Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

Gosh another 4 weeks or more before the motivation report is published!

I wonder how much of what is being discussed here these past few weeks will even be raised in the second level trial.

Fair question. I wonder too. Anglo is convinced the lawyers will do a bang up job.

I wonder what happens about Curatolo's testimony now that he died in prison. Will Massei's and Galati's assessments of him stand? Will the Italian system allow the testimony of a heroin dealer admittedly high on the night, that had the scene incorrect to be part of the decision?

Will they keep C&V or allow another independent expert's opinion or will they say just judge from the first trial.

 

[Grinder]

Funny how that works, and I agree, but, when they were found innocent after the appeal, I'm pretty sure I heard (read) a lot of PIP saying she was now innocent and free. Regardless, she was found guilty after first instance, we are set to go to appeal (second instance) and being found guilty after 1st instance is way bad for those two than had they been found innocent.

Elementary Watson, it is better to be found innocent.

 

[js202]

What is the evidence of this? Tesla seems to mix a right-wing political message into his rap. Does that fit with Ergon? I honestly don't know. I admit to being the world's worst sock spotter, which is why I seldom go there.

Based on the intersection of vernacular and hubris, the new guy is almost certainly from the American south. Unlike Ergon, he is no new-ager.

I'm with you, more or less, in your assessment. He is relatively a newb, and revels so much in his outsider status that he alienates core advocates on both sides of the debate.

 

[GWCarver]

By dumb I assume you mean a technicality or procedural issues, not so sure hasn’t the Supreme Court up held all the prosecutions points of appeal? Were just waiting to read their reasons.

Bill has it right, which is why I said it wouldn't have anything to do with Amanda and Raffaele and would be something dumb.

There are two areas we have discussed with regard to the SC decision. First is the DNA, which is now either destroyed by Steffie (bra-clasp stored in plastic bag), or non-existent to begin with. (There is no crevice in the knife blade, so nothing could have been found the non-existent crevice. Then of course, there is the professors' report which completely shredded Steffie's credibility.)

Second is the idea that the Florence court is going to be asked to reconcile its results with that of Guede's trial motivation, which is even dumber, at least to an American.

Here is a link to the motivation, and clearly the only way to make the two results match is to find them guilty of doing everything it says they did here, because I'm guessing it isn't possible for the Florence court to ask the judge to rewrite the Guede motivation and leave Raffaele and Amanda out of it.

http://borsinibellardi.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/

 

[DrTesla]

Based on the intersection of vernacular and hubris, the new guy is almost certainly from the American south. Unlike Ergon, he is no new-ager.

I'm with you, more or less, in your assessment. He is relatively a newb, and revels so much in his outsider status that he alienates core advocates on both sides of the debate.

well I think there are mostly nuts on both sides b/c this Knox case has mostly attracted liberals in Seattle and liberals in the UK. that's one thing that I found humorous from the start, for example, the liberal Daily Kos babe who hosts the guilt site and the liberal journalist Nina Burleigh (who is famous mostly for saying she would give Bill Clinton a BJ for keeping abortion legal even though Clinton technically had nothing to do with abortion's legality one way or another as Supreme Court would have to rule on it and don't think they ever touched it while Clinton was in office) it's always fun to see a cat fight b/t two liberal babes.

i'm mostly incorporating some political satire because that one guilt website banned me for being a conservative despite the fact many of their regular posters constantly drag in their liberal politics into the discussion about Knox. I'm kind of making fun of that by doing it myself by dragging conservative politics into it. but i'm also making serious points too.

I don't care about alienating anybody b/c I was never in this to win anybody. I just say what I think about Knox, i'm not hear to win votes or raise money or kiss butt. if somebody doesn't like me that's not my problem. many times I act callow on purpose b/c I'm "in character" as a callow person making dumb jokes. I thought the excessive use of LOL would give that away.

what I do on here is similar to what this radio talk show host, a liberal guy but he rarely talked about his politics, would do on his show, he would set up these fake conflicts b/t him playing a certain character and some people on his show calling in to him, and the conflicts had a certain degree of realism to them even though they were hilarious. I loved that show, can't remember what his name is and don't know if he still does it.

what some people on here didn't get is that my rock throw analysis was really meant to poke fun of people on here but it also was a serious attempt to analyze the rock throw as best I can despite not having done any kind of projectile motion problems in 15 years or so when I was still in college. there is a lot of overanalysis of stuff on here and it cracks me up. it also makes more sense to establish that rudy went through the window prior to spending time on trying to establish if the 10 lb rock was used to break the window.

