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

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's pretty simple.

The truth is that way.

ALWAYS.

SHOCKINGLY simple.

I strongly disagree. Many human conflicts and problems are massively complex, and differing points of view are both true and false in certain respects and in varying degrees.

The most important truth of this particular case - who killed Meredith Kercher - is simple. But this case is an exception in that regard, rather than the rule.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have to say, I'm quite impressed by this response. Here is the question:

And why does Mignini suggest that budget problems prevent taping of police interviews? Why not just tell the interviewer what you just said, that in Italy suspects can be questioned in complete secrecy, and no one can know what happens during those interviews? If that's the case, why pretend that it was simply too expensive?

This is the answer . . .



Starts with a not too subtle suggestion that I'm stupid for asking. Equivalent to throwing sand in the eyes.



Proceeds to a patronizing explanation that things are not so simple as the question makes them seem. Get it? It's all very complex! (If you're looking for an answer to the question itself, you're probably starting to guess that we aren't going to go anywhere near it.)



What does that have to do with Mignini's suggestion that it was a budget issue? Also, Amanda was not a witness during the time we're talking about. She was a suspect.



How does this answer the question that was asked?



Or that? (Notice again that Amanda Knox was not a witness during the early morning hours of Nov 6.)



Well, okay . . . that's interesting. Are the police allowed to question their suspect without a lawyer during this time period? (Note that we're still not addressing the actual question.)



Is recording necessarily followed by transcription? No. Recording itself is virtually free, and yet here is Mignini claiming that it was not done, so this is patently silly. I've made transcripts of complex presentations from neuroscience conferences in the past. I can do an hour's worth of speech in about 3 hours, perfectly, and that's when the scientist is a non-native English speaker talking very fast. We're talking about an interrogation that went on for about 7 hours. How "huge" could the amount of transcribing hours really be?



Again, there is no response to the question that was asked. Why does Mignini not simply tell the interviewer that taping is not required? Why does he bring up the budget?

I'll tell you why: because he's a liar. They did tape that interview, but he knows what the tape would show, so he's pretending -- ludicrously -- that it wasn't done for budgetary reasons. It's an insult to the intelligence of any fair-minded person.

This is a brilliant exposition as to why Mignini is a liar. Kudos.

 

[e740JPH]

He has a relationship? I thought it was more of a one night stand.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Meanwhile, Vogt is weighing in with yet more partisan conjecture, this time about the Comodi animation issue:

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

Vogt has obviously not paused to ask herself the obvious question: if the accusations against Comodi were baseless or trumped up (and she is implying as much with her ostensible points towards vested interests etc), why were they not investigated and dismissed as such by the Umbria Audit Office? If there was no case to answer, why has Comodi been summoned to appear before her own standards and disciplinary body, Andrea?

Oh and Andrea: you demean yourself further by posing some sort of false equivalence in asking how much the defence might or might not have spent on this sort of stuff. As you should well know (and perhaps you DO know, but you're just being partisan and biased), the defence can spend any and all money they can afford. Knox could have commissioned a Hollywood-standard feature-film-length movie related to the case if she'd wanted to and had the money to do so. Whether it would have been admissible in court would be a different matter, of course, but that wasn't the point you were trying to make, was it Andrea?

(By the way, a final hint to ya, Andrea: we might possibly be talking here about a lot more than simply the careless misuse of public funds. Where did all that money actually end up, Andrea? Perhaps you can put on your "investigative hat" to look further into that one....)

She has mastered the art of baseless innuendo and threadbare speculation, for sure. But I too would like to know who is holding Comodi's feet to the fire on this video, and what their interests are.

It's interesting that Vogt saw it when it was played in court, and she was not impressed. "The oversexualized cartoon reenactment featuring badly-stereotyped avatars and seemed trivial and silly compared to the more compelling original testimony of police and witnesses."

I'm not surprised. A well-done reconstruction of this type, one that matched the crime scene photos, could be very compelling and would never seem trivial or silly. But it wouldn't tell the story the prosecution wants to tell.

I want to get a copy of this.

 

[Antony]

About 30 meters (not 40). A problem in Curatolo's testimony, not "for my side".

It's a problem that nullifies his testimony on its own.

 

[LondonJohn]

She has mastered the art of baseless innuendo and threadbare speculation, for sure. But I too would like to know who is holding Comodi's feet to the fire on this video, and what their interests are.

It's interesting that Vogt saw it when it was played in court, and she was not impressed. "The oversexualized cartoon reenactment featuring badly-stereotyped avatars and seemed trivial and silly compared to the more compelling original testimony of police and witnesses."

