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

[christianahannah]

So unless the court does something facts are not relevant?

Of course experts' opinions are relevant. The fact that Massei wouldn't allow independent experts look at the DNA "evidence" doesn't make that evidence irrelevant except for the verdict of that court.

You continue to put too much faith in the Italian courts.

If there was a photograph of Rudy killing Meredith alone in the cottage but the court wouldn't let it be shown to the judges would that too be irrelevant?

It may be the case that the Italians won't let in relevant expert opinions but doesn't mean they aren't relevant.

There were definitely quite a few experts - DNA and otherwise - from both sides during the first trial. Would independent expert testimony have invalidated those expert testimony or would it be another testimony to evaluate? And if Massei appoints the independent experts would they really be independent or follow the same line of reasoning as Massei (since it has been declared from some that Massei was partial to the prosecution)?

Do other courts use independent experts and is it an effective remedy to bring about a fair trial? Or does it create more problems than answers?

 

[Bill Williams]

So unless the court does something facts are not relevant?

Of course experts' opinions are relevant. The fact that Massei wouldn't allow independent experts look at the DNA "evidence" doesn't make that evidence irrelevant except for the verdict of that court.

You continue to put too much faith in the Italian courts.

If there was a photograph of Rudy killing Meredith alone in the cottage but the court wouldn't let it be shown to the judges would that too be irrelevant?

It may be the case that the Italians won't let in relevant expert opinions but doesn't mean they aren't relevant.

I'm partly with CoulsdonUK in this... what counts, really, is what the judges decide, good, bad, corrupt, or indifferent.

Yet, when judges like Massei, for instance, play mind-games with their imaginings when judges like Massei could very well have ordered a recreation like Channel 5 did....

... meaning: Channel 5 pretty much destroyed the myth that the entry in through Filomena's window was even difficult, much less impossible.....

.... yet what Judge Massei did was substitute his own imaginings of what a burglar must have done, and for Massei he imagined that the burglar would have had to have gone up that wall three times in a difficult climb, and that the burglar would not have done that three times because it would have taken too long; risking exposure...

Those are Massei's imaginings, and he rendered a judicial decision partly on its basis. So CoulsdonUK is quite correct - they actually COULD find a video showing Rudy doing the thing alone, but a judge like Massei might prefer his own imaginings to video evidence.....

You get the drift. I think CoulsdonUK is just being practical here. Two innocents really ARE in danger of being sentenced to decades' worth of imprisonment for judges imaginings.

Of course, the rest of the world (except for some spots in England and perhaps all of Perugia) will see the process for what it is. One thing for sure, for most of the world (I mean if anyone is paying attention anymore) Italy's judicial system is on trial here.

 

[Dan O.]

That is true what was written by Massei but didn't he write two rather than three times to climb the wall?

Up and down and up again. That three climbs.

It's amazing that Italy has any crime at all. The way Massei talks about it if you don't set the merchandise out on a pedestal the criminals won't bother to stoop over to pick it up.

 

[christianahannah]

Up and down and up again. That three climbs.

It's amazing that Italy has any crime at all. The way Massei talks about it if you don't set the merchandise out on a pedestal the criminals won't bother to stoop over to pick it up.

Okay, I see now. I was taking up and down as one climb (which I guess doesn't really make sense as once in the room there would be no need to climb down again).

 

[acbytesla]

The phone must maintain a perfect time synchronization with the local tower group. The phone saves energy by only turning on it's receiver for a very short time and listens in this time slot for a transmission indicating that a message is available for the particular phone.

When the phone detects the network and knows that it has been out of touch for some time it needs to reestablish synchronization and this process will announce to the network that the phone is back and able to receive any waiting messages.

Althought the phone would know if it had been turned off, it's not an operational requirement for the network to know.

The on/off times are something I would expect to find in the phone's internal log and one more indication that the phone may have never been off in that period.

Respectfully Dan O,
I'm not sure I agree with this last line. I think it would all depend on the phone. With a smart phone today, I think it very well might have a detailed internal log that would contain that data. However, I'm not very confident that any of the phones that Amanda and Meredith etc were carry in 2007 would have such detailed log files.

 

[Grinder]

There were definitely quite a few experts - DNA and otherwise - from both sides during the first trial. Would independent expert testimony have invalidated those expert testimony or would it be another testimony to evaluate? And if Massei appoints the independent experts would they really be independent or follow the same line of reasoning as Massei (since it has been declared from some that Massei was partial to the prosecution)?

Do other courts use independent experts and is it an effective remedy to bring about a fair trial? Or does it create more problems than answers?

I don't know about other courts. The issue in Italy was not that independent experts couldn't be called but that the court still had to make up their own minds.

 

[Dan O.]

Wasn't the whole thing about the phone traffic on the night of interrogation - November 5 - not to do about switching on or switching off of cell phones but that Raffaele had said his father called him at 11 pm the night of the murder - November 1 - when the call from his father was actually between 8-9 pm? His father did send an SMS to Raffaele's cell around 11 pm that night but it wasn't received until the next morning.

