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

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

If she really had deposited the controls, then where are they? Dr. Hampikian surely understands their importance. Many people who have taken an interest in the case and asked for material from the defense also understand their importance. Anyone who asks us to believe that the negative controls were deposited is implying that both defense teams somehow overlooked them. Does that make the slightest sense?

No, they did not overlook them! They were simply never interested in having them from the beginning, and they did not attempt to have them, they did not even attend the tests.
They did not overlook, they lied; they used them as a pretext. In the courtroom, but above all in the media.
This is what a defence does: they lie, they may build narratives based on pretexts or straw men. It's their job to do so.
The problem is that you buy it, while Italians don't.

"Where are they" is an amusing question, since when Comodi brought them into court from the archives of the preliminary hearing judge's office, they were lend in the hands of Vecchiotti who pretended she was unable to read them, said she needed more time, while the defences rose up and objected saying they should not be admitted.
The controls were already in the trial files at the preliminary hearing, since they were deposited in Oct. 2008 before judge Micheli. They were not included in the Massei papers, also because nobody - including Vecchiotti - asked for them.
I point out that the problem is not just about the controls being there or not: there is a point about Vecchiotti cheating: the problem is that she made assertins about the controls, she asseerted before the judge that she obtained all the data she had requested, and in fact she never requested them.

If Stefanoni really did deposit them, then in what form were they?

They were on paper and in image files on a CD, as far as I know.

The most useful form would be as electronic data files, not final egrams. Even if Stefanoni did deposit them as egrams, if she did not produces the EDFs, then she disregarded the near universal standards regarding DNA profiling.

Your lecture about "universal standards" matters about zero, what matters is the legal game and judge's opinion. It's the judge who, after looking at the pictures, decided that the raw data would be useless. It's not Stefanoni who refused to submit them. Stefanoni submitted what was requested, and even Vecchiotti stated she was satisfied with that.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

-

But, isn't that what the PGP does. Explain away each bit of evidence away as proof of guilt, but never do they explain away ALL the evidence as proof of guilt, particularily the duodenum, Meredith's last try to her mother, and Rudy's Skype call,


-

I am not going to consider any reference to "the PGP" as something acceptable. I am an independent person and I don't belong to anything called "PGP", neither such thing exists as far as I know.

I think instead, there is no problem with explaining the TOD and stomach content at all. Not even the judges (including Hellmann) ever considered this element to having the potential to decide anything. Inferences about both stomach content and TOD hypotheses are non-useful in this case, they are uncertin on multiple levels and imprecise. This about stomach content "evidence" is a myth which strictly derives from the innocentisti way of looking at the case. The innocentisti argument is an inference based on multiple speculations and sets of imprecise or unknown data.
Meredith's phone call to her mother also means nothing in terms of innocentisti argument. It has no merit, the only meaning of it is that the innocentisti like to place it in their narrative; but the fact that this could fit very well various other scenarios is just self-evident.
Rudy's Skype call, I just fail to see how anyone could see it in a way that is not incriminating against Knox. The Skype call is just a piece of evidence against. Unless you have Hellmann's logic, I don't see how you can try use Guede's statements from the Skpe call as arguments for someone's innocence.

 

[MDDVS]

Yes, people are always guilty. You do you bother have defense lawyers at all.

Also, yes. Italian people are special and are always right and they cannot be deceived.

On the other hand, all the people arguing for innocence are just monkeys, not even human at all. And racists of course.

 

[AmyStrange]

True Justice for Meredith...

-

No, they did not overlook them! They were simply never interested in having them from the beginning, and they did not attempt to have them, they did not even attend the tests.
They did not overlook, they lied; they used them as a pretext. In the courtroom, but above all in the media.
This is what a defence does: they lie, they may build narratives based on pretexts or straw men. It's their job to do so.
The problem is that you buy it, while Italians don't.