I'm not surprised. A well-done reconstruction of this type, one that matched the crime scene photos, could be very compelling and would never seem trivial or silly. But it wouldn't tell the story the prosecution wants to tell.

I want to get a copy of this.

I'd like to see it too, for various reasons. For one thing, how on Earth could it warrant lasting 23 minutes?! I am utterly dumbstruck as to why it could possibly be necessary to animate 23 minutes' worth of re-enactment (or, more accurately, the prosecutors' baseless version of events that's no more than lurid conjecture, and which is virtually unsupported by the physical evidence).

For another thing, I'd like to see just how amateurish this animation was. From what I think I know (if the stills I'm thinking of are from this animation), it was an extremely basic affair, which hadn't even been fully-rendered, let alone textured. If that's correct, then I guarantee that this animation could have been created by a competent amateur using a decent home computer and some off-the-shelf (and inexpensive) animation software. I realise that we're a few years down the line from when the animation was made, but here's an example of current animation software that runs on home PCs that would produce vastly superior results for $200:

http://www.reallusion.com/store/purchase_ic.aspx

(In fact, the cheaper $80 version would still produce better results than the stills I saw, if they are indeed from Comodi's animation).

Incidentally, once the avatars for the four actors have been created and animated, and once the set has been created, it's not that much more incremental effort to create a 23-minute animation than to create a 1-minute animation (perhaps four times as much extra effort, rather than 23 times as much extra effort). It should have taken no more than two weeks of manpower at the absolute upper limit. To an experienced computer animation artist, I suggest it could be done in a few man-days.


And yes, I'd also like to know how Mignini seems to have (for the moment) escaped accountability for this issue. Perhaps we might find out more about this on or after the 6th December hearing.


ETA: I forgot to add that lipsynching characters to dialogue, rendering of detailed facial expressions, and fine-texturing of skin, clothing and facial features are by far the three most difficult and time-consuming elements in animation (once the avatars have been created and animated). None of these things was necessary in the Comodi animation, and it appears that none of them was done. This makes it even more remarkable to suggest that the animation should have cost anything more than a low five-figure amount.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's a problem that nullifies his testimony on its own.

Indeed. As you and others have discussed, even if Curatolo had been (say) a top lawyer in perfect mental and physical health, who had for some reason decided to sit in Piazza Grimana for a couple of hours on the evening of 1st November 2007, his testimony would still be open to considerable debate and challenge.

So when you add in the facts that Curatolo a) manifestly linked what he says he saw to the night of the 31st rather than the 1st, and b) was a shambling drug-addict who had a clear potential motivation to ingratiate himself to the authorities, what you're left with is nothing more than an empty husk of credibility and reliability.

 

[Planigale]

In the US Mignini would be a member for the Bar association and one can be disbarred for acting unethically for things that are NOT against the law.

Indeed due to prosecutorial immunity in the US this might be the only approach. From what I read state bar associations are active in bringing actions against badly behaving prosecutors - not.

I think it is worth remembering all jurisdictions have problems. The fact that US prosecutors and judges are elected officials leads them to have to think about making popular decisions. Death penalty convictions can aid re-election. Deal making leads to threats of the most severe penalties which are not just, to force admission of guilt, and denying the right to trial. We know some innocent people are convicted this way, and it is very hard to appeal. If this case had been in the US there may have been a death penalty held over the heads of the accused, I can imagine Rudy cutting a deal and bearing false eye witness evidence in turn for a reduction of sentence, and that would be it. The Italian system actually has protection against some of the systemic faults of US (by which I mean state rather than federal) judicial system.

Finally even in cases of wrongful conviction there is a huge tendency to cut a deal and offer a pardon which is not an admission of wrongful conviction and means that no compensation is given vs. threatening continued detention pending retrial.

But these faults are recognised by americans, and people will strive to improve the system.

This does not alter the fact that in this case the forensic investigation was incompetent. That there is no physical evidence against Amanda Knox, the principle evidence is moral, and dubious psychological interpretations of falsely reported behaviour. In a fantastic construct to try and incorporate AK and RS in to the every day criminal actions of RG. The investigatory judicial system seems to be unable to properly hold the prosecution to acceptable standards because the judges who evaluate the evidence are also investigatory. This results in reaching conclusions neither the police nor defence argued (e.g. knife carrying) to which the defence never had opportunity to respond.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'd like to see it too, for various reasons. For one thing, how on Earth could it warrant lasting 23 minutes?! I am utterly dumbstruck as to why it could possibly be necessary to animate 23 minutes' worth of re-enactment (or, more accurately, the prosecutors' baseless version of events that's no more than lurid conjecture, and which is virtually unsupported by the physical evidence).

