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

[GreyFox]

Volturno.



Do you really mean you don't support circumstantial evidence cases?Hardcore proof is almost only circumstantial with maybe the exception of video or in some cases eyewitnesses.

No. What I don't support is when a case is so weak that some idiot feels the need to stone a young woman for adultery then escalate it into a murder of her roomate. That's just asinine.

 

[Antony]

PS: I notice that the word "bribe" was used. I don't think that this word would be strictly applicable in this instance in any case. Bribery implies some form of persuasion to trade: e.g. one contractor bribes the client to choose it instead of a rival bidder in a competitive tender, or a contractor bribes a client to buy more product/services than it actually needs.

Instead, the situation here is (potentially) more akin to simple fraud and false accounting. It's possible that nventa id may have committed either of these offences on its own, by submitting false invoices (for example, they may have dramatically overinflated the number of man-hours spent on the animation). Or it's possible that both nventa id and one or more PMs committed either of these offences jointly - if they both agreed to overinflate the value of the contract and the invoice, and to then share the overpayment balance in some proportion.

In addition, if the first possibility (nventa id acting alone) is correct, then Comodi (and perhaps others) face potential (non-criminal) misconduct action related to misuse of funds and failure to check value-for-money of outsourced contracts.

I would note, once more, that I am categorically not accusing anyone of either criminal acts or misconduct of any sort. I am doing no more than outlining the possible explanations as I see them.

Of course, there IS one further explanation: it's that there really WAS 180,000 Euro of genuine work done by nventa id on the animation and the database. If that really were the case, though, I would be in open-mouthed astonishment at a) the implication that a lot of really expensive, state-of-the-art, specialist animation hardware/software was used to produce such a poor-quality animation, and b) the implied enormous amount of labour time that the work would have had to have taken.

Still - stranger things have happened.........

This case is a never-ending oil-well of surprises.

I actually agree with Strozzi, that when an implausible amount of public money, unitemised but curiously precise (€152,320 plus VAT) is paid to a company whose main expertise is wire-tapping, ostensibly for a poor-quality and amateurish presentation - then somebody might not want it known what the real reason for the payment was.

Remind me, what was the reason for Mignini's indictment, where the convicting court was deemed not to have jurisdiction?

There are people here who know things they're not telling us, and sure as anything it isn't Amanda Knox.

 

[kwill]

Confused.

Was the animation 30 seconds long or 23 minutes long?

Who was the target audience for the thing?

If the professional & highly competent panel of judges and lay judges had been listening to the testimony and reading the files (not to mention the newspapers) for the last two years, why was an animation -- especially such an expensive one -- needed at all?

 

[Antony]

You're kidding, right?

For mercy's sake, even the original prosecutors, Comodi and Mignini did not believe that. It's why they had to come up with the ridiculous "two knife" theory.

Maybe they should have had Rinaldi to measure the print and compare it with the knife.

 

[Grinder]

1. the video animation produced by Nventa-id on the Kercher case is 23 minutes long.

How do you know that?

I think sounds quite unsensitive to me that people seem to not consider potential emotional impact of an animation of the murder; it's obvious to me why it was never made public, I interpret it as a basic measure of respect for the victim.

Well if a video surfaced that had been made by one of the computers' cams the night of the murder would you think that it should be kept secret out of respect for the victim?

The prosecution made an animation that I assume didn't have Meredith's face on the victims figure. It was an animation, a cartoon; it wasn't real. It would seem that showing it in court with the victim's family potentially present or actually present would be much more egregious than allowing the public to see it.

I would interpret it as more of the Star Chamber ambiance of the Italian court system. This is the same set of prosecutors that at one time said they didn't record Amanda's "witness" statement for budgetary reasons. If nothing else, that shows they were aware that expenditures mattered.

This case is a never-ending oil-well of surprises.

Remind me, what was the reason for Mignini's indictment, where the convicting court was deemed not to have jurisdiction?

There are people here who know things they're not telling us, and sure as anything it isn't Amanda Knox.

He tapped police and journalists phone conversations. IIRC

 

[Antony]

He tapped police and journalists phone conversations. IIRC

My, isn't that a coincidence?

 

[Grinder]

Mach,

How wide spread is tapping of people's phones in Italy? Just in general terms.

 

[Grinder]

deleted dup

 

[LondonJohn]

23 minutes long!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[acbytesla]

The "tunnel vision" would include Patrick committing the murder and most likely with his own knife or one from the cottage.

So you're saying that they never thought Patrick had anything to do with the murder and that they didn't think the "I'll see you very soon" meant anything but it would be good to arrest him?

Mach can you explain why they didn't test other knives or did they?

You would think. But somehow, not in their scenario.

