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

[Diocletus]

That's interesting. Who were these guys and at which trial did they testify? I bet it turns out that they just didn't notice any cuts rather than that they each subjected Rudy to a whole-body forensic exam. I mean, if I don't want you to see cuts on the inner side of my fingers I can easily manage that unless you are really determined (why?) to locate them.

The guys are Maly and Crudo. The whole situation is very disturbing from a procedural perspective.

First, here's what Chieffi says about the cuts on hand (rejecting Hellmann's conclusion that Rudy could have cut himself on Filomena's glass):

Moreover, this very fact was denied by his friends (Alex Crudo, Sofia Crudo and Philip Maly), who had not noticed any wounds on Guede’s hands on the day of 2 November 2007, before he fled to Germany, as was written in Guede’s sentencing report, admitted as evidence but ignored by the Hellmann Court of Appeal (v. infra).

So, let's go to Guede's trial. Here's what Borsini says:

With regards to the hand injury that the defendant claims to have received in the scuffle with the aggressor, it was confirmed to exist in the photograph taken of his hand by the German police (however, difficult to see); it was however revealed by his friends Crudo and Maly, with whom, according to his version, he met on the same evening as the murder and, according to the statements of those two, on the evening of 2nd November, they had not at all noticed the injury, that should have been fresh and not bandaged.

Uh oh. I sense something amiss. Let's go back to Micheli and see what is the basis for all of this judicial word-smithing.

Well, I looked at the Google translation of Micheli on the issues of Maly and Crudo, and here's what I think I see:

Rudy tried to create a kind of alibi by stating that he met up with Maly and Crudo late on the evening of the murder. Maly (I think) denied that he had seen Rudy after Oct. 26, but the court seems to believe that Maly was lying in an attempt to avoid aiding and abetting responsibility. I'm not sure whether Crudo (I might have Maly and Crudo mixed up) admits to seeing Rudy that night (I don't think he does), but he does say that he was watching TV with Rudy the next day when the news of the murder came on the TV, and it appears that Rudy jumped up and said that he was heading off to Milan for a few days "to dance." Crudo says that he didn't notice anything wrong with Rudy's hand, but it's not clear that he particularly looked at the hand.

But here's the real kicker: I don't think that Crudo and Maly actually testified and were subject to cross-examination. I think that their statements were contained in the investigation file, and were therefore admitted into evidence without any live testimony, which I think is something that is allowed in fast-track trials but not in real trials.

I have to study Micheli some more to be sure of all of this, but this is what I think right now.

If the above is true, then think about this: Everyone with a brain (including Rudy and the German cops but not Italian courts) knows that Rudy cut his hand when he stabbed Meredith in the throat, which means that the kitchen knife isn't the murder weapon. But, we have the ISC now saying in the Knox/Sollecito case that Rudy didn't have cuts before he left for Germany, as proved by the ISC's decision in Guede's case, in which the sole proof of the fact were hearsay declarations of non-testifying witnesses not subject to confrontation or cross-examination, with the court concluding that one of these witnesses is a liar based on the apparently more credible statements of . . . Rudy Guede . . . the guy who admits that he cut his hand at the time of the murder.

What?

 

[Samson]

That's the sad part, some don't realize that nothing will change the fact it's more likely Meredith was killed earlier than later and that the difference is significant. That half hour will always exist and will always be significant.

Kaosium, I don't understand the vacuum of professionals needed to tidy this up publicly. What a curious culture, can you give insight, as I have no axe to grind. I am not sure if it would be different here, but I can't think of a parallel case.

 

[Dan O.]

RWBVWL

Whose fingers made the blood smears on the side of the wardrobe? That has to be Meredith doesn't it?

That is not necessarily finger streaks but the arcs of arterial blood spurting out immediately after the fatal wound was inflicted.

 

[anglolawyer]

The guys are Maly and Crudo. The whole situation is very disturbing from a procedural perspective.

First, here's what Chieffi says about the cuts on hand (rejecting Hellmann's conclusion that Rudy could have cut himself on Filomena's glass):



So, let's go to Guede's trial. Here's what Borsini says:



Uh oh. I sense something amiss. Let's go back to Micheli and see what is the basis for all of this judicial word-smithing.

