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

[anglolawyer]

I cannot say that I am a guilter or a non-guilter. I do, however, know that if I were accused of a crime and innocent I would have no problem with Mignini as the prosecutor of my case. After all he was the prosecutor when Patrick was first accused and later released.

I do not worship Mignini but I believe him to be fair and just when prosecuting a case. Those are important traits for a prosecutor to have whether one is innocent or guilty of a crime.

Was it fair and just to deny them access to a lawyer prior to the critical hearing before Matteini? How about producing an animated film showing one of the two (source: Barbie - she does not say which) bringing the lamp into the room even though no evidence had been led to prove this important fact? We can add his use of the 'I was there' statement to extend her time in custody at the Riciarelli hearing. Was taking her 'spontaneous statement' at 5.45 a.m. on the 6th fair and just? Do you think he had regard to her interests when doing that?

Since they were 'strongly suspected' before the interrogations (source: Machiavelli) was it fair and just and a proper discharge of his duty as PM to secure the legal rights of the suspects not to formalise their status as such and to ensure their rights to silence and professional advice were afforded?

 

[RandyN]

The lamp absolutely is a piece of evidence. You might consider it a phantom, the way Marx called Communism a phantom, but it exists in the trial papers and was never explicilty disproven. The assessment that it played no part in a conviction might well be wrong, but anyway it is misleading. The avsence of a pice of evidence from a report is not evidence of its absence.



But I find this kind of criticism hypocrite and unbalanced at the utmost. You should consider that Vogt left out a metric ton of details which are unfavourable to Knox and put them into the equation. The you should also consider the crazy, gotesque pro-Knox campaign played by English-speaking mainstream media, instead of providing actual information. And you should put this into the equation. You can't just judge Andrea Vogt picking up an isolated "assessment" about a detail (she did not give two sides of this detail) while you are on a standing point of acceptance of a media coma, you never complained about it. You can't enter a living room walking out of a marsh, and complain that a corner of the carpet is not properly polished. While are sullying everything, while you are splashing into mud, you are not in the position for pointing the fingers against imperefctions of clean things. Intellectual dishonesty consists exactly in this.

Polished?

The truth about Vogt is that she is a hack. Nothing more than a blogger on this case. No major media should use her work for anything since it is unbalanced and even consists of at least lies of omission. Now add that she promotes a convicted attacker who lost his medical license who happens to set up a wiki site under the pseudo McCall as a highly reliable site for information we can be quite certain that she is a unreliable piece of crap tabloid liar. Both her and Brandon Mull.

 

[RandyN]

Meredith shouted out towards her bedroom door. The sound propagated through her bedroom door, which faces directly the glass door that leads to the balcony, so then through the said door tpwards the balcony. The cottage body itself is the waveshell and the balcony is the platea. That was the sound direction.
Nara's apartment is only 45 meters distant in line from the spot in her room where Meredith's body was found. It becomes 46 if you calculate elevation pitch. It's not far. I think it's perfectly compatible.

Ahhhh this sound stuff is getting boring. OK Yummi I will concede that Nara may have heard a scream...so as a defense lawyer the question should have been... Miss Nara...was this scream at 9:30, 10, 10:30. 11, 11:30, midnight, 1AM ? This is critical information and you must be specific please...don't guess.

So your answer is?

 

[RandyN]

Of course Diocletus claim it's a lie. He is unable to quote anything to document an alleged defence request for those allegedly requested an denied files.
Of course, whoever thinks the result of the test was fake, is accusing the whole medical staff (who work for the Umbria Health Care system, not the police nor the judiciary) of being corrupt and criminals, and is accusing Knox's defence attorneys of severe misconduct too (worth their disbarring).Moreover, any sane person who makes such accusation would do that only while having serious evidence of that, and knowledge of the person accused (you only have evidence of the contrary, that nothing of the kind ever happened).
So it's hard to deal rationally with people whose assertion are built as pure delusion. (and ignorance: tell me the names of the doctors, at least...).