"Where are they" is an amusing question, since when Comodi brought them into court from the archives of the preliminary hearing judge's office, they were lend in the hands of Vecchiotti who pretended she was unable to read them, said she needed more time, while the defences rose up and objected saying they should not be admitted.
The controls were already in the trial files at the preliminary hearing, since they were deposited in Oct. 2008 before judge Micheli. They were not included in the Massei papers, also because nobody - including Vecchiotti - asked for them.
I point out that the problem is not just about the controls being there or not: there is a point about Vecchiotti cheating: the problem is that she made assertins about the controls, she asseerted before the judge that she obtained all the data she had requested, and in fact she never requested them.


They were on paper and in image files on a CD, as far as I know.


Your lecture about "universal standards" matters about zero, what matters is the legal game and judge's opinion. It's the judge who, after looking at the pictures, decided that the raw data would be useless. It's not Stefanoni who refused to submit them. Stefanoni submitted what was requested, and even Vecchiotti stated she was satisfied with that.

-

I think it's more about justice, true justice for Meredith. Not American justice, not Italian justice, but real justice, and no matter what happens now, (sadly) that will never, EVER be realized,

d

-

 

[MDDVS]

I am not going to consider any reference to "the PGP" as something acceptable. I am an independent person and I don't belong to anything called "PGP", neither such thing exists as far as I know.

I think instead, there is no problem with explaining the TOD and stomach content at all. Not even the judges (including Hellmann) ever considered this element to having the potential to decide anything. Inferences about both stomach content and TOD hypotheses are non-useful in this case, they are uncertin on multiple levels and imprecise. This about stomach content "evidence" is a myth which strictly derives from the innocentisti way of looking at the case. The innocentisti argument is an inference based on multiple speculations and sets of imprecise or unknown data.
Meredith's phone call to her mother also means nothing in terms of innocentisti argument. It has no merit, the only meaning of it is that the innocentisti like to place it in their narrative; but the fact that this could fit very well various other scenarios is just self-evident.
Rudy's Skype call, I just fail to see how anyone could see it in a way that is not incriminating against Knox. The Skype call is just a piece of evidence against. Unless you have Hellmann's logic, I don't see how you can try use Guede's statements from the Skpe call as arguments for someone's innocence.

Yes, it's a "myth". That's why it is so easy to produce evidence that is possible for gastric emptying to start 4+ hours after a meal. That's also why pro guilt people have flooded this foruns with said evidence.

I haven't seen it yet though. Can you show me a piece of data confirming that it possible for the stomch to start emptying 4+ hours afer a meal? Thanks in advance.

 

[AmyStrange]

True Justice for Meredith...

-

I am not going to consider any reference to "the PGP" as something acceptable. I am an independent person and I don't belong to anything called "PGP", neither such thing exists as far as I know.

I think instead, there is no problem with explaining the TOD and stomach content at all. Not even the judges (including Hellmann) ever considered this element to having the potential to decide anything. Inferences about both stomach content and TOD hypotheses are non-useful in this case, they are uncertin on multiple levels and imprecise. This about stomach content "evidence" is a myth which strictly derives from the innocentisti way of looking at the case. The innocentisti argument is an inference based on multiple speculations and sets of imprecise or unknown data.
Meredith's phone call to her mother also means nothing in terms of innocentisti argument. It has no merit, the only meaning of it is that the innocentisti like to place it in their narrative; but the fact that this could fit very well various other scenarios is just self-evident.
Rudy's Skype call, I just fail to see how anyone could see it in a way that is not incriminating against Knox. The Skype call is just a piece of evidence against. Unless you have Hellmann's logic, I don't see how you can try use Guede's statements from the Skpe call as arguments for someone's innocence.

-

I don't care how you feel about the use of the term PGP. Your feelings (either way, mine or yours), don't really add to the discussion anyway, or they shouldn't, NOT if you're really looking at things objectively, rather than perspectively.

The rest of your post is just your way of explaining how Italian law got it right, and that's nice for you, but doesn't do a thing for Meredith,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

I spent all day yesterday with Amanda and her friends and family.

