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

[Welshman]

Andrea Vogt is not the only guilter to spread misinformation. Harry Rag uses the comment sections of articles about the case to spread lies. John Kercher's book Meredith was riddled with falsehoods and crucial ommissions. Barbara Nadeu in her book Angel Face lied about mixed blood and bleach receipts. The guilters like to use Amazon reviews to spread their vitriol and often lie. For instance on the reviews for Amanda's book a guilter called M Heath lied about female thumbprints being found on Meredith's neck which was not true. The lifetime film about this case was riddled with innaccuracies. This raises the question if there was clear and overwhelming evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele, why is that people can not make the case for guilt without having to resort to lying?

 

[Diocletus]

It's all very impressive. But for all I know you could be just making up the evidence as it relates to this case. Not that I believe you are making anything up but I cannot support what I cannot verify. To do otherwise would make me indistinguishable from the standard guilter.

Check the Reconstructing the Labwork thread at IA, lots of backup there.

 

[RoseMontague]

Check the Reconstructing the Labwork thread at IA, lots of backup there.

What documents and data did you use for your analysis is the question I believe Dan is asking.

 

[Diocletus]

What documents and data did you use for your analysis is the question I believe Dan is asking.

Hmm. SAL, Quantificazione, Egrams, the Lab's Report, Stefanoni testimony, C&V, Potenza Report, Newspaper articles, Technical Lit./Journal articles. And a spreadsheet that I created of all available lab sample information. That might be it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Hmm. SAL, Quantificazione, Egrams, the Lab's Report, Stefanoni testimony, C&V, Potenza Report, Newspaper articles, Technical Lit./Journal articles. And a spreadsheet that I created of all available lab sample information. That might be it.

Thanks for your hard work on this. I believe it is important.

 

[RoseMontague]

It seems the Cassazione too defintely agrees with Vogt, rather than with you. Matteini, Ricciarelli, Micheli and Massei; which means, look: all existing court judgements (Pratillo Hellmann was annulled) happen to agree with Vogt, about what was the obvious meaning of Knox’s statement. Plus Mignini, Comodi, Costagliola and Galati, and all magistrates and judges at Cassazione (and now, likely, Florentine prosecutors) seem to agree qith Vogt, about what the “larger context” was.
Everybody at alll courts agreed with Vogt; everybody (except the defence) thought that there was absolutely no "plain" context where the meaning of Knox's statement was "at Raffaele's" .
Despite this, however, for some reason you question why Vogt(!) read it that way (wouldn’t it be more logical that you question why *you* see something different?). How is it - in your opinion - that the "larger context" shows such a "plain" and clear meaning (were Edda and Amanda obviously and explicitly speaking about Raffaele's place in that dialogue lines? Quote?).

Seriously? I guess they are all in on the conspiracy or just incredibly biased. One reasonable and honest judge and they throw his stuff in the trash can. Go figure.

 

[RoseMontague]

Would you qute such transcript “evidence” of “a single attacker only”? Where did you read/hear it? In what transcript is it?
(maybe you read it there where you read a judge finding that Knox had no psychopathology, and that there was no mixed DNA blood trace… )

Quoting Massei's summary (and he quotes several of the experts stating a single attacker could not be ruled out):

The consultants and forensic scientists have asserted that from the point of view of forensic science, it cannot be ruled out that the author of the injuries could have been a single attacker, because the bruises and the wounds from a pointed and cutting weapon are not in themselves incompatible with the action of a single person. With regard to this, it is nevertheless observed that the contribution of each discipline is specifically in the domain of the specific competence of that discipline, and in fact the consultants and forensic experts concentrated their attention on the aspects specifically belonging to forensic science: time of death, cause of death, elements indicating sexual violence, the injuries present on the body of the victim, and the causes and descriptions of these. The answer given above concerning the possibility of their being inflicted by the action of a single person or by more than one was given in relation to these specific duties and questions, which belong precisely to the domain of forensic science, and the meaning of this answer was thus that there are no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science which could rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person.

 

[Diocletus]

It seems the Cassazione too defintely agrees with Vogt

That's your authority? Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum?

 

[Machiavelli]

Quoting Massei's summary (and he quotes several of the experts stating a single attacker could not be ruled out):

"several of the experts stating" that "could not" be completely "ruled out",
and
"evidence" of "single attacker only"
are two different concepts, aren't they?

 

[Diocletus]

"several of the experts stating" that "could not" be completely "ruled out",
and
"evidence" of "single attacker only"
are two different concepts, aren't they?

Nope. It all => reasonable doubt.

