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

[katy_did]

That is not entirely true.

Everybody was kicked out of the house after the murder was discovered. But then before they sent everyone off to the police station they let some of the kids back into the living room to grab their things that they brought in that morning. Filomena's bag was on the couch and she grabbed that then slipped into her room which was right there and grabbed her laptop which she had already picked up from the pile earlier before the discovery.

At the police station the police noticed the laptop and insisted that it was to stay because it was seized with the rest of the house.

Filomena got her laptop back along with some other personal items on December 18. It took 5 technicians about a year to restore it to full operation.

The majority of this is from Filomena's testimony of 2009-02-07.

From memory Filomena is a bit vague about this in her testimony - she says that they all left their coats and bags inside so they had to get them, then when asked if the others went or just her, she says she doesn't remember if anyone else went inside, she only knows that she did. It sounds like she might have asked to get her bag and then, as you say, snuck inside to get the computer as well (it'd be interesting to know if any of the police officers were asked about who gave her permission to go back inside...)

 

[Diocletus]

Vaduva v. Romania (25 February 2014) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-141172

Holding: In reversing an acquittal, an appellate court cannot decide contested issues and make credibility determinations without itself hearing the relevant witnesses and allowing proper expert examination of incriminating evidence.

Witnesses heard live by Hellmann and not by Nencini: Curatalo (Hellmann=not credible), Guede (not credible), Knox. Any others to be added here? It will be error for Nencini to reverse Hellmann's credibility determinations on these witnesses, since Nencini didn't hear them.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know if it was parody but the phrase "She decided that the poop was the smoking gun that will set her free" will linger in the mind for a while. I bet Crini wishes he thought of that one.

Yes, when I read that zinger it conjured up memories of the part in the classic spoof movie "Airplane" where the guy asks for a one way ticket to Chicago (I think) and the ticket clerk says "Certainly Sir - will that be smoking or non-smoking?", and he replies "Smoking please", and she produces from under the desk a ticket with smoke billowing from it

Substitute the ticket for the poop and you get quite an arresting mental image...............

 

[LondonJohn]

I was going to argue that as well. . . .Somebody else who knows the scientific issues involved.

Yes. I had also ruminated a few pages back that there was the very real possibility that Guede might by now have managed to partially (or even wholly) convince himself that he'd only played a very minor part in the murder, and that he only bore minimal responsibility for Meredith's death.

There is plenty of academic evidence to support this phenomenon of pseudomemory. Where the person involved has a deeply emotional motive for believing a certain false memory, it's far from uncommon for that person to convince himself/herself that this false version of events is their genuine, objective memory of events. It's caused no end of problems in criminal cases, not least in the area of familial sexual abuse in childhood.

 

[LondonJohn]

From memory Filomena is a bit vague about this in her testimony - she says that they all left their coats and bags inside so they had to get them, then when asked if the others went or just her, she says she doesn't remember if anyone else went inside, she only knows that she did. It sounds like she might have asked to get her bag and then, as you say, snuck inside to get the computer as well (it'd be interesting to know if any of the police officers were asked about who gave her permission to go back inside...)

Hmmm..... vague in her recollection, you say? FILOMENA MUST BE GUILTY OF SOMETHING!!!!!


Incidentally, for those who claim that it's somehow illogical special pleading for pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators to excuse Knox's/Sollecito's confusion on the one hand, while denouncing Curatolo's/Quintavalle's/Cappezzali's (etc) confusion on the other, I would say that once again they do not understand the situation properly.

The situation is this: if the state accuses someone of a crime, they are required to prove that the person committed the crime. If they cannot do so, the person must be regarded as innocent. By contrast, the person who is accused does not have to prove his/her innocence.

With that in mind, it wouldn't matter if Knox and Sollecito had mistakenly claimed to have been playing Mahjong with the former Prime Minister of New Zealand on the night in question (save for the potential dent in their wider credibility!). In fact, they don't have to remember - accurately or otherwise - anything about what they were doing on the night of the murder. Rather, it's the job of the state (and the court) to prove that they committed the murder (and part of that in this case obviously entails proof related to their location at the time of their murder and at certain key times after the murder). And therefore, if the state's eyewitnesses are unreliable, this very obviously has material adverse effect upon the state's ability to prove its case.

And that's why there is - in both law and ethics/morality - an enormous and very important difference between a) whether Knox/Sollecito have confused memories of the night of the murder, versus b) whether people whose testimony forms key elements of the prosecution's attempts to prove its accusations have confused memories of the night of the murder.

 

[RoseMontague]

Witnesses heard live by Hellmann and not by Nencini: Curatalo (Hellmann=not credible), Guede (not credible), Knox. Any others to be added here? It will be error for Nencini to reverse Hellmann's credibility determinations on these witnesses, since Nencini didn't hear them.

