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

[Bill Williams]

How about a link to that video...got one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsQLKWDskhA

It's at minute 5:51.

 

[Bill Williams]

The police interrogations of witnesses are not expected to be recorded; normally they are not, for budgtary reasons and also because they are not usable (despite the pro-Knox like to falsely assert that this is a violation, that the justification is not credible etc.).

Failure to measure body temperature was (in my opinion) a totally justified choice. Mignini had late doubts about the choice but I disagree with his doubts: it was a correct choice, the body temperature would have been an imprecise and useless datum.

Nice try again. Amanda was not a witness, as Mignini himself told Ficarra at 1:45 am. Read his interview with Drew Griffin on CNN... Mignini himself is clear that by 1:45 Knox was a suspect... and the ISC thought she was a suspect before that.

 

[RandyN]

You are correct. But in fact I mistook 26 seconds about the call to Vanessa (by memory), and I did not remember the exact timing of the first call to the Carabinieri, but place all calls to Carabinieri within a 120 seconds error.

So, the meaning of my post was to show there was no 12.42 call to the Carabinieri, as claimed by Bill.

In fact the first call to the Carabinieri is 16-18 minutes late compared to the alarming call to Filomena who told her to call the police, that is late as for what we should expect.

NO! We expect Filomena to call the police. There is no reason or excuse for her not to do this. In fact it is illogical for anyone to expect Knox to call and meanwhile not question why native Italian Fiolmena does not call. Too busy looking for her lost car I suppose?

 

[Diocletus]

I remind you that hard drives were not destroyed. The control board were damaged, and the content of the drives was recovered - except Knox's (which is theoretically recoverable, but worthless).

Nobody hid DNA results - it is instead documented that the defence were not interested in having any information during the investigation. And later, it was the judges who decided the defence had already obtained all meaningful data.

Nobody hid TMB tests - they were actually revealed by Stefanoni herself (pro-Knoxes like to assert that she was "caught" lying, but it's made up and absolutely false) - and the anyway TMB tests are not "blood confirmatory tests".

The police interrogations of witnesses are not expected to be recorded; normally they are not, for budgtary reasons and also because they are not usable (despite the pro-Knox like to falsely assert that this is a violation, that the justification is not credible etc.).

Failure to measure body temperature was (in my opinion) a totally justified choice. Mignini had late doubts about the choice but I disagree with his doubts: it was a correct choice, the body temperature would have been an imprecise and useless datum.

Where are the results of the "cat's" blood tests?

 

[Bill Williams]

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/injustice-anywhere/2014/01/22/the-amanda-knox-case-analyzing-the-dna-evidence

Radio blog discussion of the DNA evidence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Like so many things, the timing could be argued as nefarious - or not.

Recall that a long stretch of two people's lives is at stake. Something more robust than nefarious (or not) is required in a legal system where innocence must be assumed until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution word of the trial is 'compatible'. To me, that's a variation on nefarious (or not).

I am going with 'not' in accordance with the principle of presumption of innocence until I see compelling evidence of guilt that doesn't come with an (or not).

But it's incorrect to go with "not", because this is an argument brought up by the defence as a disproval.
It is an argument that was brought up by the defence in order to disprove Battistelli's testimony about the 8.35 arrrival and other testimonies about the 10 minutes clock error.
When you bring in counter-evidence, such evidence needs to exist, to be substantial, or the argument doesn't work.

The same goes for other arguments which are defensive counter-arguments, such as the alleged profile of Knox reliable since a "honor student" allegedly making her unlikely to attend Rudy Guede, or the alleged incompatibility of the bed sheet stain with the kitchen knife (or - at the same time - alleged incompatibility with one or more wounds).

Compatibility and conjectures (or pieces of information like the April's fool prank) are not pieces of evidence for the prosecution, or not directly; conjectures and compatibility are not effective in order to prove guilt, however they can be effective to disprove defensive arguments (and also propaganda arguments).

Moreover, a more general principle (this goes also for those who are actual pieces of evidence): the principle of presumption of innocence is not a method of evidence analysis. That would be a prejudice of innocence. Evidence must be assessed neutrally, with no presumption. The presumption of innocence only needs to be considered at the end of the process of evidence assessment, when it comes to assess reasonable doubt. If after all evidence collected there is still a margin of doubt, then on that final decision you apply the presumption of innocence. But not prior to that.

 

[Machiavelli]

NO! We expect Filomena to call the police. There is no reason or excuse for her not to do this. In fact it is illogical for anyone to expect Knox to call and meanwhile not question why native Italian Fiolmena does not call. Too busy looking for her lost car I suppose?

Police wants information from the direct witness and comes at the house where the calling person is. Had Filomena called the police, the police would have asked her for a contact with Knox or Sollecito, their cell phone numbers.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nice try again. Amanda was not a witness, as Mignini himself told Ficarra at 1:45 am. Read his interview with Drew Griffin on CNN... Mignini himself is clear that by 1:45 Knox was a suspect... and the ISC thought she was a suspect before that.