For another thing, I'd like to see just how amateurish this animation was. From what I think I know (if the stills I'm thinking of are from this animation), it was an extremely basic affair, which hadn't even been fully-rendered, let alone textured. If that's correct, then I guarantee that this animation could have been created by a competent amateur using a decent home computer and some off-the-shelf (and inexpensive) animation software. I realise that we're a few years down the line from when the animation was made, but here's an example of current animation software that runs on home PCs that would produce vastly superior results for $200:

http://www.reallusion.com/store/purchase_ic.aspx

(In fact, the cheaper $80 version would still produce better results than the stills I saw, if they are indeed from Comodi's animation).

Incidentally, once the avatars for the four actors have been created and animated, and once the set has been created, it's not that much more incremental effort to create a 23-minute animation than to create a 1-minute animation (perhaps four times as much extra effort, rather than 23 times as much extra effort). It should have taken no more than two weeks of manpower at the absolute upper limit. To an experienced computer animation artist, I suggest it could be done in a few man-days.


And yes, I'd also like to know how Mignini seems to have (for the moment) escaped accountability for this issue. Perhaps we might find out more about this on or after the 6th December hearing.

From what I have been told about this, it covers more than just the murder itself. It leads the viewer through an imaginary scenario where Amanda and Raffaele go out and meet Guede, and then go back to the cottage and start some altercation with Meredith. I think they did refine the figures somewhat from the working sketches we have seen.

The software cost is negligible. A lot of animators use Blender, which is free. But it takes skilled labor to do a good job and that gets expensive.

Massei was very turned off by this production. If Vogt, of all people, is panning it, it must be pretty bad.

Maybe the vendor specializes in surveillance work, but they have some in-house design capabilities, and they sold the prosecutor on this idea, or else they agreed to do it if it was the prosecutor's idea. Then they did a crappy job, because it wasn't a core competency. Since it depicts something that did not really happen, it is not accurate from a forensic POV. It ended up being an embarrassment, but Mignini and Comodi were too dumb to see that, so they showed it anyway.

One would expect something like that to be swept under the rug. So who are these concerned citizens of Perugia who are pushing for an investigation now? That baffles me.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Indeed due to prosecutorial immunity in the US this might be the only approach. From what I read state bar associations are active in bringing actions against badly behaving prosecutors - not.

I think it is worth remembering all jurisdictions have problems. The fact that US prosecutors and judges are elected officials leads them to have to think about making popular decisions. Death penalty convictions can aid re-election. Deal making leads to threats of the most severe penalties which are not just, to force admission of guilt, and denying the right to trial. We know some innocent people are convicted this way, and it is very hard to appeal. If this case had been in the US there may have been a death penalty held over the heads of the accused, I can imagine Rudy cutting a deal and bearing false eye witness evidence in turn for a reduction of sentence, and that would be it. The Italian system actually has protection against some of the systemic faults of US (by which I mean state rather than federal) judicial system.

This is very true, and it's something many US followers of this case don't understand. The US system is at least as bad as Italy's. Christopher Ochoa falsely confessed, and falsely accused his friend Richard Danziger, and then he actually testified against Danziger for the very reason you say - to avoid the DP.

But, what has happened in the Michael Morton case shows that when the public really understands that prosecutors have intentionally railroaded someone or suppressed exculpatory evidence, they will demand a penalty.

 

[Dan O.]

Has anyone considered that the animation might just be a bone tossed to the dogs to keep them quiet about something they would have been involved in. What was it that they primarily did? Something about computerized audio recordings...

 

[RoseMontague]

Has anyone considered that the animation might just be a bone tossed to the dogs to keep them quiet about something they would have been involved in. What was it that they primarily did? Something about computerized audio recordings...

Interesting. Were not some of the wiretapped conversations lost as well?

 

[Antony]

As another interesting parallel, close-up magicians know very well of a fascinating phenomenon related to audience interaction. In its most simple manifestation as an example, it's well known that if a confident magician asks someone to "pick a card" from a regular deck, then shows them a different card (if the trick's gone wrong) and announces with a flourish "And is THIS your card?!", a significant proportion of people will reply "Yes!" in genuine astonishment and admiration.

