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

[acbytesla]

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

[qimg]http://www.michelelenzi.com/imgblog/vaffanculo.jpg[/qimg]

Maybe, but I don't think so. I'm not sure a simple insult qualifies. Maybe Machiavelli would comment.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Anyway, if you are correct Meredith at under 100 lbs would be close to .04 with one drink. If she had .043 as the autopsy said it would be the equivalent of just over one drink.

 

[andreajo]

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.



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?


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.



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?

According to Raffaele, they tried to get an independent analysis of the TOD results from the autopsy but were turned down (first trial).

“By early October, we were ready to petition the court for an independent analysis of the prosecution’s most important data: the DNA evidence, the autopsy results including the estimated time of death, and the computer analysis that had burned through three computers and potentially compromised a fourth.”

Excerpt From: Sollecito, Raffaele. “Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox.” Gallery Books

He also says that the autopsy video shows that the intestinal tie-offs were done correctly, but does not say who it was who watched the video and gave that opinion.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Do we know they disappeared?

 

[Grinder]

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..

Ah, the genesis of another known part of the conspiracy.

 

[acbytesla]

Do we know they disappeared?

Well that apparently is what I am reading in the forum today. That the laptop was never returned to the lawyer and and there is no record of it. This is what I read about the gold watch as well.

This is all strange, considering that is what the Milan police recorded what was found on Rudy when he was detained/arrested at the nursery. In the US or at least Seattle. The police officer would have described the laptop, make/model S/N and it would have been impounded by the police and entered into the stolen goods database. Now, I'm wondering if they recorded the items that were on Rudy and assumed that they weren't stolen and let him go like they were part of his personal possessions or more likely, some member of the Milan or Perugian police department walked off with them as part of their own personal compensation package

 

[Grinder]

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.

Well somebody did.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Here's what you wrote:

You misunderstand.

NONE of Meredith's last meal (a light supper of pizza begun at c. 18.00, and an apple-crumble an hour or so later) would have been in her stomach after c. 22.00 - 22.30.

The pathology would allow for a TOD as early as 20.00, but definitely no later than c. 22.00.

I'm saying that Grinder's, er, proposal that it was "strange" that she still had food in her stomach when she was killed, 3 or so hours after she'd eaten, is what's moot.

I never said anything close to that. I said that it was on the long end of digestion to start by 9 or 9:15. Not finish.

During a previous discussion of BAC Chris became a little interested when I mentioned that could explain the longish time it took for chyme to move to the duodenum.

Clearly you taking statins not magnesium threonate.

ETA - and you are a serious contributor to the defense team?

 

[Grinder]

According to Raffaele, they tried to get an independent analysis of the TOD results from the autopsy but were turned down (first trial).

“By early October, we were ready to petition the court for an independent analysis of the prosecution’s most important data: the DNA evidence, the autopsy results including the estimated time of death, and the computer analysis that had burned through three computers and potentially compromised a fourth.”

He also says that the autopsy video shows that the intestinal tie-offs were done correctly, but does not say who it was who watched the video and gave that opinion.

He also said he emailed in the middle of the night .

Seriously, we all know that the Lalli findings had no chyme in the duodenum. The above doesn't explain why the defense didn't pound and pound on the TOD and that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the prosecution's TOD to be valid.

The chance that she ate at 6 and had nothing in the duodenum at 11 was as close to zero as possible. If she ate at 6:30, the latest possible, it would still be highly, highly unlikely that nothing would be there in a death after 10.

The prosecution moved the TOD later from their first leaks and moved Curatolo earlier to accommodate their needed timelines. The defense did show by accident that Massei's figuring on Curatolo's sighting times because of disco bus schedules was wrong.

The defense should go all out on the later time Curatolo gave and the TOD by pathology.

 

[Grinder]

Well that apparently is what I am reading in the forum today. That the laptop was never returned to the lawyer and and there is no record of it. This is what I read about the gold watch as well.

This is all strange, considering that is what the Milan police recorded what was found on Rudy when he was detained/arrested at the nursery. In the US or at least Seattle. The police officer would have described the laptop, make/model S/N and it would have been impounded by the police and entered into the stolen goods database. Now, I'm wondering if they recorded the items that were on Rudy and assumed that they weren't stolen and let him go like they were part of his personal possessions or more likely, some member of the Milan or Perugian police department walked off with them as part of their own personal compensation package

Tesla they ID'ed the computer as stolen and contacted the PLE. The story told by the PIP/FOA has always been that they caught him for all of it.

Perhaps Mach can look up the details of the event in Milan for us. The owner of the nursery was interviewed but I can't remember if she said anything about the laptop etc.

