a second test which seems easy enough to understand.

What I find the most interesting is the idea that if C&V discovered more LCN DNA on the knife but not enough for two tests that running a test on this new sample would not be of value. It would seem that it would provide the second test and if it came out with Meredith's DNA then that would confirm that somehow a tiny, tiny amount of her DNA was on the knife.

Even if that tiny amount of MK's DNA was on the knife that wouldn't prove that the knife was involved in the killing. When looking at the knife it needs to be put in context of the known attributes of the murder weapon: the shape in the bloody outline, the size of the wounds, the bruises on the neck caused by the hilt and the fact it tested negative for blood.

For me and apparently Hellmann, there needs to be much more tying the knife to crime than six cells.

 

[LondonJohn]

Add even further the persuasive analysis over at IIP that puts the cellphone a long way from the apartment at 22.13.

Yes: we also had some fairly detailed discussion of this issue here on JREF. I have some professional and educational knowledge of cellphone technology and protocols, and it's pretty obvious that if one were dealing in probabilities, it is highly probable that the 10.13pm interaction between the network and Meredith's UK phone took place when the handset was some way away from the cottage.

The problem is that from a probative point of view, this particular cellphone activity is unfortunately rather unhelpful. That's because the cottage technically lay within (but close to the edge of) the coverage zone of the cell that delivered the MMS traffic to the handset. Were one to stand in Meredith's room in the cottage and measure the relative signal strengths of the different base stations whose zones covered the cottage*, the base station that delivered the 10.13pm MMS would be some way down the list.

Furthermore, I believe it was established that for all the records that were collected, that particular base station had never before been used while the UK mobile was within the cottage. All of this tends to strongly suggest that the handset was not within the cottage when the 10.13pm MMS was transmitted. And an analysis of base station "sweet spots" further suggests that the handset was most likely to have been situated somewhere near the edge of the park that is en route between the cottage and Sig.ra Lana's front garden where the phones were eventually dumped.

But back to the problem: all of this is nothing more than a balance of probabilities. Had the cottage fallen outside the coverage zone of the base station which sent the 10.13pm MMS, then it would have been simple to conclude with certainty that the phone was not within the cottage at that time. But unfortunately, even though it should be assigned a very low probability, it's still possible that the phone was within the cottage at that time.

Nevertheless, Massei still made a significant error in positively linking the 10.13pm phone activity with the cottage. In fact, what the evidence suggests is that the phone was probably (but not definitely) some way from the cottage at that time. With that in mind, the 10.13pm activity should be regarded as a null geographic data point for the purposes of any judicial rulings, but in the context of trying to hypothesise the truth, probability dictates that the phone was very likely en route to its final dumping ground at 10.13pm.

* There is usually a significant overlap between coverage zones, to ensure that there is seamless coverage for someone moving between zones. In addition, in urbanised areas there tends to be even more overlap (and sometimes even duplication) of base stations: this is because each base station has a maximum user capacity, and in towns and cities there is often more demand that a single-coverage network can handle. Therefore, it's highly likely that the Wind network (which was the network roaming partner for Meredith's UK phone) had between three and six different base stations that were all technically accessible for a handset sited at the cottage.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, by the way, while we're talking about cellphones, let's address the issue of a possible cellular black-spot in Sollecito's apartment. It's certainly the case that Sollecito's apartment was low down in an old, stone-built building within the crowded jumble of 4-5-storey stone buildings and very narrow streets in a hilly topography. It's therefore highly likely that Sollecito's apartment suffered from poor cellular reception - and indeed the defence teams apparently conducted tests which showed that this was indeed the case.

The other important point related to this issue is that geographic cellular coverage is not a constant. Cellular transmissions for GSM networks (as was the case with both Sollecito's and Knox's cellphones) take place at either the 900MHz or 1.8GHz areas of the electromagnetic spectrum. At these relatively high frequencies, signal propagation can be significantly affected by many things, including climatic conditions, solar activity, even rainfall. So it's entirely possible that in a spot where cellular reception is patchy at best, reception may fade in and out depending on these external factors without the handset itself being moved at all. It's therefore entirely feasible that Sollecito's handset might have dropped out of signal coverage for many hours on the night of the 1st/2nd November, but that conditions changed enough early on the morning of 2nd November for the phone to find a signal again. It might not therefore have been necessary for Sollecito (or anyone else) to physically touch or move the handset in order for this to happen.

