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

[acbytesla]

Funny, I wrote almost the exact same scenario, I swear I didn't read your post before I posted mine.

What do they say about great minds?

 

[davefoc]

...
The .43 g/l is about one drink I think.

Well, I didn't think so, in fact I was pretty sure you were wrong.

I've served on a couple of DUI juries and thought I knew this pretty well. The number we were provided was .02 percent for a standard drink for a 170 pound man.

I knew the rate per pound was a bit more for a woman than a man and that Kercher weighed less than 170 pounds but I still guessed she'd be pretty close to the .02 per cent per drink for a man. But I guessed wrong based on a few internet sites. The number would be about .04 percent per drink for a 120 pound woman. This certainly explains my observation that women are more quick to show the effects of alcohol than men. It sounds like it might be common place for a woman to achieve a BAC content of double that of a man if they drank the same amount.

 

[Antony]

Can someone clarify for me the detail about the clothes in the washer? What is the evidence that Meredith loaded the machine before going out to meet her friends, so that the cycle would have been complete at the time she got home?

If I were PGP, I would explain this plausibly by saying that Meredith could have loaded the machine after coming home, so that it was running at the time of the murder, and it doesn't indicate that she had a task left unattended when she was killed.

Amanda's email

He came right after i started eating and
he made himself some pasta. as we were eating together meredith came
out of the shower and grabbed some laundry or put some laundry in, one
or the other and returned into her room after saying hi to raffael.

Thanks for that. Since we are convinced of Amanda's innocence and trustworthiness, it's another strong indication of how brutally quickly Meredith's evening resting alone in her home was cut short.

However, without wishing to play devil's advocate, we can't really cite it as evidence supporting Amanda's innocence, since if guilty it's something she could have made up.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks for that. Since we are convinced of Amanda's innocence and trustworthiness, it's another strong indication of how brutally quickly Meredith's evening resting alone in her home was cut short.

However, without wishing to play devil's advocate, we can't really cite it as evidence supporting Amanda's innocence, since if guilty it's something she could have made up.

That's the problem Antony. All of the police testimony is pure speculation and because of all of the mysterious happenings in this case, Amanda and Raffaele were left with their word against Amanda and Raffaele and since they are the accused it is assumed that they would lie.

What happened to the lawyer's laptop or his neighbor's gold watch? If these two pieces of evidence hadn't miraculously disappeared or the hard drives frying or Raffaele's DVR hadn't been accessed or the interrogation recordings disappearing there would be very solid evidence that would have helped to exonerate A and R. But instead you have the moron Mignini ordering Lalli NOT to take the body's temperature, you have the prosecution without any proof saying Lalli botched the autopsy, the semen not being tested

Time and time and time again, the police screwed things up and every mistake seemed to go against Amanda and Raffaele. Don't tell me there wasn't deliberate corruption in this case. There are way too many suspicious coincidences.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

He is trying to infer that Lalli is a dip stick. I have better proof that he could use. Lalli forgot to weigh the body! One of the first things you do at an autopsy.

None the less video evidence (not publicly available) that he properly segregated the digestive system is proof beyond doubt that he did do this correctly and so we can trust the digestive data.

The alcohol from what I recall is perhaps worth someone taking the time to go back and revisit (I wont do this because I simply don't have time) From memory I seem to recall that one "expert" found an excessive BAC which indicated something near a lethal level of BAC but a retest was done and a tiny level of alcohol was revealed and the conclusion was improper storage of the test sample IIRC. I'm pretty sure the high BAC was wrong since MK was able to walk home according to the evidence. Now did the Britt pals lie about having wine with supper? Going by their one sided dishonest testimony I would lean towards yes...yes they did lie...errr forget about that fact. Or the tiny level could be from the drunken excess the night before...it hardly matters since no conclusion can be made about it.

Grinder want us to think that MK may have entertained or imbibed after leaving SP. Sure OK...did the police find the empties? Was alcohol available at the cottage? All plain and simple and easily determined data. Just ask the police what they discovered. There should be no guess work necessary. If there is then no conclusion can be made from the missing data IMO. Just WAG's that are pointless.


ETA...Lalli is a pathologist. A lab tech would do the BAC test. So sure the autopsy could be right and the lab test wrong...this is just not that tough. Especially since the TOD conclusion fits several other points of circumstantial evidence. And if you want to allude that Kercher may have been a semi lush, that's fine, but I hardly find it relevant.