Well, I looked at the Google translation of Micheli on the issues of Maly and Crudo, and here's what I think I see:

Rudy tried to create a kind of alibi by stating that he met up with Maly and Crudo late on the evening of the murder. Maly (I think) denied that he had seen Rudy after Oct. 26, but the court seems to believe that Maly was lying in an attempt to avoid aiding and abetting responsibility. I'm not sure whether Crudo (I might have Maly and Crudo mixed up) admits to seeing Rudy that night (I don't think he does), but he does say that he was watching TV with Rudy the next day when the news of the murder came on the TV, and it appears that Rudy jumped up and said that he was heading off to Milan for a few days "to dance." Crudo says that he didn't notice anything wrong with Rudy's hand, but it's not clear that he particularly looked at the hand.

But here's the real kicker: I don't think that Crudo and Maly actually testified and were subject to cross-examination. I think that their statements were contained in the investigation file, and were therefore admitted into evidence without any live testimony, which I think is something that is allowed in fast-track trials but not in real trials.

I have to study Micheli some more to be sure of all of this, but this is what I think right now.

If the above is true, then think about this: Everyone with a brain (including Rudy and the German cops but not Italian courts) knows that Rudy cut his hand when he stabbed Meredith in the throat, which means that the kitchen knife isn't the murder weapon. But, we have the ISC now saying in the Knox/Sollecito case that Rudy didn't have cuts before he left for Germany, as proved by the ISC's decision in Guede's case, in which the sole proof of the fact were hearsay declarations of non-testifying witnesses not subject to confrontation or cross-examination, with the court concluding that one of these witnesses is a liar based on the apparently more credible statements of . . . Rudy Guede . . . the guy who admits that he cut his hand at the time of the murder.

What?

Brilliant. Thank you Diocletus.

 

[Diocletus]

It Appears that Rudy did have a Phone

MOHAMMAD EGBARIA, Israeli student of Agricultural and boyfriend of RAW SOFIA, claimed to know RUDI, but had seen the last time October 24 or so: recalled that he had received a phone call from a different number than usual , October 27, with the GUEDE to say who was in Milan and that it would be returned the next day.

-from Micheli

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium, I don't understand the vacuum of professionals needed to tidy this up publicly. What a curious culture, can you give insight, as I have no axe to grind. I am not sure if it would be different here, but I can't think of a parallel case.

In Italy the prosecutor can admit just about anything as evidence, so for that matter can the defense. It's natural for people to put more stock in what the prosecution's experts say, and they can say anything without sanction. Here's an article on how it goes in Italian courts, something on the culture of the Italian courts. I used the wayback machine as it's behind a paywall now.

The defense asked for an independent expert on just about every facet of the case the prosecution was lying or misrepresenting the facts on, but was denied on the grounds they could have their own experts testify. The one time on the one issue they were granted it, on the DNA evidence, the court-appointed experts thoroughly discredited the work of Stefanoni. Just like Tagliabracci before, one of them (Vecchiotti IIRC) was warned in court when they went too close to suggesting there was something...suspicious...about Stefanoni's work, which of course there is being as she blew off just about every scientific standard and procedure and to this day refuses to provide the data that generated the electropherograms. She could have photoshopped them, though that's not what she did, what she did do was easier for her but more complicated to explain outside just saying she 'cherry picked' from the environmental contamination which is (almost) always present in DNA samples for a handful of items and didn't allow anyone else to look at the DNA results at that level for the vast majority of those samples.

Read Diocletus' and Chris Halkides' posts especially on this subject.

 

[Samson]

In Italy the prosecutor can admit just about anything as evidence, so for that matter can the defense. It's natural for people to put more stock in what the prosecution's experts say, and they can say anything without sanction. Here's an article on how it goes in Italian courts, something on the culture of the Italian courts. I used the wayback machine as it's behind a paywall now.

The defense asked for an independent expert on just about every facet of the case the prosecution was lying or misrepresenting the facts on, but was denied on the grounds they could have their own experts testify. The one time on the one issue they were granted it, on the DNA evidence, the court-appointed experts thoroughly discredited the work of Stefanoni. Just like Tagliabracci before, one of them (Vecchiotti IIRC) was warned in court when they went too close to suggesting there was something...suspicious...about Stefanoni's work, which of course there is being as she blew off just about every scientific standard and procedure and to this day refuses to provide the data that generated the electropherograms. She could have photoshopped them, though that's not what she did, what she did do was easier for her but more complicated to explain outside just saying she 'cherry picked' from the environmental contamination which is (almost) always present in DNA samples for a handful of items and didn't allow anyone else to look at the DNA results at that level for the vast majority of those samples.

