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

[acbytesla]

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

Is that supposed to be an oxymoron? Mutually exclusive?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mignini changed the TOD late in the game

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

PM Mignini changed the TOD by more than an hour in his closing remarks IIRC. The defense might have been caught off-guard. It seems as if we are all agreed that Lalli tied off the intestine (as Raffaele discussed in his book). If an independent expert claimed that upon viewing the video, he or she is convinced Lalli tied it off incorrectly, I would accept that. Lacking that information, the balance of probability is that he did it correctly. I am still looking into the effects that alcohol has on the time it takes for food to move from the stomach to the duodenum. MOO.

 

[Dan O.]

It's amazing how bad the reporting has been on the details of this case. The news reports got that Rudy apologized and a few said that he returned the laptop. The testimony from the lawyers confirmed the apology. But as of June 2009 they still had not recovered the phone and laptop.

 

[Dan O.]

I am still looking into the effects that alcohol has on the time it takes for food to move from the stomach to the duodenum. MOO.

An empirical study?

 

[Grinder]

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.

Not that there was a watch but that it disappeared. How do we know that?

 

[Grinder]

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.

Excellent questions. I think that they are limited and that these appeals are not trials de novo.

 

[Grinder]

PM Mignini changed the TOD by more than an hour in his closing remarks IIRC. The defense might have been caught off-guard. It seems as if we are all agreed that Lalli tied off the intestine (as Raffaele discussed in his book). If an independent expert claimed that upon viewing the video, he or she is convinced Lalli tied it off incorrectly, I would accept that. Lacking that information, the balance of probability is that he did it correctly. I am still looking into the effects that alcohol has on the time it takes for food to move from the stomach to the duodenum. MOO.

Quick find -

Drinking alcohol with a rich meal slows digestion by as much as 50 percent.

- By slowing digestion, alcohol can also make you feel fuller longer, though it's not clear what that means for nutrient absorption or weight gain.

- If you are prone to stomach distress, it might be best to go with water or tea instead.

For many people, a glass of wine helps make food feel like it's going down more smoothly. But drinking alcohol with a rich and fatty meal causes food to linger in the stomach longer, found a new study -- leading people to feel fuller over a greater period of time.

The findings offer new insight into the complicated and multi-faceted ways that alcohol interacts with digestion and appetite. The study, which analyzed people as they ate cheese fondue, may also help settle a long-standing debate among Europeans about which beverage is best to drink with a popular and festive dish


Caveat - I am not an expert.
Alcohol inhibits digestion, causes dehydration, depresses glucose metabolism, and compromises the functioning of the central and peripheral nervous systems. The cumulative impact of these factors is behind chronic constipation related to alcohol abuse.

And for LJ but I'm still searching for the effect on submarine captains

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11151864

Regardless of the type and dose of beverage involved, alcohol facilitates the development of gastroesophageal reflux disease by reducing the pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter and esophageal motility. Fermented and nondistilled alcoholic beverages increase gastrin levels and acid secretion. Succinic and maleic acid contained in certain alcoholic drinks also stimulate acid secretion. Low alcohol doses accelerate gastric emptying, whereas high doses delay emptying and slow bowel motility. Alcohol facilitates the development of superficial gastritis and chronic atrophic gastritis--though it has not been shown to cause peptic ulcer. Alcoholic beverages, fundamentally wine, have important bactericidal effects upon Helicobacter pylori and enteropathogenic bacteria. The main alcohol-related intestinal alterations are diarrhea and malabsorption, with recovery after restoring a normal diet. Alcohol facilitates the development of oropharyngeal, esophageal, gastric, and colon cancer. Initial research suggests that wine may be comparatively less carcinogenic.

 

[acbytesla]

Not that there was a watch but that it disappeared. How do we know that?

Nina Burliegh The Fatal Gift of Beauty
Page 130
"Mrs. Madu Diaz never saw the gold watch that had been in Rudy's backpack to know if it was her mother's. The Perugia Police eventually gave the laptop back to the law firm."

