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

[Antony]

I believe you are schooling a medical doctor.

Heroin. Individuals suffering from heroin addiction and drug abuse may have tightly constricted pupils. Their pupils will not respond to low light, impairing vision. In addition the constriction of the blood vessels, can lead to loss of vision or blurred vision. -

Yes, exactly - but it's not because of blurring, but dimming of the image. This was the point I was making in my original response.

In any case, it's certainly not the case that far vision is affected differently than close-up, in relation to pupil size.

 

[NancyS]

I believe you are schooling a medical doctor.

Heroin. Individuals suffering from heroin addiction and drug abuse may have tightly constricted pupils. Their pupils will not respond to low light, impairing vision. In addition the constriction of the blood vessels, can lead to loss of vision or blurred vision. -

Although in nothing remotely to do with eyes - and it is a long time since I've studied the eye. Your pupil will usually constrict when you look at something close and dilate when you look into the distance - however, Anthony might be right that a constricted pupil won't affect distance vision, although it would make it extremely hard to see anything in the dark

 

[JREF2010]

In some ways, I hate Maresca more than anyone else connected with this case.
His little stunt in the appeal court, however, showed more than what an evil man he is, though.
It shows why the evidenciary phase of a proceeding should happen prior to, and separately from, the sentencing phase. It takes an unusually analytic and ordered mind to separate 'did this person commit this crime?' from 'is this a brutal crime, the perpatrator of which should be severely punished?', especially when confronted with this kind of visceral imagery. If you had lay judges who worked in a system which sees really high levels of extremely brutal, violent crime (South Africa springs to mind), then you could argue that a lay judge might have the ability to consistently separate these questions. But in Italy? Not so much.
Maresca has the freedom in the Italian system to focus on the crime, not on whether the defendants actually committed the crime. It's underhand and prejudicial....

yes, Hes a witch-hunter, a little career weasle with only his goals in mind, it seems to me.

Its a joke how he insulted C&V's work when he supports the goofball Forensic team and their keystone cop approach to a crime scene (who still havent tested the semen stain from the pillow in a sex/murder of a female)
unbelievable case. Or they did test it and it wasnt what the prosecution wanted to see so it disappeared like the interrogation recordings, possible?)

 

[Matthew Best]

Here's the link to the Meredith Kercher trust fund.

http://themeredithkercherfund.com/index.html

You unbearable contradiction, you.

 

[Machiavelli]

Everyone please read the highlighted part.

If one wishes a definition of dietrology, it's hidden somewhere there. Fact is, Guede got 16 years, Knox got 26 years (one year for calunnia) and Sollecito got 25 years.
(...)

Fact is, Knox and Sollecito got 26-25 years in their first instance trial. That is, 24 years for murder and rape. The additional penalties are for staging and calunnia. (all this in a regular trial, with no fast track reduction).

Guede got 30 years in his first instance trial.
Then he got 16 years on his appeal (this equates to getting 24 years in a regular trial). So he got mitigation only on his appeal.

This means, obviously, Knox and Sollecito got a more favoruable treatment than Guede.

(Not to speak about the fact that Knox and Sollecito even got a ridiculous acquittal for murder on their appeal...)

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you saying that he did not follow Stefanoni's own guidelines for when the team changed or did not change gloves?

Gubbiotti has nothing to do with Stefanoni's team.

 

[Machiavelli]

It was a Halloween initiation rite, that's what he said.

BS. It's a lie. Prove it.

He said what everybody can read in his closing arguments: an umpremeditated sexual hazing that burst out on a backgrpound of personal grudges, which went out of control because the participants were on drugs and alcohol.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you find anything said or written by Rudy or his acquaintances or Amanda's acquaintances which point to this previous meeting or to more meetings between Rudy and Amanda?

No, but there is this repeated assertions of Guede that he was aroused by Amanda and he intended to "bang her", and his friends confirming he had the habit of hangng out with "American female students", and he would talk about Amanda (he apparently was never interested in Meredith).

 

[Machiavelli]

My personal speculation is that Mignini is so pro-Rudy as his eye has been turned by 'the most beautiful black man' - and he is expecting sexual favours on his release. And this is no more ridiculous than your speculation

And nobody taking heroin could make a positive identification from 30m at night. Heroin commonly causes double vision - but more importantly causes pin point pupils, which severely impairs your night vision. It is just not believable that he is able to recognise two people he has never met. And this is not even taking into account his likely cognitive impairment from years of drug and alcohol abuse.