Read Diocletus' and Chris Halkides' posts especially on this subject.

This is a continual description of the triumph of form over function.

Here is an idea that I will pursue forthwith. West of Memphis was funded by Peter Jackson.

Here is a link that describes his interest in this similar case.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-film-festival/news/article.cfm?c_id=1500937&objectid=10820250

The sands of time run low, all avenues should be explored.

 

[Grinder]

T Lag is the beginning of the emptying...agreed. even so this is the median average.. It also is from a very light meal eggs and bread essentially. So according to T-LAG, 25 to 75 percent fell between 65 minutes and 102 minutes. 25 percent fell outside that range. But are we to assume that Lalli, didn't tie the stomach off? He insists that he did.

Tesla this was not the light meal study. At least it is from a different source and I think methodology.

Gastric emptying time of fluids and solids in healthy subjects determined by 13C breath tests: influence of age, sex and body mass index.


The light meal study concentrated on how full the stomach was at time intervals.

As I've said maybe Lalli screwed up in the tying or when the body was moved the chyme slipped down or the time of the start of the meal was off or Meredith's had some condition that night.

I think most everyone will agree that the 6 pm meal start time seems impossible but we don't have a better time as at least one of the girls said 5:30

Coming back to the timing, it can't be argued genuinely that if she ate at 6 she couldn't live 30 more minutes after arriving home and make the exact same assertion if she ate at 5:30, 6:30 or 7.

 

[Diocletus]

Hi Diocletus,
You've seen this recreation and comparison before, haven't you?
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/841/ftlg.jpg[/qimg]

I'd think that if the cuts on Rudy's were shallow, they might not have bleed much.

Also, when out and about, hangin' with the boyz, most of us nowadays don't shake hands when we greet, just bump knuckles, like I did a short while ago when I bailed my brother in law's pad. (My sis is married to a younger guy, cool dude!)

That comparison photo above looks kinda convincing that it was knife related, not broken window related.
Thoughts?

Yup. Rudy stabbed her in the neck and cut his hand when the knife hit bone.

 

[Diocletus]

Tesla this was not the light meal study. At least it is from a different source and I think methodology.

Gastric emptying time of fluids and solids in healthy subjects determined by 13C breath tests: influence of age, sex and body mass index.


The light meal study concentrated on how full the stomach was at time intervals.

As I've said maybe Lalli screwed up in the tying or when the body was moved the chyme slipped down or the time of the start of the meal was off or Meredith's had some condition that night.

I think most everyone will agree that the 6 pm meal start time seems impossible but we don't have a better time as at least one of the girls said 5:30

Coming back to the timing, it can't be argued genuinely that if she ate at 6 she couldn't live 30 more minutes after arriving home and make the exact same assertion if she ate at 5:30, 6:30 or 7.

Does anyone know the intestine-emptying time for a bad Kabob?

 

[js202]

-from Micheli

Yep. The one with which he demonstrably established a history of association - some wags would insinuate "compatibility with" a drugs-for-sex relationship - with Amanda Knox? Likewise, the one with which he feverishly exchanged texts - some wags would claim as a prelude to his hot "date" on All Saints Day - with Meredith Kercher?

Yeah. That's the ticket.

 

[Kaosium]

Coming back to the timing, it can't be argued genuinely that if she ate at 6 she couldn't live 30 more minutes after arriving home and make the exact same assertion if she ate at 5:30, 6:30 or 7.

That's not what's being argued, it's a strawman. One developed by bunnies to obfuscate on this issue.

Lemme try this. No matter what time you use for when she started eating, the most likely time she was attacked will be the earliest possible time. Even starting with a 7PM meal time, one used as an 'extreme' example and allowance to the prosecution and a hypothetical no matter what it will always be true that the earlier times are the most likely and even with the 7 PM start time the difference between a 9:00 ToD and a 9:30+ ToD is profound enough to make the latter highly unlikely.

Moving the meal time earlier just makes that more profound, or highly unlikely the meal started that early. We know Meredith was alive at 9:00 PM (if she wasn't then Amanda and Raffaele are cleared anyway) and she only started eating at one time. Because we know Meredith was alive at 9 PM, the earlier she started eating the more likely she was attacked as soon as she got home.