I see no reason to assume that lawyers didn't get the laptops back from the police. Perhaps an Italian speaker could contact the lawyers and ask them.

Patrick King wrote:Back in Milan on October 27, Maria Del Prato walked into her office in her nursery school to find a young black man unhooking the cable to her computer in order to plug it into his laptop. This was Rudy Guede and Ms. Del Prato said he was very relaxed. He advised her not to worry. He hadn’t taken anything.

Ms. Del Prato immediately called the police to whom Rudy gave a story about being told he could purchase lodging there for fifty euro. The police went through his back pack and found, along with a large kitchen knife he’d taken from the nursery school kitchen, a laptop and cell phone and a woman’s gold watch. The laptop was identified as belonging to the law firm of Paolo Brocchi that was recently burglarized. Rudy told police he’d bought the laptop from a man at the Milan train station.

The Milan police wanted to hold Rudy but the prosecutor said he had more important cases and that Rudy was Perugia’s problem. They sent him back to Perugia.

On Monday morning, Rudy presented himself at the law offices of Paolo Brocchi to apologize for having their laptop. Once again he told the story about the man at the Milan train station.

ETA2 - The police told her that the computer had been stolen from a law office in Perugia. The witness stated that she was with her six year old son, with a smith [fabbro] who was there to do some work, and with a rep.
46
Rudy Guede justified his presence by saying that he had asked at the central train station of Milan where he could spend [33] the night, and that this nursery school had been indicated to him after he had paid 50 euros to his informant. The witness stated that the knife came from the kitchen; the kitchen door was not locked and Rudy Guede must have taken it from there.
The witnesses Paolo Brocchi and Matteo Palazzoli, lawyers, testified on the subject of the burglary of their legal office, located in via del Roscetto 3, Perugia, on the night between Saturday October 13 and Sunday October 14, 2007. The thief or thieves had entered through a window whose panes had been smashed with a rather large stone; the glass was scattered around, and they had found some of their clothing on top of the glass (p. 10, hearing June 6, 2009). From the first inventory they did, they found that a computer, a cell phone, USB keys and a portable printer were missing. On October 29, a colleague in the law office had called the lawyer Paolo Brocchi to tell him that in the corridor was a person who said that he had been found with some goods in Milan, goods that had been declared stolen by the lawyer Brocchi, but which he claimed to have purchased legitimately in Milan. Later, the lawyer Paolo Brocchi recognised this person as Rudy Guede (p. 20, hearing of June 6, 2009).
The lawyer Palazzoli, who testified at the same hearing, and who was a colleague in the same law firm as Brocchi, declared that the broken window was "a French window opening onto a small balcony overlooking the inner courtyard of the building; beneath it, corresponding precisely to our window, there is a door equipped with a metal grille..." (p. 41, hearing of June 26, 2009). He also stated that he had been notified that the computer which had been stolen from him had been found in Milan.

Looks like the MLE or PLE informed him about the computer. Somehow I doubt that they said they found it in a guys backpack and sent him on his way with it.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla they ID'ed the computer as stolen and contacted the PLE. The story told by the PIP/FOA has always been that they caught him for all of it.

Perhaps Mach can look up the details of the event in Milan for us. The owner of the nursery was interviewed but I can't remember if she said anything about the laptop etc.

I see no reason to assume that lawyers didn't get the laptops back from the police. Perhaps an Italian speaker could contact the lawyers and ask them.

Patrick King wrote:Back in Milan on October 27, Maria Del Prato walked into her office in her nursery school to find a young black man unhooking the cable to her computer in order to plug it into his laptop. This was Rudy Guede and Ms. Del Prato said he was very relaxed. He advised her not to worry. He hadn’t taken anything.

Ms. Del Prato immediately called the police to whom Rudy gave a story about being told he could purchase lodging there for fifty euro. The police went through his back pack and found, along with a large kitchen knife he’d taken from the nursery school kitchen, a laptop and cell phone and a woman’s gold watch. The laptop was identified as belonging to the law firm of Paolo Brocchi that was recently burglarized. Rudy told police he’d bought the laptop from a man at the Milan train station.

The Milan police wanted to hold Rudy but the prosecutor said he had more important cases and that Rudy was Perugia’s problem. They sent him back to Perugia.

On Monday morning, Rudy presented himself at the law offices of Paolo Brocchi to apologize for having their laptop. Once again he told the story about the man at the Milan train station.

The latter story is what I have heard up until now. I know that he had a woman's gold watch which disappeared. The watch has always been speculated to have belonged to his neighbor. But there is no way to know since it is gone.

I don't know what happened. Still, I find if hard to believe that Rudy apologized to the lawyers and they didn't get their laptop back.

