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

[MDDVS]

Your reasoning seems circular. It looks like you require knowing the TOD as a pre-requisite in order to calculate the TOD. You say "how would you know that without knowing the actual TOD?". It makes no sense. The temperature measurment is the only datum (together with environmental temperature), the TOD is only a probabilistic deduction along a curve. But when you are at a distance of 12 hours or more from the probable TOD, the error is so big that it becomes useless to the effects of this case.
Meredith's body was discovered at least 12 hours after her death, and temperature could not have been taken before 16.00 - 16.30 in any event (time of arrival of scientific police). So the temperature that they would have taken at that time, we don't know what exactly that would be, but what we can deduce is that it would have been anyway too low to calculate TOD with any reliable useful margin. You could only calculate an indication over a 5-6 hours frame like something between 20.00 and 2.00.

No, I was pointing out that your argument is circular. You are saying "don't take the temperature because the TOD estimate will be imprecise", but the truth of this statement depends on the actual TOD. Imagine, for example, that the murder had ocurred at 6am?

 

[RoseMontague]

Your reasoning seems circular. It looks like you require knowing the TOD as a pre-requisite in order to calculate the TOD. You say "how would you know that without knowing the actual TOD?". It makes no sense. The temperature measurment is the only datum (together with environmental temperature), the TOD is only a probabilistic deduction along a curve. But when you are at a distance of 12 hours or more from the probable TOD, the error is so big that it becomes useless to the effects of this case.
Meredith's body was discovered at least 12 hours after her death, and temperature could not have been taken before 16.00 - 16.30 in any event (time of arrival of scientific police). So the temperature that they would have taken at that time, we don't know what exactly that would be, but what we can deduce is that it would have been anyway too low to calculate TOD with any reliable useful margin. You could only calculate an indication over a 5-6 hours frame like something between 20.00 and 2.00.

No, I was pointing out that your argument is circular. You are saying "don't take the temperature because the TOD estimate will be imprecise", but the truth of this statement depends on the actual TOD. Imagine, for example, that the murder had ocurred at 6am?

Yes, big logic fail with Mach's argument.

 

[Diocletus]

What bothers me most about this is he fails by his own admission to inform her of her rights. He could have told her that she was now an official suspect in the murder of Meredith Kercher and she had a right to have a lawyer present before she said anything else. He had instead told the cops to stop (supposedly). Who informed Amanda?

Amanda could not believe it when she was arrested a few hours later. They had told her having a lawyer would be worse for her.

Don't forget, that the decision that they actually made was that she should be denied a lawyer for two days.

If have no idea how this squares with all of their noise about how they knew she had to have a lawyer/told her she had to have a lawyer, etc.

The fact of the matter is that they denied her a lawyer and took her statements, which the supreme court has decided were not spontaneous statements. What's the opposite of "spontaneous"?

 

[Diocletus]

No, I was pointing out that your argument is circular. You are saying "don't take the temperature because the TOD estimate will be imprecise", but the truth of this statement depends on the actual TOD. Imagine, for example, that the murder had ocurred at 6am?

Did they ever actually check for a pulse? I mean, these people were so incompetent that I wouldn't be surprised if she was still alive.

 

[Strozzi]

No, I was pointing out that your argument is circular. You are saying "don't take the temperature because the TOD estimate will be imprecise", but the truth of this statement depends on the actual TOD. Imagine, for example, that the murder had ocurred at 6am?

Mignini actually prevented Medical Examiner Lalli from taking the temperature until very late at night, even though Lalli was there in the afternoon.

It is incompetence, just as the incompetence in failing to collect video recordings from shops along the street. Perugia police reviewed video recordings mady by stores along the route between Raffaele's flat and Amanda's cottage to see if the two had gone to Amanda's cottage the evening of the crime. They were not seen in the recordings; they had not walked the normal route from Raffaele's flat to the cottage or back. Rather than collect the recordings which proved that Raffaele and/or Amanda had not walked there, the police left the recordings with the shop owners to reuse.

Paul Colina, a retired Chicago police detective working on assignemnt for CBS news, interviewed one of the Perugia police officers who told him of reviewing the tapes. Colina asked the police officer why he did not collect the tapes as they were evidence that the suspects had not walked that route the evening of the crime. The Perugia police officer was dumbfounded; he did not realize the importance of what he had ignored. The recordings were exculpatory evidence but he only sought condemnatory evidence.