I have no idea if Lalli was competent or if he did a good job. I can only say his conclusion with regard to the stomach contents is consistent with the rest of the evidence.

If people want to argue that the possibility he could have made a mistake is proof he did make a mistake, that is typical guilter reasoning and I am sick of even thinking about it.

As for the BAC of a corpse... I don't understand this subject, and I don't think anyone else here does either. We are not forensic pathologists. I know just enough to realize I am seeing some naive inferences.

 

[Samson]

Thanks for that. Since we are convinced of Amanda's innocence and trustworthiness, it's another strong indication of how brutally quickly Meredith's evening resting alone in her home was cut short.

However, without wishing to play devil's advocate, we can't really cite it as evidence supporting Amanda's innocence, since if guilty it's something she could have made up.

Parsing Amanda's email was easy, it was the second document I read after Ron Hendry's crime reconstruction. If a class of 20 year olds were offered only these, and asked for their verdict...

Too simple, but it will be done one day.

 

[Dan O.]

I do not know enough to debate the possibility that he screwed up the autopsy by pushing intestinal contents back into the stomach without realizing it. I don't know if this ever happens, or how common it might be.

If another pathologist watched the autopsy video they should be able to make an informed opinion. I thought the prosecution put on an expert that made the speculation of failure to tie off the intestines who hadn't even watched the video.

 

[acbytesla]

If another pathologist watched the autopsy video they should be able to make an informed opinion. I thought the prosecution put on an expert that made the speculation of failure to tie off the intestines who hadn't even watched the video.

Figures..

 

[Strozzi]

If the Guede-o was listenin' to Get Low, it's pretty revealing what was on his mind, but yet I still think that it's kinda weird how the dude did not even pack some condoms as he dressed and prepped before headin' over there, right?

.

RWVBWL , I think you have the wrong impression of Rudy. Why do you think Rudy was hoping to have sex with Meredith on the first date? Rudy's not that kind of guy.

He went to see her because they talked on Holloween evening at the disco and Meredith welcomed him to come visit her at 9 pm the next night. The only thing I can't figure out is why Meredith borrowed the history book to study that evening. Maybe she was going to ask Rudy to help her with her homework.
I'm sure Mignini can offer a well-supported theory to educate us on this . . . "poor Rudy".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If another pathologist watched the autopsy video they should be able to make an informed opinion. I thought the prosecution put on an expert that made the speculation of failure to tie off the intestines who hadn't even watched the video.

That's my recollection, I think it was Introna.

What's puzzles me, though, is how Massei and Christiani saw their way to explaining away the autopsy evidence on the basis of that speculation, when they had access to the autopsy video that could prove that speculation simply false. That's one part of the Massei/Christiani report I find very hard to reconcile with the idea that they didn't know they were sending Knox and Sollecito down with a provably false prosecution story.

 

[Supernaut]

I think you owe me an apology for implying that I said the stomach should have been empty when in fact I said that there should have been something in the duodenum by then.

I'd apologise for misunderstanding you if I was actually any nearer understanding your point.

In the last few days you've stated (out of the blue, AFAIK) that you believe Meredith died closer to 22.00 than 21.00.

Then you decided that there's "something wrong" with the pathology gleaned from Lalli's autopsy, and that (in your opinion) the state of digestion implies a TOD closer to 20.00. I take this to be a gratuitous attempt to cast doubt on, if not discredit the pathology as evidence (and I can't say it's very amusing).

I think this is really more of a game to you than anything else.

 

[Supernaut]

That's my recollection, I think it was Introna.

What's puzzles me, though, is how Massei and Christiani saw their way to explaining away the autopsy evidence on the basis of that speculation, when they had access to the autopsy video that could prove that speculation simply false. That's one part of the Massei/Christiani report I find very hard to reconcile with the idea that they didn't know they were sending Knox and Sollecito down with a provably false prosecution story.

Essentially, when Mignini decided it wasn't to his advantage to question Lalli about the autopsy results, he had the authority to simply dismiss him, and prevent any further examination of this evidence.

Even allowing for Italy's ever-shambolic political landscape, and it's recent fascist past, for the life of me, I can't figure out who would EVER have thought it was a good idea to invest such arbitrary power in individual judges/public prosecutors, and then actually codify it in law.

What purpose was it imagined it would serve? How was it thought it would be of benefit to anyone (except deranged, self-serving bullies like Mignini), even under fascist government?