She is a warm, sweet-natured person and a delight to be around. She runs with a small circle of intelligent, likable friends with productive lives. She has solid career prospects waiting for her when she graduates this year, because of the excellent impression she had made on people who have worked with her.

People who know her well - her peers, her family, older adults - think highly of her. Your analysis will not change that, and it will not change who she really is.

I also want to add: that I am uttely not interested in "who she really is". It also point out that it would be quite difficult to remove the publicly visible behaviours that she had, both her writing and her interviews, and would be impossible to help my perception about them. One point that needs to be clear: when I talk about Amanda Knox's personality in relation to the crime, I mean the 20yo Amanda Knox, not the 27 yo one. I have actually no doubt that the 27 yo version is psychologically better equipped and more socially capable than the 20yo Amanda Knox and sure much different on some key aspects. But this doesn't change what she was, and also doesn't change some (to me obvious) key aspects of her personality.

 

[Grinder]

I think instead, there is no problem with explaining the TOD and stomach content at all. Not even the judges (including Hellmann) ever considered this element to having the potential to decide anything. Inferences about both stomach content and TOD hypotheses are non-useful in this case, they are uncertin on multiple levels and imprecise. This about stomach content "evidence" is a myth which strictly derives from the innocentisti way of looking at the case. The innocentisti argument is an inference based on multiple speculations and sets of imprecise or unknown data.
Meredith's phone call to her mother also means nothing in terms of innocentisti argument. It has no merit, the only meaning of it is that the innocentisti like to place it in their narrative; but the fact that this could fit very well various other scenarios is just self-evident.
Rudy's Skype call, I just fail to see how anyone could see it in a way that is not incriminating against Knox. The Skype call is just a piece of evidence against. Unless you have Hellmann's logic, I don't see how you can try use Guede's statements from the Skpe call as arguments for someone's innocence.

You shouldn't use "judges" opinions if you don't accept them all.

It is obvious and self evident that Meredith didn't live past 10 pm. It is also obvious and self evident that Quintavalle either has a great memory issue or mislead the police when questioned in November of 2007.

It is clear to anyone that pays attention that the combination of no chyme in the duodenum, a full meal in the stomach, an eating time that started at 6 pm, the lack of a follow-up call to her mother, the erratic calls around 10 pm and the odd cell tower picking up her phone at 10:13 that she was murdered no later than 10 pm.

ETA - Do you believe that Rudy knew he was being recorded and for some unknown reason wanted to protect Amanda? Since he knew he had been identified by his evdience by that time and that Amanda had been arrested why wouldn't he make up a story that had her killing Meredith?

Btw - your example of a three-way that resulted in murder in Milan had a basic difference in that they all knew each other well and all lived in the same apartment. The other major difference is that the leader was the man who wanted sex with the two women. Recent revelations of Indian's attitudes towards rape etc. could also come into the discussion, but I'm sure it would be called racism.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

I don't care how you feel about the use of the term PGP. It doesn't really add to the discussion.

I also don't care about how you use it while talking around, just don't use it when talking with me.

The rest is just your way of explaining how Italian law got it right, and that's nice for you, but doesn't do a thing for Meredith,

If Italian judges acquitted her (as some did), I would be against Italian judges. Don't assume that my position comes from a "loyalty" to some authority.
I do think that duodenum, Skype call and Meredith's call are pointless. They are all meaningless, not exaclty in the same degree (stomach content has some factual element more compared to the other two, while the two others are poor desperate conjectures), but anyway meaningless.

 

[MDDVS]

I also don't care about how you use it while talking around, just don't use it when talking with me.



If Italian judges acquitted her (as some did), I would be against Italian judges. Don't assume that my position comes from a "loyalty" to some authority.
I do think that duodenum, Skype call and Meredith's call are pointless. They are all meaningless, not exaclty in the same degree (stomach content has some factual element more compared to the other two, while the two others are poor desperate conjectures), but anyway meaningless.