I remember that I surfed the Internet for a bit, maybe I watched a
film and then that you had called me at the house or that anyhow you
sent me a goodnight message.

h. 06:02:59 Raffaele Sollecito get the message of the father who wished him good night, tabulated by acquisition of cellular dr. Francesco Sollecito has shown that sending the text message was the case, as is said, to h. 23:41:11 of I .11.07. Is the last text message sent from that phone throughout the day 1:11:07

A call from his father at 11pm gives him some semblance of an alibi (though of course it does not estalish where he is, necessarily) while one at 8:42 does not. And of course his father would confirm a phone call if asked. But I am not going there because it depends on RS not knowing the time would be recorded, and just because I did not know that does not mean he did not. Perhaps it was confusion: his dad seems to have phoned him a lot. We don't know: simple as that

From the initial investigation report: Verso le ore 20.30 - 21.00 la Knox si era allontanata dicendogli che sarebbe andata presso el pub Le Chic per incontrare degli amici mentre le stesso era rientrato nella propria abitazione, che alle ore 23.00 aveva ricevuto una telefonata de parte del padre sull'utenza fissa, che si era trattenuto sul computer per altre due ore facendosi una canna, che la ragazza era rientrata probablemente verso la una ....

(Rough translation: "Around 8:30 to 9:00 p.m., Knox left, saying to him that she would walk to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his flat, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 11:00 p.m., and that he was using his computer for two hours more while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned probably around 1am ....")

This is a meme that has been floating around for a very long time and I would like to nail it down. Has anyone seen that document that Kermit was quoting?

 

[Grinder]

I'm partly with CoulsdonUK in this... what counts, really, is what the judges decide, good, bad, corrupt, or indifferent.

Let it not be forgotten that you also agreed with Hellmann upholding the calunnia conviction. You resisted all the arguments that made it clear that she didn't freely name Patrick and continued to proudly state that you were the only one that completely agreed with Hellmann.

And what changed your mind? An interview with CNN changed your mind, not cross examination in court.

It would seem that the interview was relevant to you.

Obviously, what the judges decide is the most important but public opinion will play a part if the appeals court convicts.

 

[Grinder]

This is a meme that has been floating around for a very long time and I would like to nail it down. Has anyone seen that document that Kermit was quoting?

I think this is the one.

http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/2007/ordinanza_perugia_meredith.pdf

 

[Grinder]

Okay, I see now. I was taking up and down as one climb (which I guess doesn't really make sense as once in the room there would be no need to climb down again).

I doubt that the shutters were actually closed. Filomena didn't remember at first as much as she did later. She was in a hurry to get out of the cottage and had Raf wrap the gift. She was only going to be gone for a day and there would be little need to close them except that it was a more orderly thing to do.

The shutters would need to be open for the rock to be thrown through although Rudy could have carried it up with him, but that seems unlikely.

The main point is that it is not close to being difficult for an athletic man to get up to that ledge and in the window.

 

[Dan O.]

If there was a photograph of Rudy killing Meredith alone in the cottage but the court wouldn't let it be shown to the judges would that too be irrelevant?

Why just a photo? A video with sound would be better. Meredith's MacBook was partially open on her desk. It's possible that she had turned it on and started to record a video diary when she heard a noise in another part of the house and went to investigate it. Partially closing the lid but not completely, the recording would keep running till the battery ran down and the system put itself to sleep. The file though would not have been closed properly when the postals pulled the battery so their incompetent analysis would miss the event entirely.

 

[Dan O.]

I think this is the one.

http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/2007/ordinanza_perugia_meredith.pdf

I also found:

*2007-11-09 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1568861/How-the-sex-game-went-wrong-Judges-report.html Telegraph]
On November 5 2007, at 22.40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of November 1, after Meredith left the house, he was with Knox Amanda until 1800 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre, around 2030 to 2100.
Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his house, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 2300, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1am and that they both work up at 1000 when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola.
He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events.

This appears to be the sole source of the story that Amanda left at 2100. It's excerpts from Raffaele's November 5th statement released to the press.

We have contradicting evidence that proves this statement is inaccurate. The playing of Amelie, Amanda's reply to Patrick's text and Jovana Popovic talking to Amanda should remove any doubt that Amanda is at Raffaele's place that evening. There is no reason for Raffaele to create a lie to say they were in town when they were at home watching a movie. So why does this statement exist!?

I believe the statement is simply what the police believed at the time and Raffaele choose not to argue with them. Of key importance to the police was the cell tower connection when Amanda's phone received the text message from Patrick. This connection was to a cell in old town.

How can Amanda be watching a movie at Raffaele's place and connect to the cell in old town? SMS messages do not require the phone to find the best connection but will use whatever connection the phone already has. Amanda and Raffaele went through old town on the way back to his place. Amanda's phone registered with a cell in old town and still had that connection when the text from Patrick came through.


So why do those believing in guilt continue to pick the one cherry out of this discredited swill and claim that Raffaele says Amanda left??