The 30 meters distance is a reasons for doubting about Curatolo's identification. But there are also other reasons for believing Curatolo's identifications of the two suspects. The courts who listened to him decided the reasons to believe him were predominant.
The court who dismissed his testimony (the Hellmann Zanetti court) did so only on illegitimate and prejudicial grounds, which the SC found to be unfounded, therefore unacceptable.

Anyway Curatolo is only a marginal witness. He does not actually provide any determinant information. The defendatns alibies are already proven to be false, independently from Curatolo's testimony.
Probably the judge would assess his testimony also based on its marginal value. It's not that important that the standard of proof is that high. He may be counted as an elemento like on a "probable case" level, and therefore they decided to believe him: because he is marginal, unnencessary. It's only one element more that merely reinforces the others.

 

[Bill Williams]

Fact is, Knox and Sollecito got 26-25 years in their first instance trial. That is, 24 years for murder and rape. The additional penalties are for staging and calunnia. (all this in a regular trial, with no fast track reduction).

Guede got 30 years in his first instance trial.
Then he got 16 years on his appeal (this equates to getting 24 years in a regular trial). So he got mitigation only on his appeal.

This means, obviously, Knox and Sollecito got a more favoruable treatment than Guede.

(Not to speak about the fact that Knox and Sollecito even got a ridiculous acquittal for murder on their appeal...)

If you split hairs like this in favour of RS and AK, you would have it in you to prove they were innocent.

This is the basis of your confirmation bias.

Fortunately I've discovered that even though this line of reasoning probably is what the courts will use, the Samsungs in other parts of the world will see differently.

 

[acbytesla]

And the only "motive" anyone has ever offered for the two students to leave the cottage was that they'd tired of the "same old same old" after exactly one week! All this, after suddenly finding themselves free of commitment with every reason in the world to snuggle up and watch a movie. Add to this that Raffaele did not even know he was free of commitment until about 8:40 pm, and the poor victim was gone by probably 9:30.

I certainly think it is quite interesting the movie that Amanda and Raffaele chose to whip themselves into this murdering frenzy. "Amelie", which we all know is the lover's version of the "Silence of the Lambs" and "The Saw".

 

[billyryan]

BS. It's a lie. Prove it.
He said what everybody can read in his closing arguments: an umpremeditated sexual hazing that burst out on a backgrpound of personal grudges, which went out of control because the participants were on drugs and alcohol.

That's pretty rich coming from you,can you run the proof by me that you claim to have that Hellmann was bribed by the Freemasons,that Vecchiotti was bribed,or is that all BS
How are you avoiding going to the court to gloat is there someone that you are avoiding in the crowd,maybe someone you slandered,the real action of a coward hold someone else's life up to the most critical analysis publically possible while remaining anonymous yourself

 

[katy_did]

Although in nothing remotely to do with eyes - and it is a long time since I've studied the eye. Your pupil will usually constrict when you look at something close and dilate when you look into the distance - however, Anthony might be right that a constricted pupil won't affect distance vision, although it would make it extremely hard to see anything in the dark

Either way, the fact of heroin impairing a person's vision sounds like an excellent point and a solid way for the defence to discredit Curatolo. Don't think I've heard anyone mention it before. If the SC wants a scientific reason to dismiss his testimony (y'know, apart from the fact he was on heroin, which wouldn't have impaired his judgment at all) his not being able to see properly would be a pretty good one.

 

[Diocletus]

BS. It's a lie. Prove it.

“The murder was premeditated, and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Hallowe’en. A sexual and, sacrificial rite … In the intention of the organisers, the rite should have occurred 24 hours earlier” – on Hallowe’en itself – “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organised by Meredith and, Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed, for one day. The presumed assassins contented themselves with the evening of 1 November to perform their do-it-yourself rite, when, for some hours it would again be the night of All Saints.”


At this point, though, it's irrelevant, because it's about stray bowel movement.

 

[Diocletus]

Gubbiotti has nothing to do with Stefanoni's team.

Well, Gubbiotti did receive and catalog the evidence that was collected from the murder scene and from Sollecito's apartment prior to November 7 (except for the 30 or so items that Stefanoni took down to Rome on November 5).