 

[Strozzi]

23 minutes long!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So they spend a massive amount of money (EUR $182,000) to create (fabricate) a 23 minute animation of a young woman dressed in a distinctive brown and white horizontal-stripped sweater just like Amanda wore to court in order to encourage the judges to absorb that it is Amanda murdering Meredith. The judges pull it from public view but retain it as permissible evidence that the next judges will watch.

What a foul system!

 

[RWVBWL]

23 minutes?

Without commenting on opinions, just two points:

1. the video animation produced by Nventa-id on the Kercher case is 23 minutes long.
<snip>

Meredith's murder took 23 minutes?
Or was that all the sex-game foreplay+fooling around that supposedly happened?

Did they show Miss Kercher on her bed playing with her cell phone or was she studying that history book she borrowed and was supposed to return to her in the morning? Etc, etc, etc,...

23 minutes is a long time to show a brutal murder being enacted.

And I find it hard to believe that during this 23 minutes,
none of the dinner nor desert that Meredith ate with her friends a few hours earlier did not even start to digest into, well you know what I mean...

 

[acbytesla]

Filomena says they had put them "below" the coutlery desk, out of sight, because nobody used them. I don't know if Knox even knew about their existence.

I think the kitchen knife does match the stain on the bed sheet.

You're kidding, right?

For mercy's sake, even the original prosecutors, Comodi and Mignini did not believe that. It's why they had to come up with the ridiculous "two knife" theory.

I can just feel a mountain of dietrology descend with the claim that they did no such thing....

How do you respond to to things like this Bill?? I don't even know where to begin. First this statement or quote that "no one uses the cooking knives"???? One, I don't believe Filomena EVER said that. I'm 99.999 percent sure that Mach made that up out of whole cloth. It makes no sense whatsoever. I just looked at the sink picture. There is a "small cutting" board that was washed and sitting upright behind the sink. Why do they have and use a cutting board if they don't cut anything?

And now Mach says that he believes the cooking knife matches the knife blood stain? No wonder he thinks Raff's foot matches the bath mat. Mach is blind.

No seriously, I've never had ANYONE actually argue that the cooking knife matched that blood stain. It makes me wonder if Mach has actually ever looked at the stain and the knife edge. It's clear not only is the cooking knife bigger than the stain, but the knife has a different geometry.

There is only one thing I think you can say. Mach is in denial.

 

[Antony]

Filomena says they had put them "below" the coutlery desk, out of sight, because nobody used them. I don't know if Knox even knew about their existence.

How do you respond to to things like this Bill?? I don't even know where to begin. First this statement or quote that "no one uses the cooking knives"???? One, I don't believe Filomena EVER said that. I'm 99.999 percent sure that Mach made that up out of whole cloth. It makes no sense whatsoever. I just looked at the sink picture. There is a "small cutting" board that was washed and sitting upright behind the sink. Why do they have and use a cutting board if they don't cut anything?

Not only that, but even if it was the case that the knives were never used for cooking, why would that mean that they couldn't be used for the murder so they didn't need to be tested? It makes no sense either way.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Full fathom five

Simple. They killed Meredith with it. They cleaned it. They then used it to cut bread or pasta.

For me the oddest thing is that Raf's DNA isn't on it.

Why wouldn't the DNA (which somehow survived the cleaning, be swept off of the blade by the bread? Here we have a knife with Amanda's DNA, with starch, and supposedly without blood. The blood would have to be cleaned off, but in such a way as not to remove the starch or DNA in two places? I cannot fathom how.

 

[Bill Williams]

Filomena says they had put them "below" the coutlery desk, out of sight, because nobody used them. I don't know if Knox even knew about their existence.

I think the kitchen knife does match the stain on the bed sheet.

You're kidding, right?

For mercy's sake, even the original prosecutors, Comodi and Mignini did not believe that. It's why they had to come up with the ridiculous "two knife" theory.

I can just feel a mountain of dietrology descend with the claim that they did no such thing....

How do you respond to to things like this Bill?? I don't even know where to begin. First this statement or quote that "no one uses the cooking knives"???? One, I don't believe Filomena EVER said that. I'm 99.999 percent sure that Mach made that up out of whole cloth. It makes no sense whatsoever. I just looked at the sink picture. There is a "small cutting" board that was washed and sitting upright behind the sink. Why do they have and use a cutting board if they don't cut anything?

And now Mach says that he believes the cooking knife matches the knife blood stain? No wonder he thinks Raff's foot matches the bath mat. Mach is blind.

No seriously, I've never had ANYONE actually argue that the cooking knife matched that blood stain. It makes me wonder if Mach has actually ever looked at the stain and the knife edge. It's clear not only is the cooking knife bigger than the stain, but the knife has a different geometry.

There is only one thing I think you can say. Mach is in denial.