Unfortunately for your idea, all what Mignini and the police did was lawful, nothing they did was suspicious - the non recordig of the spontaneous statement is not suspicious neither - and nobody (no judge) ever contended anything contrary to this.

 

[MDDVS]

I remind you that hard drives were not destroyed. The control board were damaged, and the content of the drives was recovered - except Knox's (which is theoretically recoverable, but worthless).

Nobody hid DNA results - it is instead documented that the defence were not interested in having any information during the investigation. And later, it was the judges who decided the defence had already obtained all meaningful data.

Nobody hid TMB tests - they were actually revealed by Stefanoni herself (pro-Knoxes like to assert that she was "caught" lying, but it's made up and absolutely false) - and the anyway TMB tests are not "blood confirmatory tests".

The police interrogations of witnesses are not expected to be recorded; normally they are not, for budgtary reasons and also because they are not usable (despite the pro-Knox like to falsely assert that this is a violation, that the justification is not credible etc.).

Failure to measure body temperature was (in my opinion) a totally justified choice. Mignini had late doubts about the choice but I disagree with his doubts: it was a correct choice, the body temperature would have been an imprecise and useless datum.

I already know your view. The problem is that have very close to first hand experience with these realities so I know exactly what to believe. And this includes Amanda's description of her interrogation.

I've seen convincing proof in this forum that DNA results were hidden in some instances. It's also very easy to see the contrast with the work done by the Carabinieri.

The TMB test is not a confirmatory test, the problem is that she didn't bother (or did she?) to perform one. I personally think she did perform one but didn't like the results, but it's impossible to be sure. But regardless, you can also look at not performing the test as the same thing as hiding the test.

You may think people here are very naive but not all of us are. Amanda and Rafaelle were being interrogated as suspects, not witnesses. The formal classification is irrelevant. I don't believe the budget excuse. As I said, I know enough about police interrogations, specially in a small town like Peruggia, to know what is credible or not, and I find Amanda's description very credible.

The most interesting aspect in this post of yours is, in my opinion, your reasoning regarding the body temperature measurement. You are saying that the measument would be imprecise. I think the only way to interpret what you are saying is that it was late for the measurement to be usable to estimate tjhe TOD (I mean, there's no reason why the measurement itself would be imprecise). But how would you know that without knowing the actual TOD?

 

[RandyN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsQLKWDskhA

It's at minute 5:51.

Thanks watched the whole thing...too bad this was all so poorly done.

Imagine if the defense had done this demonstration using the actual facts of the case...for example the narrator seems confused by a mystery of "glass found on top of everything"...which is speculation and certainly not factual. I'm still waiting to see that first photo of glass on top of anything. But the photos all seem to indicate glass on the floor only. How do they just make stuff up? Also the glass should have been smashed out with the inner shutters in play...this test did not accurately portray the prosecution theory which was almost as stupid as this test from inside out...yet no need to exaggerate the foolishness when the police were dumb enough looking on their own.

The bars should have been removed and the shutters opened from the front and from the sides in multiple climbs and examples...the bars were a distraction.

 

[MDDVS]

Unfortunately for your idea, all what Mignini and the police did was lawful, nothing they did was suspicious - the non recordig of the spontaneous statement is not suspicious neither - and nobody (no judge) ever contended anything contrary to this.

I think that it's better to wait for the opinion of the ECHR. Also, nobody is not the same as no judge. I'm somebody and I think that it is suspicious.

 

[Bill Williams]

Unfortunately for your idea, all what Mignini and the police did was lawful, nothing they did was suspicious - the non recordig of the spontaneous statement is not suspicious neither - and nobody (no judge) ever contended anything contrary to this.

Your argument is not with me, it is with Mignini himself. He tells Drew Griffin that he specifically stopped the Ficarra portion of the interrogation, precisely because Knox was a suspect from that point on. Please read the interview... Mignini's answers are in Italian. It was Mignini himself who told Ficarra, so he says, that if she was to continue then it would be unlawful... he even quotes the relevant law to Griffin.

He then, incredibly, admits he continues.... claiming that because he was acting "as if a notary" he was still acting legally, after telling Ficarra that if she;d continued, she'd be acting illegally.

So this is not for you. It's for anyone else who wants to put their finger on this. You will continue saying what you will say.

Read Mignini's interview.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks watched the whole thing...too bad this was all so poorly done.

Imagine if the defense had done this demonstration using the actual facts of the case...for example the narrator seems confused by a mystery of "glass found on top of everything"...which is speculation and certainly not factual. I'm still waiting to see that first photo of glass on top of anything. But the photos all seem to indicate glass on the floor only. How do they just make stuff up? Also the glass should have been smashed out with the inner shutters in play...this test did not accurately portray the prosecution theory which was almost as stupid as this test from inside out...yet no need to exaggerate the foolishness when the police were dumb enough looking on their own.

The bars should have been removed and the shutters opened from the front and from the sides in multiple climbs and examples...the bars were a distraction.