 

[Matthew Best]

but i'm also making serious points too.

Let me know when.

 

[Supernaut]

Bill has it right, which is why I said it wouldn't have anything to do with Amanda and Raffaele and would be something dumb.

There are two areas we have discussed with regard to the SC decision. First is the DNA, which is now either destroyed by Steffie (bra-clasp stored in plastic bag), or non-existent to begin with. (There is no crevice in the knife blade, so nothing could have been found the non-existent crevice. Then of course, there is the professors' report which completely shredded Steffie's credibility.)

Second is the idea that the Florence court is going to be asked to reconcile its results with that of Guede's trial motivation, which is even dumber, at least to an American.

Here is a link to the motivation, and clearly the only way to make the two results match is to find them guilty of doing everything it says they did here, because I'm guessing it isn't possible for the Florence court to ask the judge to rewrite the Guede motivation and leave Raffaele and Amanda out of it.

http://borsinibellardi.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/

When has rationality, reason or clear-sightedness ever been an imperitive with the Italian justice industry? In what way could the supremos have been applying it when they quashed the acquittals?

I believe there is a strong likelihood that a guilty verdict will be handed down (probably 'in absentia'), and the case will go back to appeal, or to the ECHR.

Whatever, it will mean no resolution for years.

Which in turn will allow the likes of Ganong, Quennell and countless other reprobates who, unfortunately, comprise a substantial proportion of "humanity" to continue their enjoyment of tormenting Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[PhantomWolf]

you are making my original point without knowing it, which is why did he need to hoist a 10 lb rock across the yard at this window if a much lighter rock would actually be more effective against glass which we all agree is fairly easy to shatter?

Not actually true. As you previously ignored, a heavier rock is more effective.

It's the impact velocity that matters and you can impart a much higher velocity on a ligher rock than a heavier one.

Incorrect, it is momentum that matters, not velocity. A very high velocity but low mass pebble can easily bounce off while a slow moving large rock will break the pane. It is the combination of mass and velocity, not just the velocity that matters.

Furthermore the real factor is the amount of work the rock does on the window vs its ability to handle that work elastically. A fast moving low mass pebble might only be in contact with the glass for a very short period of time and so not be able to transfer enough work to the glass to overcome the elasticity and thus break it. A slower moving larger rock will be in contact with the window longer thus doing more work during impact. It should also be noted that a large rock as a high inertia and thus to stop and reflect it elastically, the pane must actually do more work proportionally than on a pebble.

I had seen several people on here seem to imply that a heavier rock was more logical for the breaking of this glass, which I suspect may have been Knox's thought process too. a heavier rock probably makes more sense if you are close to the window and you just take the rock in your hand and smack it on the glass to break it. a lighter rock makes more sense if you have to throw the rock some distance and need for it still be zipping at a decent speed when it impacts the glass.

Not only will a larger rock have more momentum due to the longer throwing time and force applied, but it is more likely to shatter the window as well. A small very fast rock may actually just puncture the window leaving a hole, but not actually shattering the glass. This is because it actually breaks the glass away faster than the glass can transfer the elastic load being applied, and so creates a bullet hole effect. A slower moving larger rock will give the glass time to spread out the work over the entire pane and thus greatly increase the odds of shattering it.

it doesn't matter if this 10 lb rock could have been hoisted up at the window b/c there's no evidence rudy ever went up through it. it's just not believable he climbs all the way up there and then is using some kind of tool to pry out these external shutters that would be real difficult to move b/c of the wet wood as Filo testified to. he's going to be trying to stand on that window below at an awkward angle while trying to move these shutters out toward him.

The trouble with this is that Filomena actually noted that due to them sticking she couldn't pull them all the way shut. That means there was plenty of leeway for RG to hold and pull them open.

I don't see why rudy wouldn't just walk around the back of the house and access the cottage thru the window off the balcony in relative conclusion. I just can't see even the dumbest lay jury in the history of the world not understanding the illogicality of using the high window all within siite of the main road and adding time and hassle when he is in real quick on the other side of the house.

Because the balcony was in full view of anyone driving or walking westward along Viale Sant'Antonio and was fully lit by a street lamp just across the road. Filomena's window was obscured by trees to anyone approaching from the other direction until they are almost level with the cottage meaning that it would be harder to see him. Also the street lamps are behind those trees meaning that the window is darker than that totally exposed and well lit balcony. Go check it out for yourself using Google Map's Street View.