 

[RoseMontague]

Did they ever actually check for a pulse? I mean, these people were so incompetent that I wouldn't be surprised if she was still alive.

The cop denies it but is contradicted by the witness. I believe it is the 6 and 7 Feb 2009 testimonies listed on Amanda's website. Primarily Battistelli vs. Altieri, but the original testimony of both is the day earlier.

 

[Skind]

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.

So, Knox and Sollecito would have every expectation to be phoned suddenly by the police after warning Filomena.

Thank you for comfirming that calling Filomena put K+S in increased jeopardy of premature contact with the police, not less.

Any more of this, and you'll have to go on the Knox PR payroll!

 

[MDDVS]

There's only one "too low" that pertains to 36b. The rest are for other samples, the corresponding egrams of which are being hidden by stefanoni.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Strozzi]

The cop denies it but is contradicted by the witness. I believe it is the 6 and 7 Feb 2009 testimonies listed on Amanda's website. Primarily Battistelli vs. Altieri, but the original testimony of both is the day earlier.

Altieri testified that he observed Battistelli step into the room and lift a portion of the duvet to see the body. Battistelli, who had probably been trained not to disturb a crime scene, denies that he stepped into the room. But Altieri is adament that he saw him do so and lift the duvet.

If Battistelli is telling the truth, he failed to see if the victim might still be alive and in need of critical aid. Would Battistelli been in trouble for disturbing evidence if he had checked to see if Meredith was alive and needed aid?

Can you trust Battistelli to state the truth if it embarrases him personally? Battistelli noted when he arrived at the house. It that the time he actually went to the cottage's front porch to meet Raffaele and Amanda, or the time he got out of the police car and started walked around the intersection trying to figure out where the house is while his colleague drove around the neighborhood? Is Battistelli's testimony about when he arrived at the cottage correct or false? It is the basis for claiming that Raffaele called the Carbaineri after Battistelli arrived.

 

[Skind]

It is actually obvious if you know a little about the Italian system. The fact that interrogations are not recorded is verifiable, it is a fact. It is normal. Therefore, it is not suspicious. Recording all police interrogations would carry a foolish expense, because of the beaurocratic rules of the Italian system: whenever there is a verbatim recording, there will be someone who will request a transcript.

Yeah! It's not as if there was a central repository where the police could have deposited a copy of their case files for easy access by other parties!

Italy really needs to sort itself out! Maybe they could get some old garages and store case files there?

Oh wait, they already have exactly the sort of place, and exactly the processes in place, to do exactly the thing you argue they couldn't do, and they have them for exactly the 'bureaucratic' reasons you assert would prevent it.

Odd that you should forget that, given that you're the one who extensively described them over an extended period of time.

What a convenient lapse of memory!

Imagine if all parites could require transcripts of all investigation activities.

Straw man and an ad absurdium. No one is arguing for anything remotely like this situation and you fine well know that.

Distort your own arguements as much as you want, but if you pull a trick like that again you will be caught and corrected.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes, it has always been one of my favourite topic.
I still remember the first trial when Barbadori and Battistelli was heard. I was disappointed by the scarce news because I expected a simple proof of the timing of the camera as I had concluded that the only time the postals could have arrived into the yard before the carabinieri call was at around 12:40 (otherwise the various phone calls could not have been made unnoticed).

But nothing came out of it. Battistelli said that he looked at his watch, it was half past noon. That means that they had spent about half an hour with the pair before Luca and Marco arrived. If however they arrived after the carabinieri call it would have been only a few minutes. Huge difference which must have been remembered without any exact clocks.

Have you had a chance to read Barbadori's testimony about the CCTV Time? Here is the google translation. (perhaps you could dig up the original and give us a proper translation)