It's interesting how you forget your favourite word "compatible" when it suits you.

 

[Grinder]

It's interesting how you forget your favourite word "compatible" when it suits you.

And since the call to her mother, the Skype call and the stomach/duodenum content are all compatible with a 10 pm TOD clearly it WAS at 10:15 because 3 compatibles equal a match

 

[MDDVS]

And since the call to her mother, the Skype call and the stomach/duodenum content are all compatible with a 10 pm TOD clearly it WAS at 10:15 because 3 compatibles equal a match

You nailed it!

 

[MDDVS]

But still, I can't understand how you can go from "compatible" to "meaningless". I wish someone could explain this to me.

 

[AmyStrange]

I also don't care about how you use it while talking around, just don't use it when talking with me.
If Italian judges acquitted her (as some did), I would be against Italian judges. Don't assume that my position comes from a "loyalty" to some authority.
I do think that duodenum, Skype call and Meredith's call are pointless. They are all meaningless, not exaclty in the same degree (stomach content has some factual element more compared to the other two, while the two others are poor desperate conjectures), but anyway meaningless.

-

That ain't gonna happen. You'll just have to ignore my post when I don't treat you with the respect you think you deserve.

This is not an insult to you, just an observation from me. Take it or leave it, it shouldn't change the evidence any.

You're right individually the duodenum et al are not important, but all together they create a greater probability the TOD was around 9:30 then they do individually.

I know you're not arguing from a position of authority, but I think you argue semantics way to much. You're like the PGP bizzaro version of our Grinder.

I think you are mostly arguing and agreeing with the legal logic behind why the evidence and the way the PLE handled it was the correct way, but that's just my opinion,

d

-

 

[RoseMontague]

I also want to add: that I am uttely not interested in "who she really is".

No need to point it out. It is obvious you don't care who Amanda really is. All you care about is your fantasy of who she is and your unsupported fantasy of guilt.

I also want to add that I am utterly not interested in your non-expert analysis of Amanda's personality. You and the rest of the PGP's are simply wrong. You can't explain how the murder happened or why it happened so you just pretend something to fit your wishful thinking.

Raffaele and Amanda are innocent and all your lectures and arguments are a worthless waste of time.

 

[AmyStrange]

sociopathology

-

I also want to add: that I am uttely not interested in "who she really is". It also point out that it would be quite difficult to remove the publicly visible behaviours that she had, both her writing and her interviews, and would be impossible to help my perception about them. One point that needs to be clear: when I talk about Amanda Knox's personality in relation to the crime, I mean the 20yo Amanda Knox, not the 27 yo one. I have actually no doubt that the 27 yo version is psychologically better equipped and more socially capable than the 20yo Amanda Knox and sure much different on some key aspects. But this doesn't change what she was, and also doesn't change some (to me obvious) key aspects of her personality.

-

This is compatible with a narcissistic personality disorder, he he, just teasing you Mach.

I'm sorry for jumping on you today, because I'm glad to see you stop in every now and again. I may not agree with you most of the time, but I like reading your legal logic, sometimes you make good points from a legal perspective, but sometimes you just lose me.

But, that's just me, and as always, your mileage may vary,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Since you insist, I'll try to be very quick.
Follow me.

a. The stomach content argument is a defense argument, which is brought up as evidence - as a certain element of counter-evidence - against an already esptablished set of incriminating evidence. Therefore, it should have a very high quality, a very high standard; it needs to be basically "certain" in order to work.

b. About this argument, there are two big problems:

1. the inference is intrinsically imprecise, for multiple reasons. Yes, it is true that in 90% of cases or more stomach empties within 2-2.5 hours, however this is not the totality of cases, and there have been mistakes assessing TOD of up to 12 hours based on stomach contents. This is because the datum suffers of multiple uncertainities, both about the person conditions and about circumstances, and - not irrelevant - even about a true knowledge about time of last meal.
For example, digestion may well be blocked for negative incidental factors. For example, a condition of stress or fear (like a roommate organizing a prank or any other disturbing circumstance like people argueing or smoking or having a threesome in the dining room). It can also suffer a block because of improperly baked house-made bread.