 

[Antony]

Small LCN sample need to be split in order to do a second test which seems easy enough to understand.

What I find the most interesting is the idea that if C&V discovered more LCN DNA on the knife but not enough for two tests that running a test on this new sample would not be of value. It would seem that it would provide the second test and if it came out with Meredith's DNA then that would confirm that somehow a tiny, tiny amount of her DNA was on the knife.

Even if that tiny amount of MK's DNA was on the knife that wouldn't prove that the knife was involved in the killing. When looking at the knife it needs to be put in context of the known attributes of the murder weapon: the shape in the bloody outline, the size of the wounds, the bruises on the neck caused by the hilt and the fact it tested negative for blood.

For me and apparently Hellmann, there needs to be much more tying the knife to crime than six cells.

My thoughts exactly - the fact that this "evidence" (and the bra clasp) were even presented in court simply goes to show that the investigation was following an agenda.

Sound evidence is corroborated by other evidence. So we can be extremely confident that Meredith was killed before 9:30pm, because there is a raft of facts surrounding the murder that independently point to the same conclusion. The same applies to the conclusion that Rudy Guede broke into the cottage, and that he was the only other person present in the flat at the time of Meredith's death.

The striking thing about the pro-guilt "argument" is that every isolated indication that can be dreamed up has to be interpreted with certainty to support their desired conclusion, when by any reasonable interpretation it does no such thing.

 

[anglolawyer]

Hi Anglo

I totally agree with the ToD being minutes after Meredith arrived home but I don't understand the conclusion that all of those factors listed rule out a kitchen confrontation. The only one I see that could do that is the shoe lace interpretation if it indicates Meredith was removing her shoes when attacked. However as others have noted there are other possible explanations for the laces. A few more I can think of are:

• One of Meredith's shoelaces was already undone
• One of Meredith's shoelaces came undone during the struggle
• One of Meredith's shoes came off during the struggle
• Rudy pulled one of Meredith's shoes off when dragging her body by the feet. He removed the other by untying the lace.

I think your interpretation of a kitchen confrontation may be different than mine. If there was a kitchen confrontation I think it would be a brief encounter with very little if any physical contact other than the possibility that Meredith cut Rudy's hand with a kitchen knife (might she have pointed a kitchen knife at Rudy in self defence but Rudy instinctively grabbed it because he thought she was offering him something). Meredith would then flee to her bedroom but Rudy would follow her and attack her there.

Hey Cody

My reasons for no kitchen confrontation are:
1 the faeces in the loo puts Rudy there at some point, possibly when Meredith arrived
2 if she went to get her laundry and spotted him, she did not get far enough to open the washing machine, or put a bowl down to drop the washing into (if there is one)
3 there is no sign of disturbance in the kitchen (I read somewhere recently, maybe Nina Burleigh a chair was knocked over on the kitchen but I cannot see it in the CSI vids and Amanda did not note it among the suspicious things next morning)
4 likewise there is no sign of disturbance in the small hallway, where the clothes stand considerably narrows what is already a confined space
5 i believe she ate some mushroom (I know others say it was apple consumed much earlier but somehow undigested and located in her oesophagus, but I have seen her large and toothsome mushroom stash in the fridge and adhere to a fungal interpretation) suggesting at least a period of relaxed calm in the kitchen, however short
6 if she waved a knife at him which he grabbed, cutting himself, there should be blood in the kitchen and a bloody knife. Lack of personal experience or expertise forces me to accept Hendry's (or Moore's) theory of how he came by his hand wounds
7 he had time to conceal himself when he heard the keys in the front door
8 in a letter from Germany, in which he has himself arrive with her, she, finding the kitchen light on, calls out to ask if there was anyone there. I believe him but place him on the toilet when this happened.
9 the struggle in the bedroom starts at the head of the bed, not by the door (which she might have been expected to try and shut). The one part of the room which is struggle-free is the door area
10 mainly, there is no reason to suppose a kitchen encounter - but I would be very interested in your reasons for thinking there was as this is a common idea which I have found hard to understand so far.