QUESTION - On what grounds she claims that the time indicated by the cameras of the car park is not accurate and fits ten minutes ahead*?
ANSWER - I checked out , I went on the internet and looked at the time legal.
QUESTION - I explain this finding , " looked at "*?
ANSWER - I looked at the summer time , I also saw through the scanned images , which were given to me by the technicians of SIPA , there were ten minutes ...
QUESTION - How do you make sure they have ten minutes? without suggest*!
PRESIDENT - I'm sorry , asks the defendant, she said: " 20:51 , but in reality were 20:41 ," this " actually" from what came out?
ANSWER - An analysis of the cameras, I saw that it corresponded in substance.DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - She said: " I ​​went on Internet and saw daylight saving time . "
ANSWER - Yes
QUESTION - Daylight saving time is first and foremost an hour which means that if 12 becomes 11 is a time , daylight saving time is not ten minutes.
ANSWER - No daylight saving time, the actual time in substance.
PRESIDENT - So now the real?
ANSWER - Yes , the real time.
PRESIDENT - This real- time as he pulled out*? this diversity of ten minutes? What kind of assessment*? This calls for the Defense.
ANSWER - I honestly do not remember which was the figure .DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - In its disclosure if it is to I submit it to him , she does not explain how .
PRESIDENT - It is authorized to consult .
ANSWER - No, there is the annotation.DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - There is a record in a manner in which lapidary she concludes*: "It is necessary to consider that the time the equipment is moved than ten minutes about ahead of daylight saving time . " What do you want mean?
ANSWER - No, daylight saving time is in fact a mistake.
QUESTION - So it is legal to read real?
ANSWER - Yes , yes.
APPLICATION - We establish , however, that there is a statement according to the which you are rebuilding schedules and stuff like that we must now analyze in detail , then establish because these ten minutes, as he did to count these ten minutes are so important .
ANSWER - I do not remember how I became aware of this difference in ten minutes. From memory I do not remember .QUESTION - How do we do this to rebuild his assessment*?
PROSECUTOR - DR.SSA COMFORTABLE - He did not do him the finding.DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - So who did this finding ten minutes?
ANSWER - It was probably done by the coach of SIPA , that is, the technician from whom I acquired the images of parking lot that is the one who told me this figure .PRESIDENT - He knows the name of this technical SIPA*?
ANSWER - No, I could track down , definitely yes.
PRESIDENT - I could track down but at the moment he does not know the name?
ANSWER - Yes
​

I am truly amazed that he wasn't charged with lying under oath right there. The prosecutors obviously already knew the truth but they continue to use the 10 minutes fast meme throughout this trial and subsequent trials. The fact is clearly established in this exchange: The 10 minutes fast is hearsay without the testimony of the parking lot attendant and the Perugia police are liars.

 

[Grinder]

Not to mention Filomena's boyfriend who would have had to have been arrested and accused, too, since he was Filomena's alibi. Maybe his DNA was one of the unidentified males found on the bra-clasp!

Bill this is a canard. We went over this before but then this fog of nonsense returns. Maybe you honestly forget that Filomena and Marco were not alone at his place but were out partying until late. They had witnesses for their alibi.

.... quite positive. Not sure if others have read this yet, but it looks like Maori did quite a good job addressing things that Bongiorno didn't cover, at least according to Frank. (Contrasting with Frank's fairly negative report of Bongiorno's performance) This makes me about 10% more optimistic than I was yesterday. I hope that Amanda's lawyers finish tying up any loose ends on the 30th.

I just wonder if Nencini and the jurors were paying attention. Reportedly, Nencini was startled when Maori pointed out computer logs showing that RS started playing the cartoon Naruto 9:26pm (!?!). (Perhaps while AK and RS were getting ready to go murder and rape MK).

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/d...ocence-of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/

No idea how this will turn out.

-sd

That big toe so different from Raffaele’s, and so similar to Rudy’s. The cops’ consultant for the prosecution had taken Rudy’s foot measurements and applied them to the image. But you can do something, you can go look at the actual image and see that the big toe, the only recognizable part of the foot, looks exactly like Rudy’s. And in the place of the second toe there’s a void. Coincidentally, Raffaele’s second toe doesn’t touch the floor…
I thought there was a toe print.

I wonder why he didn't show the video of the climb.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill this is a canard. We went over this before but then this fog of nonsense returns. Maybe you honestly forget that Filomena and Marco were not alone at his place but were out partying until late. They had witnesses for their alibi.

More arrests! There was also spare DNA on the bra-clasp to be doled out as needed, too..... with due respect, G. you missed the point.

 

[Grinder]

1. total lack of urgency is just shown by delays, and the prior calls by Knox to Filomena without collecting information herself are something which we may also consider a form of "delay", because in fact all her calls and phone conversations with Filomena are slowing down events.

Nothing was slowed down. Had the kids call the Carabinieri they would have waited to break down the door as well. Of course, no matter how early they would have called them, Filomena would been there before them.