Also, the same datum suffers uncertainty about the time at which Meredith actually ate. Because what we have defined in papers is a non-continuous meal starting around 18.30 and finished at about 20.00. The slogan put forward, that as for digestion time the only thing that matters is the time of the first bite, is quite nothing more than that, a slogan. There is no scientific proof that the fact that you go on eating for an hour and a half, this won't delay the emptying of the stomach. Are you sure the ingestion of further food doesn't delay the start of emptying? I'm not sure, actuall nobody is sure about that, and it would be unreasonable to assume that the lenght of the meal does not influence the delay of stomach emptying.
In adition to that, we must say that there is actually no information not even about when Meredith actually gave the "first bite", because some of the English girls remember more or less - very imprecisely and based on inference - about the approximate time when the first entry (pizza) was ready, but all three were doing othr things meanwhile (watching photos etc.) and nodbody knows the actual time when Meredith even begun to eat.

2. a second problem, beyond the intrinsic imprecision of the datum, is its lack of relevance. The problem is, that the TOD itself is irrelevant. It may be relevant as for Curatolo's credibility in terms of his seeing the right people, some may deduce. But as for the rest of the evidence, there are ample time frames both later than 22.30 as well as earlier (and again, I stress the concept that time of death is not the same thing of the beginning of the aggression, and beginnning of aggression may not be the same time of the time of beginning of the "situation" that lead to the aggression: even the "earliest" non-fatal but just stressfull event might cause emotion and stersss causeing a digestive delay).
The point is that TOD is an irrelevant element itself, because the defenadants have no alibi beyond 20.40. It makes no difference actully, when they killed her, and it may not be possible to know with certainity at what time it happened.

In conclusion, for the set of above said reasons, stomach content is not a piece of evidence capable to overturn the evidence set and is basically irrelevant.

 

[Desert Fox]

You want, like two young people, among them women, killing a roommate? For no apparent reason (maybe in a sexual context)?
I don't need to go much back in time and space to find similar crimes. For example 2 weeks ago near Milan, a 28y old woman and his boyfriend, killed their 29y old roommate because, while they were on drugs, she refused to take part in a sex game with them.
They locked her body in a suitcase and carred it on a train to Venice to dump it into the sea.

http://corrieredelveneto.corriere.it/veneto/notizie/cronaca/2014/3-febbraio-2014/ragazza-uccisa-messa-dentro-valigia-milano-venezia-fermati-due-amici-2224012837106.shtml

In the US, a girl stabs her boyfriend because he refused threesome sex, happened in Florida (sep 2013):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/la-crystal-king-woolfork-stabbed-boyfriend-sex_n_4069541.html

I strongly object any suggestion that a rape and murder (during the course of a burglary) of the kind you attribute to Rudy Guede, would be e "common crime". This is a main point of disagreement: it would be extremely uncommon instead, to start with. Not toe mention the macabre details of a post-delictum rape.

On the first article, I threw it through Google translate. Just because an article posits some kind of threesome situation does not mean it is the case. In fact, since it seems like he was about to move, I would argue that money was a more likely motivation.

Looking at the HuffPo article, it is as I expected
She has a prior record of both violence and is on probation

All I did was type rape murder into Google
For single perpetrators
Juan Carlos Chavez executed recently in Florida
Philip Chism for Robbery, Rape, and Murder in Massachusetts
Jamie Lee Peterson / Jason Anthony Ryan case
This is without much searching
Know a few more for memory such as the Omar Ballard case.

 

[Desert Fox]

She has a lot going for her.

She has the truth on her side.

She is cheerful by nature. She doesn't freak out, and she looks for ways to make the best of whatever her situation is.

She is very intelligent, she listens carefully, she takes a thoughtful approach to problems, and she learns from experience.