 

[RoseMontague]

"several of the experts stating" that "could not" be completely "ruled out",
and
"evidence" of "single attacker only"
are two different concepts, aren't they?

Nope. They testified regarding the evidence and said according to that evidence the murder and sexual assault could have been the result of a single attacker.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"several of the experts stating" that "could not" be completely "ruled out",
and
"evidence" of "single attacker only"
are two different concepts, aren't they?

I think the point is that even a corrupt court trying to justify a clearly insane verdict couldn't find a way to spin the evidence so as to prove the Lone Wolf theory false.

 

[acbytesla]

No need for that, though personal experience is helpful. I already shared a photo of my window facing a similar terrain in Italy. From the closed window you can hear hounds baying way up in the hills on one side of the valley, The occasional hunter's gunshot will ricochet .Goat bells tinkling from the farm can be heard way below, church bells chiming in the distances on the other side. The sounds appear distant , because they are but remain distinct because of the natural shape of the terrain that holds them. Even though the sounds in the valley are often audible the sounds in the very compact historic center adjacent to me are not The cottage on the edge of the valley is much closer to the road and Nara's then the location of the sounds near my place.

You keep referring to outside sounds as opposed to indoor sounds through walls and windows. I notice you don't talk about the neighbors fighting in their homes across the valley. Outside sounds remain distinct because there are no obstructions. Walls and ceiling and windows make a huge difference. Take those church bells that you can hear distinctly at a distance. Why do you think that is the case Briars? Everything about them is designed so they can be heard at a distance. The bells and clangers are large and the bells are capable of producing as much as 140 decibels. The bells are not inside, nor are they low to the ground. They are in bell towers open to all sides.

Sure, you can hear goats with bells on them as they climb across a hill side, but after they go over the hill you can no longer hear them and when those goats go into in the barn, you can no longer hear their bells.

Sound traveling through air as opposed to sound traveling through dense materials such as walls is significantly different Briars The first is (excuse the little joke) clear as a bell. The second is muddled and muffled.

Also screams tend to be high pitched or high frequency sounds. High frequency sounds are more directional than low frequency sounds and they are much more effected by obstructions like walls and windows. Play a flute concerto on a high fidelity stereo and put the speaker outside, you would hear the sound clearly for a very good distance and it would be fairly discernible. Then take that same speaker at the same volume inside and walk outside. The walls would not only cut the distance by more than two thirds it would would muddle the sound so as to make indiscernible

On the other hand, play a bass guitar or heavy drum solo, and you can hear the beat through wall after wall after wall.

This is why I KNOW, not I THINK, that Nara's testimony is worthless. A scream through those walls would destroy the sound so significantly as to make the idea that Nara actually HEARD and COULD DISCERN Meredith's scream as extremely unlikely. My personal guess is that if Nara actually heard something similar to a woman's scream that night she probably heard cats having sex on outside on the parking garage below which can sound very much like a woman or a tire screech.

 

[Grinder]

"several of the experts stating" that "could not" be completely "ruled out",
and
"evidence" of "single attacker only"
are two different concepts, aren't they?

Nope. They testified regarding the evidence and said according to that evidence the murder and sexual assault could have been the result of a single attacker.

Perhaps if Bill used the Italian legal term "compatible" Mach would be more accepting.

The forensics are compatible with a single attacker therefore there was a single attacker.

The footprints were compatible with Amanda's feet therefore she made those prints.

But since there was only one attacker, Amanda is innocent.

I believe that is an example of Lolita syllogism.

 

[RoseMontague]

"several of the experts stating" that "could not" be completely "ruled out",
and
"evidence" of "single attacker only"
are two different concepts, aren't they?

I think the point is that even a corrupt court trying to justify a clearly insane verdict couldn't find a way to spin the evidence so as to prove the Lone Wolf theory false.

Not quite. Massei goes on to say that because of Meredith's build and the fact that she was dressed and not laying down on the bed and it would take more than one person to undress her (LOL) and then some stuff about the number of defensive wounds (which the experts addressed) he says it could not have been a single attacker. Because he puts it all together with this other evidence (like the large bag) and the experts just address the single piece of evidence they are addressing (it's the early osmosis theory).

 

[Diocletus]

Not quite. Massei goes on to say that because of Meredith's build and the fact that she was dressed and not laying down on the bed and it would take more than one person to undress her (LOL)

Well, let's recall that she was wearing jeans. And the rule in Italy is that it is impossible, as a matter of law, for a female wearing jeans to be forcibly undressed. It's all so logical.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nope. They testified regarding the evidence and said according to that evidence the murder and sexual assault could have been the result of a single attacker.