[ETA >> I've heard it said that it was seen as expedient for dealing with organised criminals (mafia) in some way, but I still don't get it.]

 

[Grinder]

I am not contesting the findings. I don't dispute that alcohol may have been present in the samples in the quantities he measured. I question whether it means she was drinking. Did he say that is what it meant? Did anyone - prosecution or defense - testify at the trial that forensic evidence showed Meredith had consumed alcohol on the day or evening of her murder?

When reading Massei I was surprised to find the results because I had remembered the early problems of the .25 finding and had only remembered that it was thrown out because the container had alcohol in it or some such issue.

Although I had followed the discussions and reporting I didn't remember any discussion of the alcohol. Because the initial reports had her meeting her killer at the party, the quick change to she had no fault, the british girls' testimony about her not drinking at the pizza party or meeting anyone the night before and Rudy saying he had set something up, I thought it was and is worthwhile reconstructing her last 24 hours in a search of the truth.

I can only speculate on what that alcohol could mean but for one thing if she had the equivalent of three drinks in her system when she started dinner that could slow down digestion. If one wants to believe that Lalli did that part correctly then three hours for nothing to make it to the duodenum seems too long.

While it is clear that under certain circumstances BAC can be significantly off, in this case the body was kept at a low temp and covered. Perhaps there is a study of homeless men found dead under their sleeping bag outside that could shed light on this case.

 

[Grinder]

I'm going by the totality of the evidence. What Lalli reported is consistent with the evidence showing that Meredith was killed after she walked in on a burglary around 9 pm.

Isn't that a little backward logic? You believe it because it fits your defense theory.

I do not know enough to debate the possibility that he screwed up the autopsy by pushing intestinal contents back into the stomach without realizing it. I don't know if this ever happens, or how common it might be.

It would go the other way except when a pilot is involved. The chyme slips down the intestines not back to the stomach.

I suspect - don't know - that it is far less common than a lab test showing alcohol in the blood of someone who had not been drinking before her death, but had been dead for more than 24 hours before the blood was drawn. I know enough to realize that does actually happen.

And they did the confirming liver test. The body was kept on cold tiles and covered. I think if this would exonerate Amanda there would be no cites of pilot BAC issues or arguments about BAC in general.

Clearly care must be taken when doing post mortem work including BAC. The body can produce alcohol but in this case the environment the body was in was not conducive to do that.

 

[Grinder]

Randy....see evidence from Massei re the computer from Brocchi office a few posts up....

ETA: This was garnered from TMoMK site, but definitely references Palazzoli's testimony.

I posted the lawyers' testimony but since they don't say "he came and apologized but DIDN'T bring back the computer" it isn't good enough to show that he in fact didn't bring it back.

If someone were to provide any such proof I would welcome our enhanced knowledge of the case.

Someone here also was contending that one of the lawyers he apologized to ended up going to Germany when Rudy was arrested but the wording allowed for it be another lawyer from the firm, which I also don't think is true.

When challenged on this point there was no reply.

I would very much like proof that the Milan police were instructed by the PLE to let Rudy keep stolen items and send him on back to apologize. Further I'd like then to find out from Mach if this is standard procedure in Italy or if that would indicate the PLE had a "special" relationship with Rudy.

But first we need some credible source that indicates Rudy returned the stolen items. IIRC some items stolen were not with Rudy.

 

[yimyammer]

Apparently not.

Most Western countries, defamation is a civil offense. That means a private party must sue you. The state has nothing to do with it. The plaintiff will be awarded damages and those are reasonable. Italy has had these "honor laws" that have their roots in the Mussolini era.

Article 19 an International Organization committed to the right of freedom of expression has been petitioning Italy to decriminalize and reduce fines for defamation for a long time.

Unfortunately, these laws create a cottage industry in Italy so many lawyers and prosecutors are fighting decriminalization. Recently their Senate drafted some a bill that proposed some reforms, while a step in the right direction do not go far enough.

http://www.article19.org/resources..../italy:-urgent-need-to-reform-defamation-laws

Would I get thrown in jail if I went to Italy & did this:

Edited by LashL: 

Removed image in breach of Rule 5 and Rule 10.

 

[christianahannah]

That's my recollection, I think it was Introna.