What's happening is that some people are so invested in the powers of the magician - and they so want the illusion to work - that they can immediately convince themselves that whatever card the magician says is genuinely the card they chose, even when they saw and recognised a totally different card just seconds earlier. Elements of this type of psychological interplay between "authority expert figure with special powers" and "person who wants to believe in the authority and powers of that expert" are also partly/significantly responsible for the effect of hypnotism (some argue that almost all of the effects of hypnotism are entirely due to this phenomenon).

It's not too difficult to see how this sort of well-known and well-documented phenomenon might be potentially relevant to police/public and courts/public interactions.

The difference here is that the magician's audience know very well that he is performing an illusion - that he doesn't really have magical powers. They are actually enjoying the fact that they are being deceived, and the performer has their admiration for being able to hide his methods.

By contrast, the PGP in the Knox debate seem actually to believe that the Perugia police really identified 2 of the 3 killers within 4 days of the crime, without any proper evidence; that they walked into Raff's kitchen and the first knife they picked up really was the murder weapon; and that they returned to the crime scene 6 weeks later and there really was an item lying on the floor carrying DNA originating from the commission of the crime.

The irony is that the investigators' methods of pulling off these conjuring tricks are plain for all to see - and yet the prosecutors and their supporters want us to believe that all of their conclusions are 100% sound. It's like someone in a conjurer's audience arguing "He really can do magic! If you say you can see how he did it, you're wrong because you can't prove he did it that way!"

 

[acbytesla]

It's a problem that nullifies his testimony on its own.

Even 30 meters at night would make identification difficult. That is a 100 feet. At night is the poorly lit Piazza? Seriously?

 

[Antony]

The high court acted farily and correctly. Hellmann-Zanetti was a proven abomination. It was a racist, filthy and inconsistent verdict wrong on so many points of law that the PG even failed to list them all.

Interesting claim. The ISC judgement and the critics of Hellman have never cited even one point of law. Everything is in terms of arguing with Hellman's interpretation of the evidence. On the other hand, the entire history of this case is riddled with breaches of law by the prosecution, and the one conviction against Amanda that does stand - the callunia charge - is itself grossly illegal.

How about identifying the points of law, Machiavelli? You don't have to list them all if there are too many - just the ones that invalidate the Hellman judgement. Since there are supposedly so many of them, it should be an easy task.

 

[acbytesla]

Indeed due to prosecutorial immunity in the US this might be the only approach. From what I read state bar associations are active in bringing actions against badly behaving prosecutors - not.

I think it is worth remembering all jurisdictions have problems. The fact that US prosecutors and judges are elected officials leads them to have to think about making popular decisions. Death penalty convictions can aid re-election. Deal making leads to threats of the most severe penalties which are not just, to force admission of guilt, and denying the right to trial. We know some innocent people are convicted this way, and it is very hard to appeal. If this case had been in the US there may have been a death penalty held over the heads of the accused, I can imagine Rudy cutting a deal and bearing false eye witness evidence in turn for a reduction of sentence, and that would be it. The Italian system actually has protection against some of the systemic faults of US (by which I mean state rather than federal) judicial system.

Finally even in cases of wrongful conviction there is a huge tendency to cut a deal and offer a pardon which is not an admission of wrongful conviction and means that no compensation is given vs. threatening continued detention pending retrial.

But these faults are recognised by americans, and people will strive to improve the system.

These certainly are some of the problems in the US. Since our system is Federal, these problems vary significantly not only from state to state, but county to county. The plea bargaining and the use of reduced sentences to secure testimony are some of the most troubling, particularly when the defendants are poor and cannot afford competent representation.

But one of the other things that is troubling is just how professional or unprofessional police, prosecution and investigators might be depending on the jurisdiction. Some places have competent coroners and medical examiners and many do not.

A county with a large population may have 40, 50 even a couple a hundred murders a year. They tend to have seasoned investigators who know how to examine a crime scene and interview a suspect professionally. But the opposite is also true. Rural counties might not see a murder for years and coroners, police, detectives who are often clueless. This is hardly an issue with just Perugia.

 

[Dan O.]

Even 30 meters at night would make identification difficult. That is a 100 feet. At night is the poorly lit Piazza? Seriously?

Did we mention that it was through trees?

 

[Grinder]

Once again if an Italian speaker could look at Curatolo's testimony I'd appreciate a better translation of his testimony.