This is not linear. It's a range of percentages. What happens is something like this:

If Meredith ate at 7 PM that makes it 2.0 hours for a ToD of 9 PM and 2.5 for a ToD of 9:30 PM. What you're comparing is the relative probabilities between them and it's not linear, it's a curve. It is automatically more likely that it was 9:00 PM than 9:30, because in all the studies the longer it took (right of the median) the percentage went down. The only thing you're figuring at this point is how much more likely it was to be 9:00 PM than 9:30, knowing that it still is possible it was 9:30, just more likely to be 9:00, with the probability declining with each minute from 9:00 to 9:30.

When you do it with 6:30 PM you're comparing 2.5 hours with 3.0 hours. At that point 2.5 hours is much more likely than 3.0 hours, you're not comparing it to 2.0 hours anymore! Forget about that, if she started eating at 6:30 then she did not start eating at 6:00 so that doesn't matter at all. What happens is that 9:00 PM becomes even more likely because 2.5 is even more relatively likely than 3.0. The same goes for 3.0 and 3.5 hours, with the caveat that at this juncture you're getting into uncharted territory, suggesting 9:30 is no longer a realistic possibility, no one has done that in any study I've seen. However there's still the barest possibility even if it's never been done before, however the difference at this point between the odds of it being 9:00 compared to 9:30 is profound, like on the order of 999:1. It would be even more so for 3.5 hours compared to 4.0 but now you don't have any data at all for either 3.5 or 4.0 hours which is highly suggestive this scenario never happened and Sophie was wrong!


Does it make better sense this way? Maybe I should have started explaining it this way before.

 

[Kaosium]

Does anyone know the intestine-emptying time for a bad Kabob?

Apparently it's like a grease through a goose, or Rudy was lying.

Or perhaps whatever he dumped in the toilet was from before and the kabob just gave him gas or whatever and he had to take a dump and expel his previous meal.

 

[kwill]

I have to study Micheli some more to be sure of all of this, but this is what I think right now.

. . . Rudy cut his hand when he stabbed Meredith in the throat, which means that the kitchen knife isn't the murder weapon.

But, we have the ISC now saying in the Knox/Sollecito case that Rudy didn't have cuts before he left for Germany,

as proved by the ISC's decision in Guede's case,

in which the sole proof of the fact were hearsay declarations of non-testifying witnesses not subject to confrontation or cross-examination,

with the court concluding that one of these witnesses is a liar based on the apparently more credible statements of . . . Rudy Guede . . .

the guy who admits that he cut his hand at the time of the murder.

Well done, you. I put some spaces into your text because the mindbogglingness of this is too much for me without pausing repeatedly for breath.

 

[Grinder]

Kaosium,

Of course once the mid point of the digestion curve is passed the likelihood becomes sooner than later. It wasn't a straw man because you have and do argue that no matter what time dinner was that the TOD is so highly likely to be withing 30 minutes of her returning home that the kids couldn't have been there because of Naruto. Of course, only one person needed to be there to start it so even the computer data only alibis one person. We'll just ignore that.

I have yet to see a study that puts an end time on healthy gastric emptying, but as I said many a time the 2.5 hours from 6:30 to 8 already is on the long end and is one of the reasons I think something is off in the data.

After eating a meal, it usually takes about 2 to 4 hours for the stomach to empty its contents. High fat foods take the longest time to empty from the stomach.

Coming back to the original assertion that the digestion makes for an alibi because the chance she was alive at 9:35 is so low as to not be considered has not been demonstrated by the science. If you will consider a 6 pm dinner you then must also consider a 9:35 TOD if she ate at 6:35 or a 10 pm TOD if she ate at 7 pm.

Now if you refuse to accept a 6 pm dinner, then we are in agreement that we don't have the data to prove TOD from digestion.

Btw, it was I that suggested the meal didn't need to be 500 cc and that some of the chyme could have slipped and Randy agreed.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have to study Micheli some more to be sure of all of this, but this is what I think right now.

. . . Rudy cut his hand when he stabbed Meredith in the throat, which means that the kitchen knife isn't the murder weapon.

But, we have the ISC now saying in the Knox/Sollecito case that Rudy didn't have cuts before he left for Germany,

as proved by the ISC's decision in Guede's case,

in which the sole proof of the fact were hearsay declarations of non-testifying witnesses not subject to confrontation or cross-examination,

with the court concluding that one of these witnesses is a liar based on the apparently more credible statements of . . . Rudy Guede . . .

the guy who admits that he cut his hand at the time of the murder.