They are triggering the coming back and discovery of body by Filomena, but they are also slowing it down. She calls, but she does not provide informations. She delays her own discovery, she waits to speak to Sollecito 'over breakfast' about 'strange events', search and conveying of information is blocked, everything is slowed down.

Why didn't they just move everything later?

3. The "no obligation" = "no failure" is a false equivalence and it's not the first time I see your side bringing it up. The question is about credibility not about obligation. There isn't an explanation for that delay. If you find out something alarming, you are asked to call the police, you agree it's alarming and say ok but then you don't call the police, it does not look a very straightforward behaviour.

I may have missed something. Are you referring to Mara, Monacchia and the other witnesses?

On the other hand, if two people are guilty, it's obvious they may have some fears and hesitation - for a hundered possible reasons - in the moments before they decide to dial the police number.

I think suggesting that Nara et al. were guilty of something associated with the crime makes no sense.

They if guilty would have gone to Gubbio as planned. It is logical and consistent to go to Gubbio but not to stay in Perugia.

 

[Grinder]

Oh, gee. Let me think . . . Wait! I think I've got it!

Batistlelli is a liar.

No, no, no. They made the trains run on time, not watches.

 

[Diocletus]

Have you had a chance to read Barbadori's testimony about the CCTV Time? Here is the google translation. (perhaps you could dig up the original and give us a proper translation)

QUESTION - On what grounds she claims that the time indicated by the cameras of the car park is not accurate and fits ten minutes ahead*?
ANSWER - I checked out , I went on the internet and looked at the time legal.
QUESTION - I explain this finding , " looked at "*?
ANSWER - I looked at the summer time , I also saw through the scanned images , which were given to me by the technicians of SIPA , there were ten minutes ...
QUESTION - How do you make sure they have ten minutes? without suggest*!
PRESIDENT - I'm sorry , asks the defendant, she said: " 20:51 , but in reality were 20:41 ," this " actually" from what came out?
ANSWER - An analysis of the cameras, I saw that it corresponded in substance.DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - She said: " I ​​went on Internet and saw daylight saving time . "
ANSWER - Yes
QUESTION - Daylight saving time is first and foremost an hour which means that if 12 becomes 11 is a time , daylight saving time is not ten minutes.
ANSWER - No daylight saving time, the actual time in substance.
PRESIDENT - So now the real?
ANSWER - Yes , the real time.
PRESIDENT - This real- time as he pulled out*? this diversity of ten minutes? What kind of assessment*? This calls for the Defense.
ANSWER - I honestly do not remember which was the figure .DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - In its disclosure if it is to I submit it to him , she does not explain how .
PRESIDENT - It is authorized to consult .
ANSWER - No, there is the annotation.DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - There is a record in a manner in which lapidary she concludes*: "It is necessary to consider that the time the equipment is moved than ten minutes about ahead of daylight saving time . " What do you want mean?
ANSWER - No, daylight saving time is in fact a mistake.
QUESTION - So it is legal to read real?
ANSWER - Yes , yes.
APPLICATION - We establish , however, that there is a statement according to the which you are rebuilding schedules and stuff like that we must now analyze in detail , then establish because these ten minutes, as he did to count these ten minutes are so important .
ANSWER - I do not remember how I became aware of this difference in ten minutes. From memory I do not remember .QUESTION - How do we do this to rebuild his assessment*?
PROSECUTOR - DR.SSA COMFORTABLE - He did not do him the finding.DEFENSE - AVV . BONGIORNO - So who did this finding ten minutes?
ANSWER - It was probably done by the coach of SIPA , that is, the technician from whom I acquired the images of parking lot that is the one who told me this figure .PRESIDENT - He knows the name of this technical SIPA*?
ANSWER - No, I could track down , definitely yes.
PRESIDENT - I could track down but at the moment he does not know the name?
ANSWER - Yes
​

I am truly amazed that he wasn't charged with lying under oath right there. The prosecutors obviously already knew the truth but they continue to use the 10 minutes fast meme throughout this trial and subsequent trials. The fact is clearly established in this exchange: The 10 minutes fast is hearsay without the testimony of the parking lot attendant and the Perugia police are liars.