I disagree with everything you say here...

Except for the highlighted part...you may find it surprising that I feel the defense lawyers should be charged for severe misconduct (if being useless scared cowards who failed to present an adequate defense qualify as misconduct in Italy) then yes...they should be disbarred. In fact the best example of this is their failure to have Mignini arrest the police who struck Knox during her interrogation. This was clearly Rita Fiquera at least. An arrest should have been made and then an investigation started...that is the way you do things in Italy correct?

 

[acbytesla]

Ahhhh this sound stuff is getting boring. OK Yummi I will concede that Nara may have heard a scream...so as a defense lawyer the question should have been... Miss Nara...was this scream at 9:30, 10, 10:30. 11, 11:30, midnight, 1AM ? This is critical information and you must be specific please...don't guess.

So your answer is?

I agree with you wholeheartedly,

From a personal perspective of someone who is kind of an amateur sound engineer, it would be great to perform a real world test to show just how flawed the logic and reasoning of the prosecution and the guilters is. I'm not saying Briars and Mach are stupid, but this argument of theirs definitely is.

 

[Mary_H]

I cannot say that I am a guilter or a non-guilter. I do, however, know that if I were accused of a crime and innocent I would have no problem with Mignini as the prosecutor of my case. After all he was the prosecutor when Patrick was first accused and later released.

I do not worship Mignini but I believe him to be fair and just when prosecuting a case. Those are important traits for a prosecutor to have whether one is innocent or guilty of a crime.

There are no grounds for calling Mignini fair and just. He broke laws to make arrests. As intrepid girl reporter Andrea Vogt informed us in this article almost four years ago:

The [Italian] law is very clear: A suspect must not be interrogated without a lawyer.

If a suspect's freedom of movement is hindered, the interrogation must be videotaped.

In fact, Italy's Supreme Court has already said that some of her early statements may not be used against her because they were made without an attorney present.

Then, as was quoted here just yesterday, Mignini detained the suspects for a crime for which he had no evidence of their involvement:

Mr Mignini saw the scene so clearly in his mind that he was able to describe it to the judge in detail: Meredith on her knees before the wardrobe, Rudy holding her immobile, Raffaele grasping one arm, Amanda in front of her, pricking her throat teasingly with the knife – until the blade in her hand struck home. “To prove it,” he told the judge triumphantly, “the only thing missing was a video camera in the room.”

And finally, as Raffaele wrote on pages 74-77 of Honor Bound:

Italian law allows prosecutors to bar defendants from speaking to their attorneys only in exceptional circumstances, usually in cases involving terrorism or major Mafia crimes. Even then, the prosecutor is required to petition the court in writing to justify such a draconian measure.

[Mignini] had no coherent explanation of where the petition was -- after several false starts, he said only that he "remembered imparting it" -- and the judge herself acknowledged she had not seen it. (To this day, no evidence has emerged of its existence.) But Matteini was remarkably untroubled by this, striking down our challenge without even pausing to consider it.....

Really christistianahannah? You would be okay with a prosecutor who broke laws to get you into prison and then accused you of a crime he had no evidence for? Really? If you're not a guilter, then why don't you accept these long-established facts?

 

[Draca]

I cannot say that I am a guilter or a non-guilter. I do, however, know that if I were accused of a crime and innocent I would have no problem with Mignini as the prosecutor of my case. After all he was the prosecutor when Patrick was first accused and later released.

I do not worship Mignini but I believe him to be fair and just when prosecuting a case. Those are important traits for a prosecutor to have whether one is innocent or guilty of a crime.