It is very interesting. Since Curatolo has already passed away, I guess they are now stuck with Hellmann's view. Unless Migi wants to call one of his psychic friends for a quick séance.

 

[Grinder]

That's the trouble with considering this case "osmotically", isn't it? When considered as a whole, the digestive bell-curve fits with "all the other evidence" that the poor woman was gone before 9:30, given a meal which started at about 6 pm. Even Crini at the Florence Trial gave the Nencini court the option of T.O.D., to fit around the time that the broken down car was outside.

To convict it is not a matter of considering all this osmotically, it is a matter of actually ignoring parts of that osmosis.

I can't believe I just typed this.

The problem with the osmotic system proposed by the Italians is that they don't value the pieces correctly. In the case of TOD we KNOW: 1) Meredith arrived home around 9, 2) that she had an uncompleted call to her mother at 8:55, 3) that two calls were dialed incorrectly around 10, 4) and a text at 10:13 connected to a tower that could indicate the phone wasn't in the cottage and there were other indications (more like the things the prosecution uses) such as her dress, heating and state of the wash.

Looking at the whole picture and putting together known facts is just fine. The problem is when one takes things like footprints left in an unknown substance at an unknown time that do not match the suspect and say those prints must be accounted for by the defense.

Anglo probably has the cite of the requirements of evidence which include being precise and a couple of other things that much of the prosecution's evidence don't meet.

 

[Diocletus]

It is very interesting. Since Curatolo has already passed away, I guess they are now stuck with Hellmann's view. Unless Migi wants to call one of his physchic friends for a quick séance.

Yes, a rehabilitated Curatalo would the most obvious violation of what the ECtHR has said.

Another interesting issue is Knox. I seem to recall, but not sure, that she made some sort of statements in Hellmann's court. These statements could play into the callunnia and alibi issues. If Hellmann accepted Knox as credible, and used her testimony, then Nencini has a problem.

Also, if Nencini is going to use Rudy to incriminate (not sure that he would do so), then that will be a problem as well, since he's already been ruled unreliable.

It would also be interesting to have a list of all of the defense expert-testimony requests that were submitted to Nencini and denied, because I think that that will be an issue, also.

 

[Dan O.]

From memory Filomena is a bit vague about this in her testimony - she says that they all left their coats and bags inside so they had to get them, then when asked if the others went or just her, she says she doesn't remember if anyone else went inside, she only knows that she did. It sounds like she might have asked to get her bag and then, as you say, snuck inside to get the computer as well (it'd be interesting to know if any of the police officers were asked about who gave her permission to go back inside...)

I was looking to see if there was more about that in Filomena's testimony and came across this rather interesting exchange:

QUESTION - Okay. Listen, you remember the lights of your rooms fixed and mobile?
ANSWER - The lamps? Then the whole house?
QUESTION - No, of your homes.
ANSWER - Okay. I was on the bedside table and on the desk two abajour, Laura in her room had a paper lamp rice as a kind of abajour, Amanda had one on
Meredith bedside table and I think she had another near the bed.
QUESTION - I'm sorry, I can say I got distracted for a moment, Latter.
ANSWER - Amanda had one and Meredith's on the table if you do not mistake had one near the bed.

Filomena seems to be saying that she remembers seeing 2 lamps in Meredith's room.

ETA: Or maybe it's just the google fish messing around.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, a rehabilitated Curatalo would the most obvious violation of what the ECtHR has said.

Another interesting issue is Knox. I seem to recall, but not sure, that she made some sort of statements in Hellmann's court. These statements could play into the callunnia and alibi issues. If Hellmann accepted Knox as credible, and used her testimony, then Nencini has a problem.

Also, if Nencini is going to use Rudy to incriminate (not sure that he would do so), then that will be a problem as well, since he's already been ruled unreliable.

It would also be interesting to have a list of all of the defense expert-testimony requests that were submitted to Nencini and denied, because I think that that will be an issue, also.

Did the latest court acknowledge the C&V report?

Mach kept making the point that Hellmann's appeal was not overturned but nullified. He made it sound as if the ISC's ruling the Hellmann ruling and everything to do with it were thrown out.

In the case you referenced the guy was found innocent and then guilty. I wonder if there is a case ruled on by the ECHR that went the same way as this one .

 

[Strozzi]

From memory Filomena is a bit vague about this in her testimony - she says that they all left their coats and bags inside so they had to get them, then when asked if the others went or just her, she says she doesn't remember if anyone else went inside, she only knows that she did. It sounds like she might have asked to get her bag and then, as you say, snuck inside to get the computer as well (it'd be interesting to know if any of the police officers were asked about who gave her permission to go back inside...)