He unsealed the knife.

He packed the evidence into three boxes and sent it down to Stefanoni.

 

[Diocletus]

Fact is, Knox and Sollecito got 26-25 years in their first instance trial. That is, 24 years for murder and rape. The additional penalties are for staging and calunnia. (all this in a regular trial, with no fast track reduction).

Guede got 30 years in his first instance trial.
Then he got 16 years on his appeal (this equates to getting 24 years in a regular trial). So he got mitigation only on his appeal.

This means, obviously, Knox and Sollecito got a more favoruable treatment than Guede.

(Not to speak about the fact that Knox and Sollecito even got a ridiculous acquittal for murder on their appeal...)

Did the trial court find aggravating circumstances? If not, why not? Would he have gotten mitigation on appeal if aggravating circumstances were successfully shown at trial?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

frequency of glove changing

Gubbiotti has nothing to do with Stefanoni's team.

That is not an answer to my question. From Massei p. 203, "With reference to the single-use gloves, Dr. Stefanoni specified that they were changed, in the course of the search, every time an object was touched that was particularly soaked with blood, and when it was obvious that the gloves would be soiled; ‚<otherwise, if it is just an ordinary object<I can move it, but this does not lead to my DNA remaining, let’s say, attached. It depends on the object‛ (p. 149)."

From Massei p. 104, "She [Napoleoni?] specified that during the search she touched various objects with the same gloves without stopping to change gloves each time an individual object was touched."

So if Gubbiotti changed gloves after each object then he is merely doing what the others should have been doing but were not. Link.

 

[Diocletus]

That is not an answer to my question. From Massei p. 203, "With reference to the single-use gloves, Dr. Stefanoni specified that they were changed, in the course of the search, every time an object was touched that was particularly soaked with blood, and when it was obvious that the gloves would be soiled; ‚<otherwise, if it is just an ordinary object<I can move it, but this does not lead to my DNA remaining, let’s say, attached. It depends on the object‛ (p. 149)."

From Massei p. 104, "She [Napoleoni?] specified that during the search she touched various objects with the same gloves without stopping to change gloves each time an individual object was touched."

So if Gubbiotti changed gloves after each object then he is merely doing what the others should have been doing but were not. Link.

What I don't understand is why Gubbiotti felt the need to change gloves when he was cataloguing the items in the police station. The items were already bagged and tagged: they were in sealed bags (well, except for the knife, which he unsealed).

Personally, this makes me think that he was lying about the gloves.

 

[acbytesla]

Although in nothing remotely to do with eyes - and it is a long time since I've studied the eye. Your pupil will usually constrict when you look at something close and dilate when you look into the distance - however, Anthony might be right that a constricted pupil won't affect distance vision, although it would make it extremely hard to see anything in the dark

As someone very interested in photography, I can tell you that in optimum lighting conditions a constricted pupil does not effect the ability to see at a distance. However, it absolutely does effect the ability to see at a distance in less than optimum lighting conditions. The constricting or dilation of the pupils control the amount of light to hit the retina. Too much light and the person is blinded by light, too little light and you can't see either.

So during the day, Toto's distance vision would NOT be impaired, but at night it would in fact be severely impaired. The best way to understand this would be to adjust a camera's aperture settings and take pictures. Closing the aperture opening in the daytime could improve the quality of the picture, making it look less washed out and actually improve the image.

However, at night, you need all the light you can get. So when taking pictures at night the first thing you do is open the aperture all the way trying to get as much light as possible to the film or the CCD. This is why our eyes dilate at night. They are trying to allow as much light as possible to reach our retinas. Constricted pupils at night would have the effect of turning over head lights into candles. Toto's ability to see detail at night at any distance would be significantly worse than the average person.

 

[Poppy1016]

What I don't understand is why Gubbiotti felt the need to change gloves when he was cataloguing the items in the police station. The items were already bagged and tagged: they were in sealed bags (well, except for the knife, which he unsealed).

Personally, this makes me think that he was lying about the gloves.

How many knives from the cottage did he catalogue? Oh that's right none. How many knives belonging to Patrick did he catalogue? None. And how many knives belonging to the Real murderer or from the murderers flat did he catalogue? None. Wow