 

[Grinder]

Thanks. It would be nice to have an annotated source. Coming from Nina without that is the same as Follain or Dempsey.

Nice effort and probably the best out there. I think she is the source for all the watch stories.

To be clear if the watch was allowed to be kept by Rudy, under the circumstances, raises some big issues. It is difficult to believe that the police wouldn't return the watch to the owner. But not impossible.

One would think that this would be a much bigger story and that Italian press, at least Oggi, would pick it up.

Once again I applaud the effort.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks. It would be nice to have an annotated source. Coming from Nina without that is the same as Follain or Dempsey.

Nice effort and probably the best out there. I think she is the source for all the watch stories.

To be clear if the watch was allowed to be kept by Rudy, under the circumstances, raises some big issues. It is difficult to believe that the police wouldn't return the watch to the owner. But not impossible.

One would think that this would be a much bigger story and that Italian press, at least Oggi, would pick it up.

Once again I applaud the effort.

In her book she mentions that it took 3 years for the insurance to pay and have Mrs. Diaz's home to be habitable again.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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

NO! Has anyone ever told you that you are an exasperating man?

Willfully or blindly, you misunderstand my method of thinking. I see Lalli's report as one of many data points that support a coherent, credible explanation of what happened. The presence of digested matter in the intestine or duodenum would not contradict this explanation. The absence of digested matter strengthens it. But, the explanation does not arise from this reported fact and does not depend on it. If this element of the autopsy report was proved incorrect, the explanation would stand.

Contrast with the two-knife theory, where one doubtful DNA result props up an implausible claim that is not corroborated by any other evidence. Similarly, you can toss out the idea that maybe Meredith had a drink when she got home. It would be significant if true. But no other evidence supports it. There is no wine glass, no beer bottle in the wastebasket, no sign of activity in the kitchen. A marginal BAC finding, at least 30 hours post mortem, stands alone. It is exactly the kind of lab result that cannot be trusted. To my knowledge, nobody has tried to say it could or should be trusted. I will not accept it as reliable evidence that my understanding of what happened in this case is wrong.

This is critical, Grinder. You're not dealing with two competing explanations of the crime. You're dealing with two methods of thinking. One side seeks to explain what happened, and the other side seeks to poke holes in the explanation, so as to carve out an undefined role for Amanda and Raffaele.

Similarly, the 9-11 truthers poke holes so they can carve out an undefined role for the CIA. People look at "cattle mutilations," which result from rodent predation, and poke holes so they can carve out an undefined role for secret cults.

They do this by cataloging anomalies and making a big deal out of them, without trying to integrate them into the larger body of available information. These people never have a credible, holistic explanation of events. They toss out a dozen vague possibilities. Look how the prosecution theory changes every time they present one, and how Massei's report reflects yet another flight of speculation. The Supreme Court calls for new proceedings to establish guilt through "osmosis" and choose from a "range of hypothetical situations." What actually happened is not their concern. Any theory is fine, as long as it involves Amanda and Raffaele.

This is the working method of cranks and fanatics. Why abet them?

 

[Grinder]

In her book she mentions that it took 3 years for the insurance to pay and have Mrs. Diaz's home to be habitable again.

Put "Madu Diaz" and Rudy in Google and 8 hits come up and they all stem from Nina.

If this story is true the defense should have tried to get it in as they did with Christian T.

 

[acbytesla]

Put "Madu Diaz" and Rudy in Google and 8 hits come up and they all stem from Nina.

If this story is true the defense should have tried to get it in as they did with Christian T.

The testimony was in Massei. So, my guess is that it is true. If it wasn't Mrs. Diaz's watch, the prosecution would have used that and if Mrs. Diaz had got the watch back and it was her mother's, this would have been extremely compelling evidence given that Rudy lived next door to her.

Don't you think??