You shock the socks right off of me.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Of course, whoever thinks the result of the test was fake, is accusing the whole medical staff (who work for the Umbria Health Care system, not the police nor the judiciary) of being corrupt and criminals, and is accusing Knox's defence attorneys of severe misconduct too (worth their disbarring).
Moreover, any sane person who makes such accusation would do that only while having serious evidence of that, and knowledge of the person accused (you only have evidence of the contrary, that nothing of the kind ever happened).
So it's hard to deal rationally with people whose assertion are built as pure delusion. (and ignorance: tell me the names of the doctors, at least...).

Why don't you tell us the names of the doctors, since you seem to know them? If they followed protocol, then they should not mind having their names publicized. It's way too late to worry about doctor-patient confidentiality, that's for sure. And as I said before, they are not guilty of crimes, just violations of medical ethics.

That's okay, it's not necessary to know their names to know they did a bad thing. I have no doubt they were instructed by the prosecutor to do it, and that they would have as much inclination to stand up to the prosecutor as Amanda's lawyers would have to complain about her mistreatment.

 

[moodstream]

Machiavelli,

Back to the “I was there” statement again.

You say There are basically two possibilities, … Either she is contending with her parents about a version her lawyers suggested to her (lawyers suggested her to not lie about the fact that she was at the cottage, ….) or she is contending against a theory which the police (or prosecution) are suggesting… . Neither of these seem to relate at all to the knife, but, only the first one (if I am understanding you) is implicative towards guilt.

It's true isn't it that you cannot derive an implication of guilt from the transcript without assuming a missing element needed to clarify the meaning of “I was there”.

You write what you think the missing information might be In the first case, her parents are asking her to lie; … so she stuck to her ambiguous hand written notes) and she is elaborating the strategy about the defensive line she needs to keep at a coming interrogation by the public minister.
Indeed, the question about what her version could be is not stupid at all. She could be thinking of putting forward a recollection where she was at the cottage but she is innocent, something similar to her 05:45 spontaneous statement (I'm sure her lawyers suggested that was the best strategy).

None of that appeared in the transcript read at the trial, as has been pointed out.

Acbytesla: If you take Amanda's conversation in total without your obfuscation, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR,she is referring to Raffaele's cottage,
Machiavelli: In order to make such a clear cut statement, you would need to actually quote the whole conversation ("in total"). That should be at least the information basis required to make such an absolute claim.
Acbytesla; the actual context of the conversation [is] about the double DNA kitchen knife and how Amanda said ""It's crap, yes it's crap, total crap, a piece of crap, a total invention. That's what they're doing now. They're just lying." And in reference to the police and prosecution pursuit of her "It's all an invention."
Machiavelli: Well actually I think also "your" context was not there; and that it is not clear at all. And it's certainly not going to be there at least unless we see the conversation transcript "in total".

This leads to a critical question.

You emphasize the statement “I was there” implying Knox’s presence at the cottage is given weight by several judges ( But you are wrong about both Micheli and Cassazione. Partly wrong about Micheli, because even if you consider it "chucked out", in fact that was an argument at the trial discussion, it was also in the prosecution closing arguments. … But the argument is also in Cassazione; albeit the Cassazione does not quote the phrase "I was there", they point out the importance of the conversation in general and urge the judges to consider it.).

If this is true, then you must be correct that important information implying Knox’s guilt must be missing from the transcript that we have, as read into the trial record by the defense. This must be true because the judges and the prosecution have access to the complete transcript, and so they know. One thing is certain - if Knox is admitting she was at the cottage, Knox is not following a directly connected conversation about the finding of the knife at Sollecito’s, as read at the trial. There must be a missing interjection of some kind explaining why the phrase “I was there” means the cottage. Lacking this interjection, Knox would be uttering gibberish and random things completely disconnected. It would not be a conversation, and would make no sense.

Machiavelli, here is my question to you:

– Do you agree that the courts involved with this case, foremost of all the Cassazione, which points out the importance of the conversation in general and urge the judges to consider it either are evaluating additional conversation from that call not available to the public or they are misusing their authoritative position to falsely cast the impression that the call should imply Knox’s guilt? It has got to be one way or the other, don’t you agree?