The entire trial is laced with hearsay. For example, the cop who went down to Sollecito's home town to investigate the secondary school "stabbing" allegation, testified about what the principal told him (no stabbing), and then, incredibly, was able to testify that he thought the principal was lying.

They really don't seem to have any kind of proper hearsay/best evidence restrictions when it comes to the cops. It seems that the cops can say anything, and then when cross-examined about it, just say that somebody else told them.

 

[Diocletus]

Thanks for the clarification.

To your point, the other piece of information that has never been disclosed is the number of cycles of amplification that Stefanoni used to get the profile for 36b. She could have jacked the STR amplification settings up well beyond proper practice, but we'll never know, because no documentation whatsoever has been disclosed about the STR amplification process.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - you are mistaken. Mignini himself proves you are mistaken...
It's me who makes false claims? This is what Mignini, himself, told Drew Griffin. Who is making false claims.....?

I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”. She then repeated [her story] to the interpreter, who was Mrs. Donnino

It would seem strange that someone could tell someone something, without "visiting her".
I have the strange feeling there is some dietrology in our futures, implying that what Mignini said wasn't really what he said.....

What bothers me most about this is he fails by his own admission to inform her of her rights. He could have told her that she was now an official suspect in the murder of Meredith Kercher and she had a right to have a lawyer present before she said anything else. He had instead told the cops to stop (supposedly). Who informed Amanda?

Amanda could not believe it when she was arrested a few hours later. They had told her having a lawyer would be worse for her.

What is telling, really, is that Donnino's and Knox's testimony, as well as Mignini's CNN interview really do tell the same story, in broad brush strokes.

Knox says in her book she thought this old-man who came in was the mayor. At no point in Mignini's story to Drew Griffin does he go out of his way to inform Knox of her rights or who he is, or what power he has over her, or what difference this "notarized" statements will make to her future.

The one bit of legalese Mignini is clear on to Griffin is that he, the PM in charge of the process, quotes legalese to the cops, namely Article 63 which governs the transition from witness to suspect, as well as the rights which ensue.

Yet by his own admission, he ignores those righs.... what Griffin does not ask is, "Mr. Mignini, did you already decide that Knox would be processed as-if a mafia? Therefore you had quasi-legal grounds to deny her a lawyer?"

That would have been an interesting line of questioning. Mignini tells Griffin in 2010 that Article 63 was in play at interrogation, so much so Mignini tells Griffin he'd quoted it to Ficarra. But Mignini ACTS as if he's already decided to process this as an anti-mafia case.

The upshot is that Cassazione eventually rules against Mignini on that point, saying that the statements garnered from Mignini's intervention cannot be said to be "spontaneous". As it says in Article 63 at the end.....

When a person who is neither an indagato (suspect) nor an imputato (defendant), interrogated by the police or the prosecutor, reveals pieces of information that might lead to his incrimination, the interrogation must be immediately stopped, the person must be invited to nominate a lawyer and be warned that the information disclosed may render necessary an investigation. These self-incriminating statements are inadmissible in court.

Please also note what Mignini DID NOT DO (at least he did not tell Griffin he'd done this)! It's not just that he did not get her a lawyer... "the person must be invited to nominate a lawyer and be warned that the information disclosed may render necessary an investigation."

Donnino's, Knox's and Mignini's accounts all seem to agree... Knox was not allowed a lawyer, and was not warned about making more statements might result in an investigation. And yet, Mignini, in Knox's presence (when Machiavelli says he never saw her, "Mignini did not visit her") goads her into making more with the "only a notary" excuse. The man is a scumbag.

Mignini gets involved in Ficarra's interrogation by quoting Article 63, then proceeds to trample it....

 

[Diocletus]

The cop denies it but is contradicted by the witness. I believe it is the 6 and 7 Feb 2009 testimonies listed on Amanda's website. Primarily Battistelli vs. Altieri, but the original testimony of both is the day earlier.

Yeah, see, Battistelli's problem on this issue is that he couldn't get out of his lie by claiming that someone else told him (i.e., that he didn't enter the room).

The other problem is that he obviously did enter the room, because the first thing you do when you see a body is make sure it's dead. We don't even need Altieri to understand this, although of course Altieri's testimony confirms what we already know.

In short, Battistelli couldn't get out of this lie by deferring to "someone else" because the lie involved his own actions.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Right his grabbing the bars really made it harder, not.

There is a cut from one camera to another on the second climb that you probably missed.