I don't think Machiavelli is in denial... what I think will get the moderator's attention so it's best not to say it.

Suffice it to say that I am saving this one, too, because month's from now when Machiavelli is reminded of this, he'll call me a liar and want me to prove it...

Which I will not do. Suffice it to have folks see Mach's posts here real time.

 

[Strozzi]

I think the kitchen knife does match the stain on the bed sheet.

Machiavelli, you may realize that many readers here do not believe that the kitchen knife confiscated by Inspector Finzi from Sollecito's kitchen drawer is of similar dimensions to match the knife bloodstain on the victim's bedsheet. I would like to ask you to please look at the page that I am linking below as it shows the knife with measurements and also shows the knife bloodstain with measurements.

Please see images and description towards the bottom of the long page at :
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

You might be interested in reading the page's text, as well, even though you may not agree with the points made.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, you may realize that many readers here do not believe that the kitchen knife confiscated by Inspector Finzi from Sollecito's kitchen drawer is of similar dimensions to match the knife bloodstain on the victim's bedsheet. I would like to ask you to please look at the page that I am linking below as it shows the knife with measurements and also shows the knife bloodstain with measurements.

Please see images and description towards the bottom of the long page at :
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

You might be interested in reading the page's text, as well, even though you may not agree with the points made.

But the same readers also believe that the bathmat print matches Guede rather than Sollecito. (this says it all imo)
I actually found that the print on the bed sheet may well fit the kitchen knife. As well as other knifes. It would not fit a flick knife like the ones possessed by Sollecito and Guede. But I don't think it allows to rule out a kitchen knife of that size, in particular not that kitchen knife with a 17.5 centimeter long blade.

 

[LondonJohn]

Without commenting on opinions, just two points:

1. the video animation produced by Nventa-id on the Kercher case is 23 minutes long.
2. I disagree with LJ's point 3), that an "extensive pre-existing relationship between Comodi/Mignini and Nventa-id" would make the possibility of malpractice be likely (I leave aside the concept of "more likely"); but above all I disagree with 4), that it would explain why the video was not outed. I think sounds quite unsensitive to me that people seem to not consider potential emotional impact of an animation of the murder; it's obvious to me why it was never made public, I interpret it as a basic measure of respect for the victim. 3. (may agree with Strozzi) the problem seems to be with an alleged lack of specificity in justifying the payment on the basis of a specific itemizing of services in the payment bill, on the part of Comodi; in other words it seems Comodi should have given reasons assessing the bill about each item, not just on the comprehensive amount and coprehensive services; I note that the kind of malpractice suspected for Comodi is referred to be causing a damage of a purely monetary kind (this case against Comodi, in other words, is the consequence of a case opened before another court, the Umbria court of Budgets, which had calculated out that the overal fee might be too high, Comodi's mistake in calculating being the consequence of poor itemizing of the service prices).

If you re-read what I actually wrote, my point 4 was to do with the issue of the lack of competitive tender for the animation work.

In case you might not be aware of the phrase "out to tender", it means the process of the client company issuing a specification for the work you want done (i.e. in this case the animation) and allowing several different contractor companies to put in bids to choose the work. The client company then chooses the favoured bid (often, the lowest-priced quote is chosen, but there can also be other decisive factors such as time to completion, or satisfaction/dissatisfaction with previous contract work).

My point 4 therefore had nothing in fact to do with "outing" the video animation in the sense that you describe (and take great umbrage at). I will assume for now that your mistake was purely and simply due to not understanding the English phrase "out to tender".

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Confused.

Was the animation 30 seconds long or 23 minutes long?

Who was the target audience for the thing?

If the professional & highly competent panel of judges and lay judges had been listening to the testimony and reading the files (not to mention the newspapers) for the last two years, why was an animation -- especially such an expensive one -- needed at all?

The prosecution's theory has always been vague and speculative. Mignini presumably understood this, so he commissioned an animation to make it seem more concrete.

Any such production would be full of obvious problems and errors. It depicts something that did not really happen, so it would have to be out of sync with the physical evidence. That would explain why Mignini slipped his forensic reconstruction into a closing argument rather than presenting it as evidence.

It would also explain why Massei did not want the defense (or anyone) to have it for close examination. He took the position that the court would not consider it in their deliberations.

I am curious as to who is now pressing the inquiry, and what motivates them to do so.

I would like to have the video so I can study it. This murder was a knife attack that took place inside a small white box, with a grid marked on the floor. The victim was found before any significant decomposition occurred. It would be possible for anyone with the skills to prepare an animated reconstruction that shows what really happened and lines up exactly with the physical evidence shown in crime scene photos and the autopsy report. This might be a worthwhile project, especially if the prosecution opus ever comes to light.