When you see the demonstration, it becomes clear that the bars (on today, not there on Nov 1, 2007) are an impediment to climbing, not a help.

 

[Dan O.]

The defence video analysys is not able to disprove the Battistelli testimony about arrival at 12.35, nor the police testimony about the CCT clock being fast. These testimonies are pieces of evidence.

Machiavelli, please post the police testimony that the CCTV clock was fast.

 

[Strozzi]

NO! We expect Filomena to call the police. There is no reason or excuse for her not to do this. In fact it is illogical for anyone to expect Knox to call and meanwhile not question why native Italian Fiolmena does not call. Too busy looking for her lost car I suppose?

Filomena may have had drugs in her room and wanted to get home and deal with that before calling the cops. Amanda misunderstood what Filomena wanted. That is why when Filomena got off the phone from talking with Amanda and Marco asked her which one of the girls it was Filomena said "the stupid one".

 

[Diocletus]

Unfortunately for your idea, all what Mignini and the police did was lawful, nothing they did was suspicious - the non recordig of the spontaneous statement is not suspicious neither - and nobody (no judge) ever contended anything contrary to this.

Who would ever care about what some Italian "judge" would say. As far as I can tell, they are just a collection of perverts, clowns and idiots, who obviously didn't even go to any kind of actual law school.

Do they sell law degrees in the AutoGrill?

 

[charlatan]

The defence video analysys is not able to disprove the Battistelli testimony about arrival at 12.35, nor the police testimony about the CCT clock being fast. These testimonies are pieces of evidence.

The prosecution didn't even believe in this 'evidence'. At the end of the trial Comodi argued the clock was 4 minutes slow and Battistelli arrived at 12:46.

 

[RandyN]

I already know your view. The problem is that have very close to first hand experience with these realities so I know exactly what to believe. And this includes Amanda's description of her interrogation.

I've seen convincing proof in this forum that DNA results were hidden in some instances. It's also very easy to see the contrast with the work done by the Carabinieri.

The TMB test is not a confirmatory test, the problem is that she didn't bother (or did she?) to perform one. I personally think she did perform one but didn't like the results, but it's impossible to be sure. But regardless, you can also look at not performing the test as the same thing as hiding the test.

You may think people here are very naive but not all of us are. Amanda and Rafaelle were being interrogated as suspects, not witnesses. The formal classification is irrelevant. I don't believe the budget excuse. As I said, I know enough about police interrogations, specially in a small town like Peruggia, to know what is credible or not, and I find Amanda's description very credible.

The most interesting aspect in this post of yours is, in my opinion, your reasoning regarding the body temperature measurement. You are saying that the measument would be imprecise. I think the only way to interpret what you are saying is that it was late for the measurement to be usable to estimate tjhe TOD (I mean, there's no reason why the measurement itself would be imprecise). But how would you know that without knowing the actual TOD?

She did the TMB tests...she just "forgot" to mention it in court. Sara Gino discovered these tests. Yummi/Mach wants to give points to Stefanoni for noting and not hiding the tests meanwhile ignoring the facts that she kept these tests to herself until she was caught by Gino. Then it was... OH, I simply forgot to mention that....etc

Just like in the detention hearing she forgot that sample 36B quantified as too low multiple times and in her confused state she told the judge that the sample was of adequate size...a few hundred picograms when the truth was far from that...in fact 10 picograms and maybe even zero picograms ranges too low to test in 2007 and even 2014 without highly specialized collection, containment and test equipment...even a whole separate building and don't give the cabbies too much credit...I doubt their tests were much better than Stefanoni....they just knew enough to cover the tracks better, so as to distance themselves from the shoddy work done in Rome by Biondo and Stefanoni.

 

[Diocletus]

Unfortunately for your idea, all what Mignini and the police did was lawful, nothing they did was suspicious - the non recordig of the spontaneous statement is not suspicious neither - and nobody (no judge) ever contended anything contrary to this.

So what did your Supreme Court have to say about whether this statement was "spontaneous" as you keep saying? Granted, they are clowns.

 

[Strozzi]

Thanks watched the whole thing...too bad this was all so poorly done.

Imagine if the defense had done this demonstration using the actual facts of the case...for example the narrator seems confused by a mystery of "glass found on top of everything"...which is speculation and certainly not factual. I'm still waiting to see that first photo of glass on top of anything. But the photos all seem to indicate glass on the floor only. How do they just make stuff up? Also the glass should have been smashed out with the inner shutters in play...this test did not accurately portray the prosecution theory which was almost as stupid as this test from inside out...yet no need to exaggerate the foolishness when the police were dumb enough looking on their own.

The bars should have been removed and the shutters opened from the front and from the sides in multiple climbs and examples...the bars were a distraction.

The defense should have hired guys who played basketball with Rudy to attempt the climb. Guys no taller than Rudy. 21 year olds. Local guys who could attest that they knew Rudy. Then they should have hired an older man about Mignini's age and build and videoed him failing the climb, so the judges could see the contrast between what a young basketball player can do and a much older man! Maybe there is still time!!!