Why would the police in the house allow any of them to reenter to fetch their bags and coats which were left in the living room rather than have one police officer pass the coats and purses out. Sounds unprofessional on the part of the police. Now where have I heard that before?

 

[Diocletus]

Did the latest court acknowledge the C&V report?

Mach kept making the point that Hellmann's appeal was not overturned but nullified. He made it sound as if the ISC's ruling the Hellmann ruling and everything to do with it were thrown out.

In the case you referenced the guy was found innocent and then guilty. I wonder if there is a case ruled on by the ECHR that went the same way as this one .

The interesting thing is that in the case that I cited, the appeal court "quashed" the trial court's acquittal. But, it still used the trial court's evidence to convict (we know this because the appeals court didn't develop its own record and ECtHR noted that the same evidence was used to acquit and convict). It seems to me that the evidence is the evidence, and the only thing that gets effected by the appeals courts are the conclusions.

C&V is a good point, too, because Hellmann obviously found them reliable, and relied on their testimony to conclude that the forensic work was not reliable, but then the ISC rubbished them without hearing their testimony. Interesting.

 

[RoseMontague]

I was looking to see if there was more about that in Filomena's testimony and came across this rather interesting exchange:

​

Filomena seems to be saying that she remembers seeing 2 lamps in Meredith's room.

ETA: Or maybe it's just the google fish messing around.

Can you give me the original Italian and I will have it human translated.

 

[kwill]

Perhaps it's time for the shoes again. In this picture you can see her shoes have been removed in two completely different ways. One has been neatly untied while the other looks as though someone has hooked their finger under the knot and pulled up drawing the eyes tight together. She might have done this herself. She might have two totally different ways of removing her shoes. Obviously, that is possible. Also possible is that Guede attacked her right after she reached her room, just as she was removing one shoe. We will never know.

[qimg]http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy57/cwismayer/image_zpse1c78abd.jpg[/qimg][/URL
In this picture we see some items on the bed. They include a study book she borrowed and a note book. She told her friends she was going to get an early night and do a little studying for class the next day. She was a diligent student so this seems quite credible. The notebook and study book are near the wall. I suggest they are in that position because she had thrown them onto the bed, on top of the comforter, but that Rudy tipped them toward the wall when he dragged the comforter off the bed to cover part of the floor. I have an idea about why he wanted to do that but it's not very nice.
[URL=http://s777.photobucket.com/user/cwismayer/media/image_zps34dfd0d0.jpg.html][qimg]http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy57/cwismayer/image_zps34dfd0d0.jpg[/qimg][/URL

So, she came home, called out 'anybody home' (as Rudy attests - probably because he left the kitchen light on or because there was just something out of place) and walked smartly to her room, tossed the study book and note book on the bed, removed one shoe and got attacked before she took the other one off. I wonder whether any of her foot prints might have been found in her own blood (a thought that has not occurred to me before).

Of course, maybe this did not happen. It's impossible to be certain. But now we have two things. She did not interact with her phone in a normal way. That's three. She did not undress. Four. She did not remove her laundry from the washing machine. Five. Did she actually make any notes in that notebook? Let's say not. Six. Rudy related a series of events around 9.00 p.m. Seven. What she told her friends she intended to do. Eight. Digestion. Nine.

That is a circumstantial case. It osmotically creeps up on you. Each circumstance can be explained in a way consistent with a much later TOD. But all of them? How much more does a reasonable person need? This is yet another vital thing Hellman got wrong. It's funny but LJ, Randy and others tear strips out of the defence lawyers, very possibly with justification. I accuse Hellman.

Here's a little drill for those that are mocking the digestive state as evidence that the murder couldn't have been after 10:30 and most likely was an hour earlier.

Imagine that the kids had an iron clad alibi from 10:30 on would they still argue that the TOD could be as late as 11:30 and the lack of chyme in the duodenum means nothing in terms of TOD?

There is no doubt that if they needed to have the TOD before 10:30 they would point to the osmotic analysis of all the other evidence even if the duodenum was full of chyme and the stomach half full.

The digestive evidence fits with everything else known to put the TOD before 10.

@anglolawyer: I'd love to see a guilter version of what they think those nine elements mean. Osmotically.
@grinder: It's funny but I had that exact thought yesterday. The guilter TOD is whenever A&R don't have digital proof that they were at R's flat.

TOD was actually about 9:15. I think that Rudy -- having gotten away with B & E so recently, thought that he could talk his way out of it again. I also think that -- as his Perugia friends reported -- he saw himself as good with the ladies.