I could just about go as far as Meredith arriving to find Rudy relaxing in the kitchen and reacting to her as though he owned the place - as he did when found in the Milan school (Burleigh relates this in ch.9) - she goes to her room turning over in her mind what to do about him and he follows her. He could have said something about being let in by and waiting for Amanda. At the school he claimed he had permission to be there having paid someone 50 euros for the privilege of dossing there - and he was very convincing, apparently.

 

[geebee2]

The problem is that from a probative point of view, this particular cellphone activity is unfortunately rather unhelpful.
..

But back to the problem: all of this is nothing more than a balance of probabilities. Had the cottage fallen outside the coverage zone of the base station which sent the 10.13pm MMS, then it would have been simple to conclude with certainty that the phone was not within the cottage at that time. But unfortunately, even though it should be assigned a very low probability, it's still possible that the phone was within the cottage at that time.

Nevertheless, Massei still made a significant error in positively linking the 10.13pm phone activity with the cottage. In fact, what the evidence suggests is that the phone was probably (but not definitely) some way from the cottage at that time. With that in mind, the 10.13pm activity should be regarded as a null geographic data point for the purposes of any judicial rulings, but in the context of trying to hypothesise the truth, probability dictates that the phone was very likely en route to its final dumping ground at 10.13pm.

LJ, I agree. But in fact almost every bit of evidence in any trial is only a balance of probabilities.

When juries convict, it is thought that "reasonable doubt" could in fact be as high as a 25% chance of innocence!

Surely it is the job of a court to decide every case on the balance of probabilities. Is the prosecution case more or less likely than the defence case, and is the balance decisive?

In this case, there is a long chain of improbabilities in the Massei's case, of which this is the most decisive, and almost none in the defence case ( that I can find ).

I find biggest improbabilities in Massei to be these

Phone at cottage at 22:13 1%
Break in staged to look like Rudy did it vs unstaged break-in 10%
Conspiracy among 3 near strangers with no apparent motive vs burglary gone wrong 5%
Murder weapon was two knives rather than one 10%
Time of death 23:30 vs 21:10 according to empty duodenum 10%
Amanda carrying a large knife in her bag 10%
Two knives used in the murder 10%

Even if (completely unjustifiably) you assign only a small probability that the LCN DNA results are incorrect ( say 1% ), the balance of probability is still way in favour of the defence. It's madness to talk of almost any evidence being "probative" or "certain".

I think that's the big error that the original trial made. They must have have either assigned a ridiculous certainty to the DNA evidence, or not thought about the implausibility of the prosecution case compared to the alternative.

You may tell me that is not how courts operate - if so, I despair.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What is reasonable doubt in numerical terms?

The American jury on trial: psychological perspectives
Saul M. Kassin and Lawrence S. Wrightsman, 1988, p. 155:
“Rita James Simon and Linda Mahan had 106 judges and 25 jurors convert “reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of the evidence” into numeric terms.50 Specifically, thy asked their subjects how high the probability would have to be that a defendant committed the crime in order for them to vote guilty. Judges clearly distinguished the two standards, demanding an 89 percent probability level in for the criminal standard, and 61 percent for the civil standard. Jurors, on the other hand, were not at all sensitive to the difference, asserting probability values of 79 and 77 percent, respectively.”

I believe that Komponisto made the point once that putting a number on reasonable doubt serves a useful function, namely suggesting what percent of false convictions one is willing to tolerate.