 

[Grinder]

I truly can't believe anybody continues to respond to a person that contends a ten pound rock would have to be thrown a 100 mph to break Filomena's window.

Coulsdon's question is on point.

I wish Anglo/someone would provide us with a little more on the options at the appeal court. It seems that they must have the latitude to find them innocent or what is the point? If the opinions of Massei and jurors stand there is no point.

If the SC ruled for some restricted limited re-appeal then I do believe that if found guilty the extradition will become problematic for the Italians.

I think it would have been best for the SC to send it back for a trial in the first instance if possible.

 

[Grinder]

I just tested the theory of throwing a pebble at my window at high speed and they bounced off.

ETA - How can anybody take seriously a argument that a 10 lb rock needs velocity to break a single pane glass?

 

[DrTesla]

I truly can't believe anybody continues to respond to a person that contends a ten pound rock would have to be thrown a 100 mph to break Filomena's window.

.

you understand that this 10 lb rock had to travel a certain distance, and maybe up 10-13 feet if thrown from the yard? the theoretical intruder would have to get some zip on it so that it was still mmoving at a good pace by the time it hit the window so I don't think 100 mph is a crazy estimate at all. it may actually be too low of a throwing velocity.

I wonder what the diameter of this rock was and if if the theoretical intruder would be able to grib it like a fastball. that could be key to unraveling this entire murder mystery, along with Rudy's crap in the toilet.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill has it right, which is why I said it wouldn't have anything to do with Amanda and Raffaele and would be something dumb.

There are two areas we have discussed with regard to the SC decision. First is the DNA, which is now either destroyed by Steffie (bra-clasp stored in plastic bag), or non-existent to begin with. (There is no crevice in the knife blade, so nothing could have been found the non-existent crevice. Then of course, there is the professors' report which completely shredded Steffie's credibility.)

Second is the idea that the Florence court is going to be asked to reconcile its results with that of Guede's trial motivation, which is even dumber, at least to an American.

Here is a link to the motivation, and clearly the only way to make the two results match is to find them guilty of doing everything it says they did here, because I'm guessing it isn't possible for the Florence court to ask the judge to rewrite the Guede motivation and leave Raffaele and Amanda out of it.

http://borsinibellardi.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/

I disagree, GWCarver.

First, though, let me say that I agreed with Hellmann's statement when he said he did not have to, for the purposes of the pair before him, answer the more general question about multiples attackers.

However, that ship (perhaps) has sailed, pending the receipt of the motivations report for the 26 March 2013 SC decision. No one would be more relieved than me to read that the SC agreed with Hellmann on that one point - even as they found other points of law which quashed the acquittals.

I get the feeling that one of the main issues - perhaps even the only issue - pending for the SC is the reconciliation of Rudy's motivation findings with the finding of guilt/innocent for AK and RS.

Perhaps what the SC is criticizing Hellmann on is that narrow point of law, that, yes Judge Hellmann, your court WAS required to delve into and say something about mutliple attackers and not just sluff it off. Hellmann, in my reading of him, just sluffed it off.

For me if this is the one narrow point of law that caused the SC to quash the acquittals, then that is (in my opinion) good news for the two innocents. That will mean that the new Florence Court will convene perhaps solely to make some ruling of fact about multiple attackers that addresses Rudy's motivations findings, but almost by definition leaves RS and AK out of it.

I must say that does not sound logical to me, but then what do I know? I thought the SC would just sign off on Hellmann's finding and that would be that and the Kercher's would have finally got the answer they deserve from Italy about what happened to their daughter.

With the bra-clasp evidence now gone (rusted because Stefanoni mis-stored it) and there being no crevice on the knife to have housed what was alleged to be Meredith's non-blood DNA (only Stefanoni ever said there was one and no one can find such a crevice now) - I actually believe that a full blown DNA re-review can only have one outcome.

As mentioned upthread, it is an implied insult to Stefanoni's work for the prosecution to want yet another DNA-review to begin with. Why did not the prosecution just insist upon the veracity of Stefanoni's work? The Scientific Police's own video which caused laughter in the courtroom is perhaps why.

So GWCarver, I respectfully diagree.... I do not think that the SC has quashed the appeals with the intention of ordering a directed verdict of guilty. The SC was free to do that anyway, at least theoretically. Instead, they've sent it back to the appeals level - and the simple act of sending back has the effect of quashing the acquittals, and not really expressing an opinion about the probability of a re-aquittal.