 

[Bill Williams]

NO! Has anyone ever told you that you are an exasperating man?

Willfully or blindly, you misunderstand my method of thinking. I see Lalli's report as one of many data points that support a coherent, credible explanation of what happened. The presence of digested matter in the intestine or duodenum would not contradict this explanation. The absence of digested matter strengthens it. But, the explanation does not arise from this reported fact and does not depend on it. If this element of the autopsy report was proved incorrect, the explanation would stand.

Contrast with the two-knife theory, where one doubtful DNA result props up an implausible claim that is not corroborated by any other evidence. Similarly, you can toss out the idea that maybe Meredith had a drink when she got home. It would be significant if true. But no other evidence supports it. There is no wine glass, no beer bottle in the wastebasket, no sign of activity in the kitchen. A marginal BAC finding, at least 30 hours post mortem, stands alone. It is exactly the kind of lab result that cannot be trusted. To my knowledge, nobody has tried to say it could or should be trusted. I will not accept it as reliable evidence that my understanding of what happened in this case is wrong.

This is critical, Grinder. You're not dealing with two competing explanations of the crime. You're dealing with two methods of thinking. One side seeks to explain what happened, and the other side seeks to poke holes in the explanation, so as to carve out an undefined role for Amanda and Raffaele.
Similarly, the 9-11 truthers poke holes so they can carve out an undefined role for the CIA. People look at "cattle mutilations," which result from rodent predation, and poke holes so they can carve out an undefined role for secret cults.

They do this by cataloging anomalies and making a big deal out of them, without trying to integrate them into the larger body of available information. These people never have a credible, holistic explanation of events. They toss out a dozen vague possibilities. Look how the prosecution theory changes every time they present one, and how Massei's report reflects yet another flight of speculation. The Supreme Court calls for new proceedings to establish guilt through "osmosis" and choose from a "range of hypothetical situations." What actually happened is not their concern. Any theory is fine, as long as it involves Amanda and Raffaele.

This is the working method of cranks and fanatics. Why abet them?

This "undefined role for Amanda and Raffaele", strangely, has legs. It's the very basis of how Barbie Nadeau has managed to "montetize" this... she's sold the "they know something that they're not telling us" to Winterbottom, and it is soon to be a major motion picture.

But you are correct. Both science and the law has to be inherently falsifiable. People have to present their claims in a manner where it is at least, in theory, disprovable... not actually, but in theory if something is presented that in inherently unfalsifiable, then it cannot be entertained in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I would also like to add that it should not be put forward in theories presented in forums such as this, but I think that IS asking too much.

If I say that my favourite colour is blue, that is not falsifiable, because it is a matter of my personal opinion. Then again, I suppose you could find in diaries my statement that my favourite colour was red, but then again, I could say I've changed my mind....

But you are right, Charlie Wilkes, it is a matter of a way of thinking. When challenged many guilters will toss out factoids, but stop at, "Well, she was guilty because of all the lies she told."

Then one asks for a list of lies... none of them (I have found) properly count as lies, and for this I included the signed statements about Lumumba.

Yet when someone comes back and says, "Well they are lies as far as I am concerned," that then becomes unfalsifiable... meaning they are entitled to their opinion, I suppose....

It's all so whack-a-molish!

 

[Supernaut]

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.

When you stop and think about it, it's really quite extraordinary that the cops just shrugged-off the fact that Guede was intending to walk around with a large knife on him.

In fact, I recall that he actually told them that he took it because he was "afraid for his safety", IOW, he admitted he intended to use it as a weapon.

 

[acbytesla]

NO! Has anyone ever told you that you are an exasperating man?

Now this I can relate to. Grinder has a way of getting under your skin.

Willfully or blindly, you misunderstand my method of thinking. I see Lalli's report as one of many data points that support a coherent, credible explanation of what happened. The presence of digested matter in the intestine or duodenum would not contradict this explanation. The absence of digested matter strengthens it. But, the explanation does not arise from this reported fact and does not depend on it. If this element of the autopsy report was proved incorrect, the explanation would stand.