Massei reports this: Curatolo Antonio then said that on the evening of November - the specification of the date seems to be certain because it was the night immediately preceding the day on which, as always reported by Curatolo, police and carabinieri began to crowd the area due to the Meredith murder – at about nine-thirty, ten o'clock he was on the bench in Piazza Grimana reading the articles of his interest in L'Espresso weekly magazine. Every now and then he smoked a cigarette, stopped reading the magazine and looked around at the people who lived in or around the Piazza Grimana.
He perceived the presence, at the end of the basketball court, of "two young people that were looking like two sweethearts discussing a bit in a heated way amongst them ... every some time one would get up and walk on the way where is the railing and look down" (page 5 hearing of March 28, 2009). He stated he had not seen them coming and when he looked down at the basketball court they were already there (p. 19). He remembers also the presence of other people. He reported of having seen the two young people until before midnight. He recognized the two people as the two defendants, who were in the room, he indicated them and specified he already knew them having seen them before, although never together but each on their own. (page 18 hearing of 28.3.2009). He added, as he left the Piazza shortly before midnight the two youngsters were not there anymore.

Here is the link to Amanda's list of documents

Here my translation using Google

I'll I said , I was on the bench to the
half-past nine , ten o'clock, I was up to at
midnight there.
QUESTION - And these two boys when he saw them ?
ANSWER - Up to before midnight that I was a bit '
tired of reading, I had lit a cigarette , I look
always people passing , the movement that is important to us
Piazza Grimana and then after I have not seen again.
QUESTION - So you saw them just before midnight and ...
ANSWER - The last time yes .
QUESTION - then did not see them anymore?
ANSWER - No.
QUESTION - How long has observed them ?
ANSWER - Let's say that every time you read the staccavo
newspaper , I have smoked three or four cigarettes so .

 

[Bill Williams]

From what I have been told about this, it covers more than just the murder itself. It leads the viewer through an imaginary scenario where Amanda and Raffaele go out and meet Guede, and then go back to the cottage and start some altercation with Meredith. I think they did refine the figures somewhat from the working sketches we have seen.

The software cost is negligible. A lot of animators use Blender, which is free. But it takes skilled labor to do a good job and that gets expensive.

Massei was very turned off by this production. If Vogt, of all people, is panning it, it must be pretty bad.

Maybe the vendor specializes in surveillance work, but they have some in-house design capabilities, and they sold the prosecutor on this idea, or else they agreed to do it if it was the prosecutor's idea. Then they did a crappy job, because it wasn't a core competency. Since it depicts something that did not really happen, it is not accurate from a forensic POV. It ended up being an embarrassment, but Mignini and Comodi were too dumb to see that, so they showed it anyway.

One would expect something like that to be swept under the rug. So who are these concerned citizens of Perugia who are pushing for an investigation now? That baffles me.

...... it simply cannot be overstated the effect this cartoon had on the decision of the Massei court.

Other than perhaps it fostering some final emotional impact....

... if the video is as depicted, this is NOT the version of events described in the Massei motivations report. As far as contributing to understanding the time line and motivations of the alleged perps, the cartoon contributed little if anything, really, even to the court which convicted the pair. The is 0% chance this will be shown in the Nencini court, which is perhaps the trigger for going after Comodi now. (I can just see her with her nose pressed up against the glass on the door to Nencini's courtroom... "But what about my video!??")

Machiavelli, for instance, can bleat all he wants about things.... but a video recreation of the attack on Meredith, based on Massei's reconstruction:

..... would show Knox and Sollecito messing around in Knox's room. Guede going into Meredith's room. Knox and Sollecito being alerted to "something happening" in Meredith's room. When they go and check they see that Guded is molesting Meredith.....

.... and completely inexplicably (and in a relatively short timeframe) make a spontaneous "choice for evil" to join in with Rudy in killing Meredith.

That's pretty much it, acc. to Massei. I do wish people would at least read the Massei report, esp. Machiavelli. Massei writes how inexplicable it is that two otherwise psychopathological-free, promising students would do this.

I'd also like to see an animated mock-up of how the supposed clean-up was done. It would have to show how Knox and Sollecito brought their portable electron microscope into Meredith's room - all the while levitating the microscope so that it's little feet didn't leave depression marks in the bedroom's cheap floor, or disturb the blood. Those machines are heavy suckers....

 

[acbytesla]

Did we mention that it was through trees?

Well if they are on the basketball court and he is on his bench it is through trees.

You know what really bothers me about Toto's testimony besides everything? It is the detail of the incident. He talks about going over to look at the clock, and precisely when he smokes a cigarette. Seriously, even if you remember seeing these two people, are you going to remember when you smoke a cigarette? Anyone who smokes, not something I do, but I've been around enough smokers to say unequivocally that this is like breathing, it is something smokers do without even thinking about it.

This is what you would say was made up fill. It would be one thing for him to say when questioned what he was doing at that time to say, "Oh, I'm not sure..what I always do, read and smoke."