 

[RandyN]

I guess by prove it you mean that the prosecution would show that the sound evidence can be used to reliably show that a scream emanated from the house at a time when AK and RS can not show that they couldn't have been present.

To do this they would obviously have to show that it was physically possible. But even before that the evidence seems so muddled and conflicting on this issue that I don't see how it is valuable to the prosecution's case. Machiavelli and in particular Briars seem to think that it can be shown that a scream did occur in the time frame for which AK/RS don't have an alibi.

Which statement of which witnesses are they relying on for that conclusion? In a normal case where reasonable doubt is the issue it is hard to imagine how this evidence is relevant. There are so many alternative explanations and theories for this evidence and conflicts with other evidence it seems to be so unreliable that it could only serve as evidence of RS/AK for an individual completely consumed by confirmation bias. Something like:
What is going on here? Is this really the kind of evidence that guilters are hanging their hat on? Why has every post about the difficulty of assigning a time to the hearing of the alleged scream been ignored by the people advocating that RS/AK are guilty?

If it were only the "guilters" who felt this way Dave then it would be rather unimportant. The facts are that the prosecution is using this "evidence"... the scream, plus the running footsteps, to establish a muli-person murder and is what makes the whole thing not just crazy but outrageous.

Add to this that Nara (the deaf peeing woman) never looked at a clock but guessed based on her taking medication that makes her pee and so each night she must arise to relieve herself although she can not pinpoint if she sleeps 3 hours and then gets up or 4 or 5 etc...so her testimony is pointless and even she agrees...she cant tell the time and she did not look out a window or see anything...

As far as hearing running people...in the gravel and up the steps...there are logical problems with this testimony...not least that she can not testify if it was Guede and one or two of his friends or if it was RG,AK,RS.

So she is a totally unacceptable witness for all matters that the prosecutor wants to use her for anyway. But apparently in Italy illogical is logical and the defense rather than complain sits on their hands and sleeps, moans...who knows? They certainly don't object and demand that the witness specify a time and provide proof that she is testifying about their clients or perhaps someone else.

The defense doesn't seem able to discredit any witness at all...not for long anyway. A heroin addicted, professional prosecution witness is creditable but a defense jailhouse snitch is not. A prosecution witness who stated to police he saw nothing or no one in the days following the murder suddenly a year later comes into court and states he saw Knox waiting outside his store 15 minutes before it opened and he remembers her going to the bleach department. Meanwhile both times his employees never see anything. No receipts are produced and the policeman that interviewed him in Nov 2007 stands by his story that Quintinvale said he saw nothing!

But you can bet that in this second appeal trial we will hear from Quintinvale once more. Toto the bum is dead ...dies in prison after being arrested for dealing drugs...funny that he lived on the street outside in winter for years just fine but dies in prison receiving three hots and a cot??? Since he will present as a more reliable witness being dead I am quite sure the prosecution will shamelessly present him somehow or another.

And the odd thing about that is that Toto presents the perfect alibi for the two but the defense only teases the court about that. No demand for the witness to recant or for the prosecution to remove this witness since he provides an impossible story if the prosecution is serious about claiming that AK or RS are involved in any way.

In Italy illogical is logical and it is illegal for the defense to fully defend their client...they are always in jeopardy of being charged themselves...that's why they are so crappy ...self preservation in a corrupt sorry little country where even the politicians cower in fear. Ask the former PM.

The mafia has made the judiciary into the mafia.

Add the absolute inability for an Italian to admit that they just might be wrong about something and you get a ridiculous case like this with ridiculous people making ridiculous claims. Confirmation bias? Heck no...its national pride for the Italians...

Glad to see that a good American company sat the cruise ship upright.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Moreover, any sane person who makes such accusation would do that only while having serious evidence of that, and knowledge of the person accused (you only have evidence of the contrary, that nothing of the kind ever happened).
So it's hard to deal rationally with people whose assertion are built as pure delusion.<snip>

I just realized the hilarious irony of this.