What's puzzles me, though, is how Massei and Christiani saw their way to explaining away the autopsy evidence on the basis of that speculation, when they had access to the autopsy video that could prove that speculation simply false. That's one part of the Massei/Christiani report I find very hard to reconcile with the idea that they didn't know they were sending Knox and Sollecito down with a provably false prosecution story.

I think Introna was a defense consultant. It was Ronchi who gave testimony concerning ligatures. He was a consultant appointed by the GIP at the preliminary hearing. I guess he could be classified as an independent expert?

I don't know the extent of how he reviewed the autopsy done by Lalli (through videos, photos, reports, etc.). His testimony during the first instance trial may have that information.

There were many experts heard from both the prosecution and defense, including Lalli, and those appointed. I don't know how many viewed the autopsy video.

 

[Grinder]

He is trying to infer that Lalli is a dip stick. I have better proof that he could use. Lalli forgot to weigh the body! One of the first things you do at an autopsy.

Betting that Charlie doesn't ask if you are an expert.

You have it 180 off. I think Lalli was one of the best in the PLE and always thought his being thrown off the case by Mignini was because he would be harder to control.

I think he was a professional and did a good job on the BAC and the duodenum.

None the less video evidence (not publicly available) that he properly segregated the digestive system is proof beyond doubt that he did do this correctly and so we can trust the digestive data.

How do you know if you haven't seen it? Is there a report or story of some sort where a person that saw this video is quoted?

While I have always trusted Lalli's work, could it be that the video doesn't show what you say?

The alcohol from what I recall is perhaps worth someone taking the time to go back and revisit (I wont do this because I simply don't have time) From memory I seem to recall that one "expert" found an excessive BAC which indicated something near a lethal level of BAC but a retest was done and a tiny level of alcohol was revealed and the conclusion was improper storage of the test sample IIRC. I'm pretty sure the high BAC was wrong since MK was able to walk home according to the evidence. Now did the Britt pals lie about having wine with supper? Going by their one sided dishonest testimony I would lean towards yes...yes they did lie...errr forget about that fact. Or the tiny level could be from the drunken excess the night before...it hardly matters since no conclusion can be made about it.

Perhaps you should read the posts on the subject which include cites of what the experts said. Funny that this is something that a conclusion can't be made from since so many other conclusions are made from so little.

Grinder want us to think that MK may have entertained or imbibed after leaving SP. Sure OK...did the police find the empties? Was alcohol available at the cottage? All plain and simple and easily determined data. Just ask the police what they discovered. There should be no guess work necessary. If there is then no conclusion can be made from the missing data IMO. Just WAG's that are pointless.

I've explained some of the possibilities that might be of significance.

While I have always believed in Lalli's work perhaps I should reconsider ALL of his work.

One of the great mysteries here has been why the defense hasn't pounded on the state of Meredith's digestive tract. Rolfe has made it clear that she believes the death occurred at 9:05 pm primarily because of the lack of chyme in the duodenum. Most she believes that earliest time because three hours after beginning eating is on the long end of that process starting.

From everything discussed here a very good reason needs to be given for that process not have started by 10 at the absolute latest.

Why didn't the defense pound on this in the first trial when the prosecution was saying that the murder happened after 11 at night?

For the first time Randy has made me wonder if the video of the autopsy proves the duodenum check was done as perfectly as I was always under the impression it was.

Does someone have a good reason why the defense didn't pound the issue?

 

[Grinder]

Apparently not.

Most Western countries, defamation is a civil offense. That means a private party must sue you. The state has nothing to do with it. The plaintiff will be awarded damages and those are reasonable. Italy has had these "honor laws" that have their roots in the Mussolini era.

Article 19 an International Organization committed to the right of freedom of expression has been petitioning Italy to decriminalize and reduce fines for defamation for a long time.

Unfortunately, these laws create a cottage industry in Italy so many lawyers and prosecutors are fighting decriminalization. Recently their Senate drafted some a bill that proposed some reforms, while a step in the right direction do not go far enough.

http://www.article19.org/resources..../italy:-urgent-need-to-reform-defamation-laws

False reporting of a crime is a crime. Perjury is a crime.

 

[Grinder]

Ummm... Im on your side Randy. Brocchi never got the computer back. Guede did not return computer when he visited the office. He did not have it. It was in Police hands. Another computer's info MIA.

Randy maintained Rudy returned the computer and he or one of his associates then went to Germany to help Rudy.

I hate to tell whose side you are on