 

[Fine]

Hey Cody

My reasons for no kitchen confrontation are:
1 the faeces in the loo puts Rudy there at some point, possibly when Meredith arrived
2 if she went to get her laundry and spotted him, she did not get far enough to open the washing machine, or put a bowl down to drop the washing into (if there is one)
3 there is no sign of disturbance in the kitchen (I read somewhere recently, maybe Nina Burleigh a chair was knocked over on the kitchen but I cannot see it in the CSI vids and Amanda did not note it among the suspicious things next morning)
* * *

___________________

Anglo,

There is evidence that a chair was knocked over in the kitchen.

Rudy claimed that he held the chair in self-defene against a knife-wielding stranger. His attorneys wanted the chair examined to establish Rudy's contact with the chair.

One way of interpreting Rudy's bloody shoeprints in the kitchen is that he paused and picked-up an upended chair and set properly in place at the kitchen table. See HERE.

///

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>
5 i believe she ate some mushroom (I know others say it was apple consumed much earlier but somehow undigested and located in her oesophagus, but I have seen her large and toothsome mushroom stash in the fridge and adhere to a fungal interpretation) suggesting at least a period of relaxed calm in the kitchen, however short.
<snip>

Greetings Anglolawyer,
I too have wondered whether it ws a mushroom that Meredith ate.
And for a long time I thought so.

However, I keep an open mind, and since I did not attend the trial nor see most of the photogrphs and video presentations or recreations, I place a lotta weight with what Mr. Frank Sfarzo reports over what I read elswhere.

Reading the current comments section of Perugia Shock,
I saw Frank discussing with a person named Clive whether it was a piece of apple or a piece of mushroom that was found:

I am posting the discussion and response here, it made me change my mind...

Clive:
"Frank

Meredith ate some mushroom when/after she came home. It was found, still undigested, in her oesophagus and was not consumed in the meal she shared with her friends. There was a large tub of mushroom on what is probably her shelf in the fridge. Therefore, she was not attacked upon entry.

Perugia Shock:
"It looked like a mushroom but it’s not. It was a slice of apple from the previous dinner."

Clive:
"Frank

The mushroom fragment was undigested and located in the oesophagus, not the stomach. Mushroom is a fungus and apple is a fruit, they probably aren’t easily confused, and no one (so far as I know) disputed the nature of the fragment at the first trial (admittedly, I base this on Massei, which is not the firmest ground). If that is Meredith’s shelf in the fridge she was clearly quite fond of mushrooms and extensive research among my friends reveals the existence of people who snack on refrigerated mushroom.


Perugia Shock:
"Well, she wasn’t fond on mushrooms, especially when they were raw and dirty, as the ones in the fridge were.
Indeed a washed and sliced mushroom, of which she would have eaten one only slice, wasn’t found in the house.
In the stomach, instead, there were other slices looking exactly the same as the one in the esophagus. So it was a fragment of the same apple, and it came back from the stomach during the assault."


Interesting point...
L8, RW


PS- Frank Sfarzo also discusses Nara's scream abit more:
"Exactly, she never said she heard the scream at 11:30, it’s Mignini who tries to hint that she said that. She never said she heard 3 people running (have a look at my mini interview with her), it’s Mignini who tries to hint that.
She said I heard some steps on the stairs and, almost at the same time, some steps She said I went to sleep at about 9 and I heard the scream after a while. on the gravel. That’s it.

 

[RWVBWL]

<snip>
No one here has given a reason for her alcohol reading of a full drink in her system. I believe she had a drink after arriving home perhaps with Rudy. The school of Rudy had no charms and Meredith would never have made a date with him doesn't resonate for me.
<snip>

Hi Grinder,
I too was curious about that BAC reading also, read what Frank Sfarzo reported, posted about it here waaay back when, and also this, which I tend to believe is what really happened:
"Meredith's initial toxicology reports showed that she had no more than a glass of wine. (Later toxicology reports showed that she may have been very drunk, but the prosecution wrote those off as bad forensics - they said her body had not been stored properly, so the blood alcohol levels were due to fermentation, not intoxication."*

Hmmm, the prosecution states that their CSI store evidence improperly,
makes sense to me, it was indeed fermentation...
L8, RW



* - Angel Face,
The true story of student killer Amanda Knox,
pages 161+162 Author: Barbie Nadeau

 

[Bill Williams]

I wish I had read Dempsey's book 3 months ago before starting to post here!!!!!