 

[JREF2010]

ToD using Ear's

Ahhhh this sound stuff is getting boring. OK Yummi I will concede that Nara may have heard a scream...so as a defense lawyer the question should have been... Miss Nara...was this scream at 9:30, 10, 10:30. 11, 11:30, midnight, 1AM ? This is critical information and you must be specific please...don't guess.

So your answer is?

How much credibility will the Florence court give to ear witnesses, who saw nothing?

ToD for Massei states ToD 23-23:30pm based on Ears, Hellman went with the cell phone data no later than 22:13pm ToD.

1)Allesandra Formica testimony- by her estimates and the garage ticket, around 20:00-20:30pm did not hear the scream.
2+)Tow truck service records show it took 20 minutes to assign it and 20 minutes to drive there, or 40 minutes. So the repairman arrived at 23:20 to 23:25pm per witness testimony and the repair records. All involved said it took about 15 minutes to repair the vehicle. They left the scene as soon as the repair was completed, at around 23:35 to 23:40pm.Again, didn't hear a scream. (Guilt Mongers prefer 11:15 departure..)
3)Nara is in bed 21:15 apprx. and waking a couple hours later 23:15, (+/-15 minutes.) Heard a scream.
4)Maria Dramis home by 22:30, hears footsteps did not hear a scream.
5) Monachia Antonella hears scream little after 22pm, did not note time, saw nothing. Doesn't hear the noise of the iron stairs, heard some arguing.

this was just gathered from numerous articles. seems the details of the times are pretty sketchy/estimated, no one saw anything which makes it all very weak, imo.

supposedly this ToD issue, got 4 pages of attention for the Florence trial.

 

[moodstream]

I rather like this one:

The absence of a piece of evidence from a report is not evidence of its absence.

??????

 

[anglolawyer]

I agree with you wholeheartedly,

From a personal perspective of someone who is kind of an amateur sound engineer, it would be great to perform a real world test to show just how flawed the logic and reasoning of the prosecution and the guilters is. I'm not saying Briars and Mach are stupid, but this argument of theirs definitely is.

Don't high pitched sounds travel better in some way? If I want to hail a taxi I whistle. Evolution has equipped women and small children with a high-pitched scream, often described as 'piercing'. In my experience, one sound that carries from building to building is that of domestic violence, often involving screaming.

 

[LondonJohn]

I cannot say that I am a guilter or a non-guilter. I do, however, know that if I were accused of a crime and innocent I would have no problem with Mignini as the prosecutor of my case. After all he was the prosecutor when Patrick was first accused and later released.

I do not worship Mignini but I believe him to be fair and just when prosecuting a case. Those are important traits for a prosecutor to have whether one is innocent or guilty of a crime.

I too find this to be a somewhat astonishing statement. In addition to what Mary wrote, it's also worth noting that Mignini must have explicitly sanctioned the triumphalist behaviour in the police press conference on 6th November 2007, in which they announced proudly that "the case was solved". They were, in effect, pronouncing all three in custody - including Lumumba - guilty of the murder. On the basis of what? A clearly confused and coerced statement from Knox, and Mignini's/police's own preconceived "theory" of the crime. Nothing more than that. No physical evidence. No witness evidence. Disgraceful.

And of course the other point to note concerning Mignini's "fair" treatment of Lumumba is that he essentially had no choice but to release Lumumba when he (Lumumba) had the good fortune to have a cast-iron alibi, provided by a credible and unimpeachable source (Romano Mero). What's more, Mero came to Perugia to provide the alibi completely off his own bat, and heard about the situation via a friend in Italy. He was not "found" by Mignini or the police (as Mignini subsequently falsely appears to have claimed). One can only wonder what might have happened to Lumumba if he had not been able to provide solid proof of his whereabouts on the night of the murder. Perhaps the bizarre three-way-sex-game murder theory might have evolved into an even more bizarre four-way-sex-game murder theory.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Don't high pitched sounds travel better in some way? If I want to hail a taxi I whistle. Evolution has equipped women and small children with a high-pitched scream, often described as 'piercing'. In my experience, one sound that carries from building to building is that of domestic violence, often involving screaming.