Contrast with the two-knife theory, where one doubtful DNA result props up an implausible claim that is not corroborated by any other evidence. Similarly, you can toss out the idea that maybe Meredith had a drink when she got home. It would be significant if true. But no other evidence supports it. There is no wine glass, no beer bottle in the wastebasket, no sign of activity in the kitchen. A marginal BAC finding, at least 30 hours post mortem, stands alone. It is exactly the kind of lab result that cannot be trusted. To my knowledge, nobody has tried to say it could or should be trusted. I will not accept it as reliable evidence that my understanding of what happened in this case is wrong.

This is critical, Grinder. You're not dealing with two competing explanations of the crime. You're dealing with two methods of thinking. One side seeks to explain what happened, and the other side seeks to poke holes in the explanation, so as to carve out an undefined role for Amanda and Raffaele.

They do this by cataloging anomalies and making a big deal out of them, without trying to integrate them into the larger body of available information. These people never have a credible, holistic explanation of events. They toss out a dozen vague possibilities. Look how the prosecution theory changes every time they present one, and how Massei's report reflects yet another flight of speculation. The Supreme Court calls for new proceedings to establish guilt through "osmosis" and choose from a "range of hypothetical situations." What actually happened is not their concern. Any theory is fine, as long as it involves Amanda and Raffaele.

This is the working method of cranks and fanatics. Why abet them?

EXACTLY.

 

[Supernaut]

When you stop and think about it, it's really quite extraordinary that the cops just shrugged-off the fact that Guede was intending to walk around with a large knife on him.

In fact, I recall that he actually told them that he took it because he was "afraid for his safety", IOW, he admitted he intended to use it as a weapon.

So, Massei got the idea for his "theory" that when Meredith got home at 21.00 on 01/11/2007, she may have "lain on her bed idly playing with her phone", hence accidentally dialling her bank an hour later at c. 22.03 (with her jacket and shoes still on) from the photo I posted earlier.

I think that now, perhaps, we know where he and Mignini got the idea for their "theory" that Amanda was in the habit of carrying a kitchen knife from Raff's place in her "large bag" for self-protection.

Jayzus - ******* brain-dead.

 

[Grinder]

The testimony was in Massei. So, my guess is that it is true. If it wasn't Mrs. Diaz's watch, the prosecution would have used that and if Mrs. Diaz had got the watch back and it was her mother's, this would have been extremely compelling evidence given that Rudy lived next door to her.

Don't you think??

Tesla the only mention of gold in Massei is: "She recalled that there were other objects in the backpack: a bunch of keys, a small gold woman's watch, and a tiny hammer of the type found in buses to smash windows."

There is no mention that it did or might of belonged to Diaz. There is no mention of Diaz in Massei that I can find.

 

[Supernaut]

Tesla the only mention of gold in Massei is: "She recalled that there were other objects in the backpack: a bunch of keys, a small gold woman's watch, and a tiny hammer of the type found in buses to smash windows."

There is no mention that it did or might of belonged to Diaz. There is no mention of Diaz in Massei that I can find.

It just seems to be, you know, a probable explanation as to where Guede got the woman's gold watch.

Do you have a more likely one?

Did he steal it elsewhere?

I'm all ears.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla the only mention of gold in Massei is: "She recalled that there were other objects in the backpack: a bunch of keys, a small gold woman's watch, and a tiny hammer of the type found in buses to smash windows."

There is no mention that it did or might of belonged to Diaz. There is no mention of Diaz in Massei that I can find.

Exactly. If the watch had been returned to Ms Diaz, don't you think the defense would have been all over that? At the moment, there is only speculation as to the gold watch. We know that Ms. Diaz was burglarized, but what we don't know is by who. There certainly isn't proof that Rudy did it. But it certainly is highly suspicious.