A couple of things. First - the lie to the impossibilitiy of a break-in through an upper window!? For the almost year that the cottage was behind police tape it was broken into twice, always through a window.

Second - I will not abide the "Kercher's memory is the thing lost here" anymore. Dempsey has a touching closing to the book, with sincerest sympathies to the Kercher family. I suppose she could be criticized by some cynic for not making the condolence "sincere enough". You know what? It wasn't No condolence from anyone anywhere, not matter HOW heartfelt or long is enough. Dempsey seems to be the type of person to know that.

Third - in reflecting on Burleigh's book - Nina's offering is the one that makes Knox seem the most quirkily ordinary. If not for the last 4 years, the presentation of Knox is of every 20-year-old out for the first time ever - with the Seattle-twist and the Knox peculiarities, but everyone is peculiar in something..... Burleigh portrayed that brilliantly and effectively. Knox would never in a million years have stood out in a Seattle crowd of 20-somethings.

Burleigh is not shy of pointing out the times Knox and Sollecito lie. Strangely, the first two lies Knox tells to investigators are actually ones to portray Meredith Kercher in a better light than the line of questioning seems to be getting at. Knox is protecting Kercher's image.... and that in turn quite ironically leads investigators to suspect that "Knox knows more than she's saying" about the murder itself. Which she, of course, does not.

And those two books betray what Nadeau's offering is - junk. If you really feel the urge to hate someone for their dark inner stirrings, go with Nadeau's. It's got the Machiavellian touch that is SOOOOOOOOOO 16th Century.

Go with Nadeau for dark-minded entertainment. Go with Burleigh or Dempsey if you want to know what happened and why.

 

[Grinder]

Hi Grinder,
I too was curious about that BAC reading also, read what Frank Sfarzo reported, posted about it here waaay back when, and also this, which I tend to believe is what really happened:
"Meredith's initial toxicology reports showed that she had no more than a glass of wine. (Later toxicology reports showed that she may have been very drunk, but the prosecution wrote those off as bad forensics - they said her body had not been stored properly, so the blood alcohol levels were due to fermentation, not intoxication."*

Hmmm, the prosecution states that their CSI store evidence improperly,
makes sense to me, it was indeed fermentation...
L8, RW

* - Angel Face,
The true story of student killer Amanda Knox,
pages 161+162 Author: Barbie Nadeau

Always good to see your posts RW.

The fermentation was for the 2.1 reading they had in a different test. Lalli did the coroner tests and they were validated by a liver alcohol level test. The Massei court has her with .43g/l of alcohol in her system.

Page 112 Lalli > "He stated that the results of the toxicological analyses revealed the absence of psychotropic drugs and a blood alcohol level of 0.43 grams/litre."

Prof Cingolani said on page 152-3 > "He then went on to detail the outcome of the alcohol level test. He recalled that the level of alcohol found in Perugia at the Institute of Forensic Medicine was 0.43 grams per litre; the [level] that had been [152] detected in the blood, however, at the headquarters of the expert report commissioned for the pre-trial hearing [incidente probatorio] was 2.72 grams per litre. On the basis of such contrasting results, a check was carried out on the alcohol percentage in other regions: in the gastric content and then in the liver. A value substantially of zero had been found in the gastric content and, he stressed, ‚in the gastric content the quantity of alcohol is frighteningly greater than in the blood‛ (page 106). In the liver too a very slight quantity had been detected, equal to 0.2, which was comparable from the pharmacokinetic point of view with the 0.43 verified by Dr. Lalli at the Institute of Forensic Medicine"

Massei noted that it was determined she was not intoxicated, not that she hadn't had anything to drink.

The last remark consistent with early reports that she was not guilty of any wrong doing. Early on the media reports were of a sex game gone bad or some such theory which made Meredith look as if had been part of this game. After a very short period of time the police/prosecution were saying that Meredith had done nothing wrong. I'm NOT saying she was drunk but Massei clearly says she had alcohol in her system.