Nope. In terms of physics, lower frequency sound pressure waves travel further through air (i.e. with less amplitude degradation) than higher frequency sound. The reason why we tend to use higher frequencies to alert or warn is an evolutionary one, based on the fact that sounds at these frequencies are less common in nature (e.g. noises related to wind, water, movement, other animals), and therefore tend to stand out against the background more.

On this subject, it's also highly relevant to our discussion to point out that higher-frequency sound waves are degraded far more than lower-frequency waves when passing through liquid or solid mediums (I think others have also pointed this out). That's why, for example, if there were a loud party in the next room, you would hear the bass end of the music through the walls, but not the top end. And that's why any scream would be very significantly muffled by having to pass through a modern double-glazed patio door (let alone solid stone walls).

I repeat: whatever Nara and Monacchia heard (or think they heard, or lied about hearing) that night, it's extremely highly unlikely that it was a scream originating from within the girls' cottage.

 

[anglolawyer]

Nope. In terms of physics, lower frequency sound pressure waves travel further through air (i.e. with less amplitude degradation) than higher frequency sound. The reason why we tend to use higher frequencies to alert or warn is an evolutionary one, based on the fact that sounds at these frequencies are less common in nature (e.g. noises related to wind, water, movement, other animals), and therefore tend to stand out against the background more.

On this subject, it's also highly relevant to our discussion to point out that higher-frequency sound waves are degraded far more than lower-frequency waves when passing through liquid or solid mediums (I think others have also pointed this out). That's why, for example, if there were a loud party in the next room, you would hear the bass end of the music through the walls, but not the top end. And that's why any scream would be very significantly muffled by having to pass through a modern double-glazed patio door (let alone solid stone walls).

I repeat: whatever Nara and Monacchia heard (or think they heard, or lied about hearing) that night, it's extremely highly unlikely that it was a scream originating from within the girls' cottage.

OK but the sound of the scream would not have to propagate through walls. The apartment has windows only one of which has to face in the direction of the apartments across the street. I don't know if they are double glazed. One pane of Filomena's windows had no glass in it (we say) and the shutters have slats. It would be an irony if it turned out in experiments that a scream could only be heard with that window open since it would support the lone wolf theory (as might Diocletus's investigations about blood downstairs).

She might have screamed while encountering Guede in the kitchen, maybe standing by Filomena's open door. Now the sound propagates outside via an open window, albeit in the wrong direction, but I am sure that doesn't mean anyone leeward could hear nothing at all and we, or at least I, don't know the wind direction that night.

The distance has come down to 44 metres. I have heard womens' screams at night. I bet we all have. They are pretty common in towns. You get to listen for different tones. They vary in degrees of alarm, sometimes prompting me to get out of bed and look. The sound travels in through my admittedly single glazed bedroom window, sometimes from a distance.

I am not convinced it is impossible, as Acbytesla claims, for a scream to have been heard. He is placing her inside her room and, even though my personal view accords with his that she was likely taken by surprise in there neither of us knows for sure.

ETA also, I am quite sure that the furthest travelling sound I can make is a whistle. By far. I used to walk the neighbours' dogs in country lanes and fields and I could call them back from a great distance (way over 100 metres, maybe twice that) with a whistle. It would not have occurred to me to emit a low bellow. They wouldn't have heard it. There is something wrong with your physics imho.