I think that a reasonable scenario is that the SC fully believes that this case against AK and RS will end up in a total acquittal. They've sent it back to ensure that it is arrived at by the right application of law and procedure.

Then again, soon we'll know what Hellmann's sins were. In my opinion it was not the verdict; but the verdict necessarily needs to be set aside for a new round of fact-finding, perhaps more narrow than anyone here thinks.

 

[DrTesla]

I just tested the theory of throwing a pebble at my window at high speed and they bounced off.

ETA - How can anybody take seriously a argument that a 10 lb rock needs velocity to break a single pane glass?

I don't think it is logical to assume I meant a pebble. I said lighter than 10 lbs and you went to the extreme opposite side of the spectrum.

 

[Bill Williams]

you understand that this 10 lb rock had to travel a certain distance, and maybe up 10-13 feet if thrown from the yard? the theoretical intruder would have to get some zip on it so that it was still mmoving at a good pace by the time it hit the window so I don't think 100 mph is a crazy estimate at all. it may actually be too low of a throwing velocity.

I wonder what the diameter of this rock was and if if the theoretical intruder would be able to grib it like a fastball. that could be key to unraveling this entire murder mystery, along with Rudy's crap in the toilet.

Ok. Read that highlighted part again. Was Rudy throwing this against glass and wood or hardened steel?

Sometimes posts like this just make my day, because lurkers will read it and see it for what it is.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

They may have, but that will be revealed with the publication of the motivations report, which if I understand it at all will also be the marching orders for the new Florence appeals court.
My guess is that the two areas the appeals court will need to rule on the factuality of is: the issue of multiple attackers (Hellmann said it was not his court's responsibility to rule on such, just if AK and RS were involved), and/or Hellmann's rejection of yet a further DNA review as requested by the prosecution. (My personal opinion is that for the prosecution to ask for such a further examination of Stefanoni's work is tacit admission that Stefanoni's work was substandard, but that's just me.)
So we won't really know, though, why the SC ruled the way they did probably until next month, and then the field will be clear.

Fair question. I wonder too. Anglo is convinced the lawyers will do a bang up job.
I wonder what happens about Curatolo's testimony now that he died in prison. Will Massei's and Galati's assessments of him stand? Will the Italian system allow the testimony of a heroin dealer admittedly high on the night, that had the scene incorrect to be part of the decision?
Will they keep C&V or allow another independent expert's opinion or will they say just judge from the first trial.

Well the first thing the prosecution will do is try to get the independent report thrown out. If there is going to be another review of DNA evidence then it will simply be a re-run of the first trial, defence bring in their experts and prosecution do the same.

I do not believe any of Hellmann’s findings will survive in the next trial after all the Supreme Court have effectively annulled the verdict of his court, therefore, the starting point in a legal context of this trial will be the verdict of the first trial.

I have always found it difficult to reconcile the extent of the level of discussion of evidence here and elsewhere with what actually happened in court and I have a feeling much of what is being debated here will not be raised in court. My guess is the next trial will be about Italian criminal procedure codes and ensuring whatever mistakes Hellmann made do not reoccur.

Another interesting point for me is will Raffaele and Amanda use the same defence team.

 

[Bill Williams]

I truly can't believe anybody continues to respond to a person that contends a ten pound rock would have to be thrown a 100 mph to break Filomena's window.

Coulsdon's question is on point.
I wish Anglo/someone would provide us with a little more on the options at the appeal court. It seems that they must have the latitude to find them innocent or what is the point? If the opinions of Massei and jurors stand there is no point.

If the SC ruled for some restricted limited re-appeal then I do believe that if found guilty the extradition will become problematic for the Italians.

I think it would have been best for the SC to send it back for a trial in the first instance if possible.

Me too, I agree with CoulsdonUK. We're all throwing pebbles against hardened steel until the SC's motivations report comes out. I guess the mechanical engineer in our midst will keep this place going in the meantime.

 

[Matthew Best]

you understand that this 10 lb rock had to travel a certain distance, and maybe up 10-13 feet if thrown from the yard? the theoretical intruder would have to get some zip on it so that it was still mmoving at a good pace by the time it hit the window so I don't think 100 mph is a crazy estimate at all. it may actually be too low of a throwing velocity.

 

[DrTesla]

Not actually true. As you previously ignored, a heavier rock is more effective.



Incorrect, it is momentum that matters, not velocity. A very high velocity but low mass pebble can easily bounce off while a slow moving large rock will break the pane. It is the combination of mass and velocity, not just the velocity that matters.