 

[Grinder]

The latter story is whay I have heard up until now. I know that he had a woman's gold watch which disappeared. The watch has always been speculated to have belonged to his neighbor. But there is no way to know since it was gone.

I don't know what happened. Still, I find if hard to believe that Rudy apologized to the lawyers and they didn't get their laptop back.

I'm sure they got it back but not from Rudy which was the contention by someone here.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm sure they got it back but not from Rudy which was the contention by someone here.

Are you sure? Well, as long as your sure.

 

[Strozzi]

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.]

I think a defense attorney should meet with Lalli and see what he will state about the results of the autopsy he conducted. The defense should also determine what his attitude is - he has seen C & V speak with integrity and Lalli might be similarly willing to challenge scientific falsity. As a scientist who has experienced Mignini's manipulation up close and personally, he may realize what a sham Mignini's and the others have done with scientific analysis. He might be very forceful to declare early time of death, and that wounds very consistent with one attacker. He might also tell of pressure Mignini put on him to support Mignini's false version of events.

 

[Grinder]

I think a defense attorney should meet with Lalli and see what he will state about the results of the autopsy he conducted. The defense should also determine what his attitude is - he has seen C & V speak with integrity and Lalli might be similarly willing to challenge scientific falsity. As a scientist who has experienced Mignini's manipulation up close and personally, he may realize what a sham Mignini's and the others have done with scientific analysis. He might be very forceful to declare early time of death, and that wounds very consistent with one attacker. He might also tell of pressure Mignini put on him to support Mignini's false version of events.

And this is where the internal workings of Perugia come to play. He was taken off the case for leaking something IIRC. Hello, how many things loike bloody bathroom pictures were leaked and nobody got in trouble.

Lalli would be ending his career.

They just need to show the video or have an expert testify that it was done correctly and she couldn't have lived past 10 at the latest and force a new timeline.

 

[Grinder]

The latter story is what I have heard up until now. I know that he had a woman's gold watch which disappeared. The watch has always been speculated to have belonged to his neighbor. But there is no way to know since it is gone.

I don't know what happened. Still, I find if hard to believe that Rudy apologized to the lawyers and they didn't get their laptop back.

How do we know this?

 

[acbytesla]

How do we know this?

Witness Maria Antonietta Salvadori Del Prato Titone, at the hearing of 6-27-2009, reported that on the morning of Saturday, October 27, 2007, as she entered the nursery [asilo] located on Via Plinio 16 in Milan, of which she was the director, she noticed that a person she did not know — subsequently identified as Rudy Guede — was leaving from her own office. There were no signs of forced entry. Some small change was missing from the box where money was kept. Rudy Guede had a knapsack [zaino] inside of which he was carrying a computer. The police, who were called immediately, made him reveal the backpack [zainetto] in which there was a long kitchen-knife of approximately 40 centimeters. She recalled that there were other objects in the sack [zaino]: a set of keys, a small women’s gold watch, a small hammer of the sort found in buses for breaking the windows. The police told her that the computer had been stolen in Perugia, from a lawyer’s office [studio legale]. The witness explained that she was accompanied by her six-year-old son, a locksmith [fabbro] who was to perform work, and an assistant [rappresentante] [note: or possibly "salesman"]. Rudy Guede justified his presence by saying that he had requested, at Milan central station — where he may have spent the night and where he found out about this nursery — back payment of 50.00 euros from the witness herself. The witness explained that the knife was in the kitchen; it was not locked and Rudy Guede could have taken it from that location.

 

[andreajo]

He also said he emailed in the middle of the night .

Seriously, we all know that the Lalli findings had no chyme in the duodenum. The above doesn't explain why the defense didn't pound and pound on the TOD and that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the prosecution's TOD to be valid.

The chance that she ate at 6 and had nothing in the duodenum at 11 was as close to zero as possible. If she ate at 6:30, the latest possible, it would still be highly, highly unlikely that nothing would be there in a death after 10.

The prosecution moved the TOD later from their first leaks and moved Curatolo earlier to accommodate their needed timelines. The defense did show by accident that Massei's figuring on Curatolo's sighting times because of disco bus schedules was wrong.

The defense should go all out on the later time Curatolo gave and the TOD by pathology.

It seems logical to me, but I am not Italian.

Are the defense's hands tied to a certain extent by which reports or testimony is allowed by Judge Nencini? What leeway do they have in addressing the TOD by pathology? I think that there are no more witnesses, just closing arguments.

 

[Poppy1016]

What do they say about great minds?

Um great minds end in ini ?

 

[Poppy1016]

Um great minds end in ini ?

Oops that would be great minds whose names end in ini .