Indeed they are two very different concepts, despite you find that hard to admit.
And, you are incorrect not regarding "the" evidence; what they expert said was according to some evidence (not all the the evidence; because did not consider DNA findings, gynecologist opinion, nor Capezzali & Monacchia testimonies).

Lalli and assistent (the expert you refer to) also said that bruises on the victim's vagina were compatible with consensual sex.
That's quite different than saying that there was evidence of consensual sex.
Actually, it's a completely different logical statement. And you know that. In fact, despite some of the elements (those that were known and analysed to the medical expert) could leave wiggle room for compatibility with consensual sex, the judge concluded that there was evidence of the opposite, that there was no consensual sex.

The same goes with single attacker scenario; the compatibility with only one attacker actually - even according to the expert - has some "conditions" attached (like the attacker would act progressively, trough an escalation, meaning a period of time during which there is change in the attacker's behaviour that would become gradually more aggressive). But the same expert also warned that the longer the aggression progresses, the more serious the defence injuries would be. In this case the defence injuries were very light; this datum alone is something that speaks about probability: possible, but what are the probabilities? But this is only one of the pieces; there are also other data. And the judge drew the obvious reasonable conclusion.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli you are obviously a proponent of the prosecution's case. Can you say something about why Andrea Vogt should similarly be called an advocate for the prosecution, and not a journalist?

 

[acbytesla]

What I am saying is that the sound carries well from the cottage to the parking lot near Nara's, if simple talking can be heard across the road high up in the parking lot a scream would stand out. Barking and talking as softer than a harrowing scream, so even with the glass the scream was heard by two witnesses.

Sound may carry well from outside the cottage but not from inside other people's homes and in this case, this scream almost certainly took place in the back bedroom of the cottage with the only window facing away from those two so called witnesses.

The problem with using these witnesses to attempt to establish TOD is significant. Briars says he believes NARA heard Meredith's scream. Who are we to disagree with Briars's belief?

But is this anecdotal information really evidence of the time of death? Nara originally says that it could have been a tire screech and only later becomes sure that it was a scream. What does this signify Briars other than Nara's desire to be important? After all if she keeps to her original point that it could have been a tire screech she probably isn't even a witness and is dismissed by everyone. Second these ear witnesses couldn't really establish the time they heard these noises. Third, they came forward far to late to be considered reliable, (not that they are lying, just that their memory as to time, date and their ability to discern could easily be impaired) Fourth, we are talking about witnesses that are unlikely to be able to RELIABLY DISCERN what they heard to be a woman's scream as Meredith's bedroom in the cottage was 70+ meters away and any scream would be muffled by the multiple walls. What would be distinctly heard if the source of the sound and the listeners had nothing but air between them would be muffled and muddled through multiple thick walls. It's like screaming into a pillow. A listener might be able to hear the scream but it would be indiscernible. Fifth this later TOD totally contradicts other witness testimony including Rudy's statement from the beginning where he admits being at the scene of the crime and says that TOD is around 9:30. My question to Briars or anyone who thinks these Nara and Monaccia memories mean anything is why would Rudy lie about this point? After all, he has NEVER denied being there. While I think Rudy lies when it benefits himself, there is no benefit to lying about Meredith's TOD. Lastly, it elevates incredibly sketchy anecdotal evidence over the much more precise scientific evidence of digestion.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>It seems the Cassazione too defintely agrees with Vogt, rather than with you. Matteini, Ricciarelli, Micheli and Massei; which means, look: all existing court judgements (Pratillo Hellmann was annulled) happen to agree with Vogt, about what was the obvious meaning of Knox’s statement. Plus Mignini, Comodi, Costagliola and Galati, and all magistrates and judges at Cassazione (and now, likely, Florentine prosecutors) seem to agree qith Vogt, about what the “larger context” was.
Everybody at alll courts agreed with Vogt; everybody (except the defence) thought that there was absolutely no "plain" context where the meaning of Knox's statement was "at Raffaele's" .
Despite this, however, for some reason you question why Vogt(!) read it that way (wouldn’t it be more logical that you question why *you* see something different?). How is it - in your opinion - that the "larger context" shows such a "plain" and clear meaning (were Edda and Amanda obviously and explicitly speaking about Raffaele's place in that dialogue lines? Quote?).

Welcome back, Mach.

*We* see something different because *we* speak English. Is English the first language for any of the people mentioned above, with the exception of the pro-guilt advocate, Vogt?

These are the same people who thought "see you later," something Americans say at least once a day, meant "let's get together and kill somebody."