Furthermore the real factor is the amount of work the rock does on the window vs its ability to handle that work elastically. A fast moving low mass pebble might only be in contact with the glass for a very short period of time and so not be able to transfer enough work to the glass to overcome the elasticity and thus break it. A slower moving larger rock will be in contact with the window longer thus doing more work during impact. It should also be noted that a large rock as a high inertia and thus to stop and reflect it elastically, the pane must actually do more work proportionally than on a pebble.



Not only will a larger rock have more momentum due to the longer throwing time and force applied, but it is more likely to shatter the window as well. A small very fast rock may actually just puncture the window leaving a hole, but not actually shattering the glass. This is because it actually breaks the glass away faster than the glass can transfer the elastic load being applied, and so creates a bullet hole effect. A slower moving larger rock will give the glass time to spread out the work over the entire pane and thus greatly increase the odds of shattering it.



The trouble with this is that Filomena actually noted that due to them sticking she couldn't pull them all the way shut. That means there was plenty of leeway for RG to hold and pull them open.



Because the balcony was in full view of anyone driving or walking westward along Viale Sant'Antonio and was fully lit by a street lamp just across the road. Filomena's window was obscured by trees to anyone approaching from the other direction until they are almost level with the cottage meaning that it would be harder to see him. Also the street lamps are behind those trees meaning that the window is darker than that totally exposed and well lit balcony. Go check it out for yourself using Google Map's Street View.

I never said mass didn't matter at at all. I said that p = mv and if v is higher b/c the ball is lighter, then it makes sense the p momentum is also increased. the more m mass you use, the smaller your p momentum is going to be b/c the velocity won't be as fast.

in other words the magnitude of velocity could be increased much more than the mass. consider that the magnitude of 100 mph is more than the magnitude of 10 lbs. we cannot challenge mathematical principles in the name of finding Knox innocent.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well the first thing the prosecution will do is try to get the independent report thrown out. If there is going to be another review of DNA evidence then it will simply be a re-run of the first trial, defence bring in their experts and prosecution do the same.

I do not believe any of Hellmann’s findings will survive in the next trial after all the Supreme Court have effectively annulled the verdict of his court, therefore, the starting point in a legal context of this trial will be the verdict of the first trial.

I have always found it difficult to reconcile the extent of the level of discussion of evidence here and elsewhere with what actually happened in court and I have a feeling much of what is being debated here will not be raised in court. My guess is the next trial will be about Italian criminal procedure codes and ensuring whatever mistakes Hellmann made do not reoccur.

Another interesting point for me is will Raffaele and Amanda use the same defence team.

Not that I am an Italian legal expert (!) but I tend to agree.... the starting point will be the verdict of the first instance court, but also the facts as found by Massei, I believe, will be held to be factual unless the new prosecution contests Massei's findings.

I'm not going to repost those things, but Massei ruled no motive, no bad relationship between Meredith and Amanda, no forensic presence of Knox in Meredith's room, no psychopathology found in AK or RS, and no prior relationship between Guede and either of them, no mixed blood.... plus those other things I'll list if you'd like.

For them to be found as "unfactual" then the prosecution is going to have to make an issue of them.

What I don't know is that if the SC rules that the Florence court does its fact finding on a narrow set of facts, is the appeals trial in Florence free to find facts as it sees fit and open up areas that the SC does not direct it to open up?

But I agree - the starting point will be the Massei motivations report with ALL that it entails.

 

[JREF2010]

Second is the idea that the Florence court is going to be asked to reconcile its results with that of Guede's trial motivation, which is even dumber, at least to an American.

Here is a link to the motivation, and clearly the only way to make the two results match is to find them guilty of doing everything it says they did here, because I'm guessing it isn't possible for the Florence court to ask the judge to rewrite the Guede motivation and leave Raffaele and Amanda out of it.

http://borsinibellardi.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/

Thats a scary read for the two accused. The SC has them letting Guede in, staging and cleanup, and uses the interrogation against Amanda as an admission.

This reconstruction is not convincing, because, apart from the two mobile phones, taken most probably by Knox and Sollecito, probably to avoid causing concern amongst the flatmates on hearing Meredith’s mobile phones ringing without an answer from inside her bedroom, there is no proof that money or anything else was stolen from Meredith’s bedroom, not being able to consider the statement of the defendant, who apparently became aware of the theft by overhearing it, a circumstance that is obviously not possible to verify,

Maybe they will find them PROBABLY GUILTY?