 

[RoseMontague]

Was it fair and just to deny them access to a lawyer prior to the critical hearing before Matteini? How about producing an animated film showing one of the two (source: Barbie - she does not say which) bringing the lamp into the room even though no evidence had been led to prove this important fact? We can add his use of the 'I was there' statement to extend her time in custody at the Riciarelli hearing. Was taking her 'spontaneous statement' at 5.45 a.m. on the 6th fair and just? Do you think he had regard to her interests when doing that?

Since they were 'strongly suspected' before the interrogations (source: Machiavelli) was it fair and just and a proper discharge of his duty as PM to secure the legal rights of the suspects not to formalise their status as such and to ensure their rights to silence and professional advice were afforded?

No. None of this is fair and just. According to Amanda, Mignini continued to question her after her 1:45AM statement , without a lawyer and without taping the questioning.

I consider Christiana both reasonable and intelligent.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[LondonJohn]

OK but the sound of the scream would not have to propagate through walls. The apartment has windows only one of which has to face in the direction of the apartments across the street. I don't know if they are double glazed.

???? Not sure you read my post properly. I specifically addressed the issue of sound propagation through a window - the reference to walls was a parenthetical addition as it is technically another (albeit highly improbable) way for the sound to pass out of the cottage. And clearly the most relevant window in the context of the discussion is the glazed patio door, which is what I addressed. And the patio door was modern and double-glazed with safety glass. And sound (particularly higher-frequency sound) is highly degraded by any glass, but especially by double glazing (the air pocket in the middle pretty much prevents trampolining vibration of the two glass panes since it damps the vibrations).

One pane of Filomena's windows had no glass in it (we say) and the shutters have slats. It would be an irony if it turned out in experiments that a scream could only be heard with that window open since it would support the lone wolf theory (as might Diocletus's investigations about blood downstairs).

Yes, but that window faced further than 90 degrees away from Capezzali's apartment. In addition, the sound would have had to reverberate several times against the internal walls of the cottage before exiting via this window (unless - improbably - the scream took place inside Filomena's room itself). That said, I would imagine that any scream would be audible to someone close by in the street outside the cottage, uphill of the property (i.e. in the direction of Piazza Grimana). And, funnily enough, this appears to have been Guede's concern as well, since he specifically mentioned a scream that might be heard from the street in (in my view) an effort to make his version of events sound more plausible and supportable.

She might have screamed while encountering Guede in the kitchen, maybe standing by Filomena's open door. Now the sound propagates outside via an open window, albeit in the wrong direction, but I am sure that doesn't mean anyone leeward could hear nothing at all and we, or at least I, don't know the wind direction that night.

You have an over-optimistic faith in the power of wind to reverse and carry sound pressure waves

The distance has come down to 44 metres. I have heard womens' screams at night. I bet we all have. They are pretty common in towns. You get to listen for different tones. They vary in degrees of alarm, sometimes prompting me to get out of bed and look. The sound travels in through my admittedly single glazed bedroom window, sometimes from a distance.

Yes, but I can virtually guarantee you that these screams are emanating from the street, rather than from within a building. There's a huge difference.

I am not convinced it is impossible, as Acbytesla claims, for a scream to have been heard. He is placing her inside her room and, even though my personal view accords with his that she was likely taken by surprise in there neither of us knows for sure.

I don't think it's impossible. I do, however, think it's very highly unlikely. And when you add in the timing issues, and other issues (such as the improbability of Capezzali allegedly being woken by a "blood-curdling scream of death", yet taking so long to come forward about it in spite of the latter knowledge that a murder occurred that night - not to mention the obvious possibility that post-hoc knowledge of the murder might have *ahem* "transformed" her memory of what she thought she heard), I contend that the earwitness testimony cannot be taken as probative.

Of course, the obvious thing to do would be to place a speaker emitting sound at various frequencies and amplitudes (replicating the human range of sound emission) at various points in the cottage, and measuring the sound received at various key points outside the cottage - including within Capezzali's room, Monacchia's apartment, along the road, and in Piazza Grimana.