It sure would be nice if those November 5th tapes would show up.

 

[christianahannah]

Wasn't the whole thing about the phone traffic on the night of interrogation - November 5 - not to do about switching on or switching off of cell phones but that Raffaele had said his father called him at 11 pm the night of the murder - November 1 - when the call from his father was actually between 8-9 pm? His father did send an SMS to Raffaele's cell around 11 pm that night but it wasn't received until the next morning.

This is a meme that has been floating around for a very long time and I would like to nail it down. Has anyone seen that document that Kermit was quoting?

I haven't seen that particular document you write of but there are two places where I have seen the phone calls mentioned - one is Perugia Shock as copied on PMF.net (assume it is on PMF.org also) and the second is the recent translation done by Yummi/Machiavelli and Clander of Raffaele's hearing before Matteini.

Two portions of Raffaele's words before Matteini:

About that night I remember the pipe under the sink had unlatched and while I was washing things in the kitchen I had the floor flooded, I tried to dry the floor and then, on Amanda’s suggestion, I let it go. I worked with my computer and then I went to bed. I received a call from my father, who calls me every night before I go to sleep, I do not remember if he called me on the landline phone or on the cell phone.

...and...

I remember Amanda must have been come back [home together] with me. I do not remember if she went out. My father calls me every day and I find it strange that he did not call on the 1st. I fail to understand why my prints are there; I [did] not enter that room; on the 1. and on the 2. I was not wearing those shoes. The one who killed her must have had the same kind of shoes as me. They are rather common shoes.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/download/file.php?id=8205

And from Perugia Shock via PMF (you will have to scroll down to view Supreme Court decision for Raffaele):

The time of my telephone conversation with my father, which I said took place at 23 pm but which instead was at 20:40 pm, has no significance whatsoever since we don't know the time of death. The time of death has been indicated by the pathologist as 23 pm, but it depends totally on the time at which Meredith had dinner, and someone said the dinner was at 18 pm. So the time of death could be moved back to 21 pm, which is right after the Popovic witness came to see me. And she found me at home and not about to go out.

http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=59

Could the Kermit quote be from Corriere Della Sera which included portions of both Raffele's and Amanda's statements?

 

[Grinder]

The FOA argument that the room was too small has been shown to be bull.

Multiple killers doesn't mean the kids were involved.

The glass work is good because it is clear the rock was thrown from the outside. Throwing from the inside was stupid because that obviously didn't happen, but had the window been opened and the rock thrown from the inside against the inner shutter the glass wouldn't have dispersed throughout the room the way both the test and the actual results did.

 

[Dan O.]

Could the Kermit quote be from Corriere Della Sera which included portions of both Raffele's and Amanda's statements?

Many of the Italian sources are not indexed by Google. so they could be Kermit's source. I have a few in my private searchable archive


It's clear that all the inconsistencies on Raffaele's part come from the November 5th interrogation. The only way we are going to get the truth of that night will be to suck it out of the interrogators with a rubber hose.

 

[Grinder]

It is obvious that Raf was talking about the 31st and not the 1st. He told basically the same story to Mansey.

The kids are space cases. They are ditsy but that doesn't translate to murderers.

 

[Grinder]

Many of the Italian sources are not indexed by Google. so they could be Kermit's source. I have a few in my private searchable archive

It's clear that all the inconsistencies on Raffaele's part come from the November 5th interrogation. The only way we are going to get the truth of that night will be to suck it out of the interrogators with a rubber hose.

The link I provided seems like the original document, doesn't it?

 

[Dan O.]

The FOA argument that the room was too small has been shown to be bull.

The photos of that reconstructed room don't look right. There is way too much space between the bed and the door. Are you sure that they got the dimensions right? The printed dimensions on the floor plan from the evidence file don't form an internally consistent structure. The walls in that part of the house aren't even square which has thwarted my efforts to reconstruct the plans from the photos and videos.

Do they have a discussion area where these questions can be answered?

 

[Dan O.]

The link I provided seems like the original document, doesn't it?

Yes it is. Transcription errors from the PDF were preventing a text search from finding the match.

 

[Bill Williams]

The FOA argument that the room was too small has been shown to be bull.

Multiple killers doesn't mean the kids were involved.

The glass work is good because it is clear the rock was thrown from the outside. Throwing from the inside was stupid because that obviously didn't happen, but had the window been opened and the rock thrown from the inside against the inner shutter the glass wouldn't have dispersed throughout the room the way both the test and the actual results did.

No one said the Channel 5 thing was perfect. For me, I think they were misleading in the whole evaluation of "multiple attackers," especially as it related to the realities of that room.

Be that as it may, the best, "well, duh!" moment was someone saying that whereas it was very plausible that this was a single attacker, that it would have been easier if multiple attackers had been involved.

Well, duh! Of course it would have been easier. That's decidedly not the point. The forensics only point to a single attacker.

It's like saying that it would be easier to drive a block to go to the store than walk it. Of course it is.