She has an exceptional family, and she has chosen good friends. Her friend Madison is a huge asset for her. Madison is very smart, articulate, and has an abundance of common sense. And Madison is fiercely loyal to Amanda... which leads to my final observation:

Amanda inspires fierce loyalty, in many people. We care what happens to her. We care a lot.

I encouraged Amanda to watch The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds, about a kid who manages to forge ahead and keep herself on an even keel despite the chaos surrounding her. Amanda really is quite a bit like the girl in that movie. No one is going to sow bitterness in her heart or turn her against the world. But she shouldn't have to deal with this situation at all. She is holding the bag for problems that are not her fault, and of course it affects her and casts a dark shadow over her life. The fact that she can handle it with a hell of a lot more class than most people doesn't make it right.

Just something about the case gets under my skin like the Norfolk Four
I think Washington state is a good environment too.
Thinking about moving there myself.

 

[AmyStrange]

TOD IS Important

-

Since you insist, I'll try to be very quick.
Follow me.

a. The stomach content argument is a defense argument, which is brought up as evidence - as a certain element of counter-evidence - against an already esptablished set of incriminating evidence. Therefore, it should have a very high quality, a very high standard; it needs to be basically "certain" in order to work.

b. About this argument, there are two big problems:

1. the inference is intrinsically imprecise, for multiple reasons. Yes, it is true that in 90% of cases or more stomach empties within 2-2.5 hours, however this is not the totality of cases, and there have been mistakes assessing TOD of up to 12 hours based on stomach contents. This is because the datum suffers of multiple uncertainities, both about the person conditions and about circumstances, and - not irrelevant - even about a true knowledge about time of last meal.
For example, digestion may well be blocked for negative incidental factors. For example, a condition of stress or fear (like a roommate organizing a prank or any other disturbing circumstance like people argueing or smoking or having a threesome in the dining room). It can also suffer a block because of improperly baked house-made bread.

Also, the same datum suffers uncertainty about the time at which Meredith actually ate. Because what we have defined in papers is a non-continuous meal starting around 18.30 and finished at about 20.00. The slogan put forward, that as for digestion time the only thing that matters is the time of the first bite, is quite nothing more than that, a slogan. There is no scientific proof that the fact that you go on eating for an hour and a half, this won't delay the emptying of the stomach. Are you sure the ingestion of further food doesn't delay the start of emptying? I'm not sure, actuall nobody is sure about that, and it would be unreasonable to assume that the lenght of the meal does not influence the delay of stomach emptying.
In adition to that, we must say that there is actually no information not even about when Meredith actually gave the "first bite", because some of the English girls remember more or less - very imprecisely and based on inference - about the approximate time when the first entry (pizza) was ready, but all three were doing othr things meanwhile (watching photos etc.) and nodbody knows the actual time when Meredith even begun to ate.

2. a second problem, beyond the intrinsic imprecision of the datum, is its lack of relevance. The problem is, that the TOD itself is irrelevant. It may be relevant as for Curatolo's credibility in terms of his seeing the right people, some may deduce. But as for the rest of the evidence, there are ample time frames both later than 22.30 as well as earlier (and again, I stress the concept that time of death is not the same thing of the beginning of the aggression, and beginnning of aggression may not be the same time of the time of beginning of the "situation" that lead to the aggression: even the "earliest" non-fatal but just stressfull event might cause emotion and stersss causeing a digestive delay).
The poin is that TOD is an irrelevant element itself, because the defenadants have no alibi beyond 20.40. It makes no difference actully, when they killed her, and it may nt be possible to know with certainity when this happened.

In conclusion, for the set of above said reasons, stomach content is not a piece of evidence capable to overturn the evidence set and is basically
irrelevant.

-

I don't know of any evidence that the duodenum clock starts ticking when the meal finishes, but rather that it starts when the meal starts.

The TOD is important if it happened too early for Raffaele and Amanda to be involved,

d

-