He approached Meredith in her room while she was taking off her shoes. She screamed, maybe kicked him, and so he attacked her. Once it started he was overtaken by the rush of power & the rage against her for "forcing" him to subdue her.

 

[Desert Fox]

Why would the police in the house allow any of them to reenter to fetch their bags and coats which were left in the living room rather than have one police officer pass the coats and purses out. Sounds unprofessional on the part of the police. Now where have I heard that before?

With the forensics, what actually are the teams qualifications?
They had all the right gizmos but did they have any real actual field experience?
For good or ill, the US has a lot more crimes so me have a lot of crime scene experience.

 

[Grinder]

With the forensics, what actually are the teams qualifications?
They had all the right gizmos but did they have any real actual field experience?
For good or ill, the US has a lot more crimes so me have a lot of crime scene experience.

To be fair to the PP, they were called for the return of lost phones, a service that would never to done here. When they arrived they were shown the broken window and the drops of blood in the bathroom. Meredith's door was locked but they didn't immediately break it down. With their knowledge of where the phones were found and the condition of the house it is a little odd how calm about it all they were, but they were.

Filomena's posse arrives and they don't go into panic and break down the door and then Filomena arrives and as the lease holder orders the door to be broken down.

Obviously there is a huge upset and the PP actually do follow basic procedures and clear the place. They all had already been all over the house so I can see that letting them back in to pick up their stuff didn't seem that big of a deal. We here mostly limit the crime scene to Meredith's room. Filomena had already been in her room and had touched the lap top, needed it for work and understandably didn't see how it would be significant in the investigation.

The real f-ups came from the ICSI and the flying squad.

 

[Desert Fox]

The real f-ups came from the ICSI and the flying squad.

That is who I was mostly asking about. . . .Were they actually qualified?
Obviously they did a horrid job but wondering if they were at least qualified on paper?

 

[Planigale]

With the forensics, what actually are the teams qualifications?
They had all the right gizmos but did they have any real actual field experience?
For good or ill, the US has a lot more crimes so me have a lot of crime scene experience.

This is an issue I raised a little while ago. The initial Perugia crime scene team seem to have done a reasonable job. The second visit by Stefanoni et al is different. Stefanoni is a laboratory scientist. What I am unclear about is what qualification she has to carry out a crime scene investigation. The team behave like a group of lab rats on a field trip, they get dressed up but they don't really know how to behave. they pick up the bra fastener pass it around then put it back down to photograph. The mere fact they failed to photo the fastener in situ prior to collecting is an indictment. The fact that they subsequently posed it is almost perjury. Perhaps mach will come to the rescue but from what I have been able to find Stef should never have been at the crime scene her job is to do the lab analysis (and she does not do that well).

 

[Desert Fox]

This is an issue I raised a little while ago. The initial Perugia crime scene team seem to have done a reasonable job. The second visit by Stefanoni et al is different. Stefanoni is a laboratory scientist. What I am unclear about is what qualification she has to carry out a crime scene investigation. The team behave like a group of lab rats on a field trip, they get dressed up but they don't really know how to behave. they pick up the bra fastener pass it around then put it back down to photograph. The mere fact they failed to photo the fastener in situ prior to collecting is an indictment. The fact that they subsequently posed it is almost perjury. Perhaps mach will come to the rescue but from what I have been able to find Stef should never have been at the crime scene her job is to do the lab analysis (and she does not do that well).

I still have problems with why is Amanda's DNA or even blood in the bathroom meaning anything, mixed or otherwise. If you read her book, her underwear when she was locked up was stained with menstrual blood. Maybe she misremembers but certainly plausible.

 

[anglolawyer]

The problem with the osmotic system proposed by the Italians is that they don't value the pieces correctly. In the case of TOD we KNOW: 1) Meredith arrived home around 9, 2) that she had an uncompleted call to her mother at 8:55, 3) that two calls were dialed incorrectly around 10, 4) and a text at 10:13 connected to a tower that could indicate the phone wasn't in the cottage and there were other indications (more like the things the prosecution uses) such as her dress, heating and state of the wash.

Looking at the whole picture and putting together known facts is just fine. The problem is when one takes things like footprints left in an unknown substance at an unknown time that do not match the suspect and say those prints must be accounted for by the defense.

Anglo probably has the cite of the requirements of evidence which include being precise and a couple of other things that much of the prosecution's evidence don't meet.

Serious, precise and consistent. Or serious precise and grave. Or precise, grave and consistent. Definitely one of those. And don't forget the inverse proportions thing, also crucial in Italian jurisprudence. Actually, I have forgotten it but, no matter, I know where to find it in case of need. Curiously, that has not cropped up yet in the 5 or 6 continuation threads I have followed, so it must be in the first two . I am certain it will come in handy again soon.