Well done, you. I put some spaces into your text because the mindbogglingness of this is too much for me without pausing repeatedly for breath.

Then there are the guilters who read this kind of stuff, and then move on with their sluttification of all this as if nothing was said.

Every once in a while someone says, "They must be guilty, there have been 27 Italian judges who have looked at this and said so."

Why, then, do each of those 27 need to virtually reinvent this case, so that each one doesn't blush too hard when condemning innocents?

The Nencini motivations report will be a goal-mine of reinvention. Already Crini (the prosecutor) invented out of whole cloth the pseudo-compatibility of the kitchen knife with the bedsheet outline of a knife in blood.

Not once since Crini dreamt that up, has the most vile guilter or the most hateful troll or even the most inventive prosecutor or judge ever remotely suggested this. Indeed, the obvious incompatibility drove Mignini to the two-knife theory.

But when the DNA disappears, they need something don't they? How many times do they got to make this up?

Doesn't anyone in the Italian judiciary even blush when they are saying these things?

Thanks Diocletus. You'd earned your pay from the PR Supertanker for the week.

 

[kwill]

I have yet to see a study that puts an end time on healthy gastric emptying, but as I said many a time the 2.5 hours from 6:30 to 8 already is on the long end and is one of the reasons I think something is off in the data.

It's 1.5 hours from 6:30 to 8 Does that change your reasoning?

Coming back to the original assertion that the digestion makes for an alibi because the chance she was alive at 9:35 is so low as to not be considered has not been demonstrated by the science. If you will consider a 6 pm dinner you then must also consider a 9:35 TOD if she ate at 6:35 or a 10 pm TOD if she ate at 7 pm.

Backwards logic. You're saying this: accepting a 6 pm dinner and a 9 pm TOD requires that we also accept a 7 pm dinner and a 10 pm TOD. This ignores the reason to accept that 9 pm TOD -- which is simply that it's the earliest possible time she might have died. The 3-hour window is extremely unlikely, but we're forced to accept it simply because the TOD couldn't have been any earlier, given when we know she parted from Sophie.

Start, as Kaosium did, with the possible times of dinner and the fact that she was alive at 9 pm.

Possible time of dinner = 5:30 (used as an outlier on the early end) means AT LEAST 3.5 hours between food and death, and every moment past those 3.5 hours is less likely than the one before.

Possible time of dinner = 6 means AT LEAST 3 hours between food and death. The curves say that every moment past those 3 hours is far less likely than the one before it.

Possible time of dinner = 6:30 means AT LEAST 2.5 hours between food and death, with every moment after 9 pm still being far less likely than the one before it.

Possible time of dinner = 7 (used as an outlier on the late end) means AT LEAST 2 hours between food and death, and again, every moment after 9 pm is going to be less likely than the one before it.

It's not the case that we "must consider" 10 pm as a possible TOD . . . the only way that would be true is if we knew she arrived home at 10 pm.

The closer you are to 9, the more likely you are to have landed on the correct TOD.

You can argue all you want about whether this is sufficient to "prove innocence" but I don't think there's any question that it raises reasonable doubt. It's not reasonable to think that Meredith was still alive at 9:30, based on the gastric evidence.

 

[Grinder]

It's 1.5 hours from 6:30 to 8 Does that change your reasoning?

No. !.5 or 2.5 are already on the long end for emptying to begin.

Backwards logic. You're saying this: accepting a 6 pm dinner and a 9 pm TOD requires that we also accept a 7 pm dinner and a 10 pm TOD. This ignores the reason to accept that 9 pm TOD -- which is simply that it's the earliest possible time she might have died. The 3-hour window is extremely unlikely, but we're forced to accept it simply because the TOD couldn't have been any earlier, given when we know she parted from Sophie.

Sir if 3 works in one case it must work in the other. I am saying that something is wrong in the data but because it is handy for the alibi argument others prefer to accept the data and make an assertion about TOD before they could get there. How late could dinner start and the emptying not make it time certain that she was dead before they could get there? 7 pm 8 pm 8:15?

Possible time of dinner = 7 (used as an outlier on the late end) means AT LEAST 2 hours between food and death, and again, every moment after 9 pm is going to be less likely than the one before it.

Why is that the outlier? Read the girls' testimony. They really don't know and it sounds like they stopped the movie to eat. No one asks what Meredith ate or when.

It's not the case that we "must consider" 10 pm as a possible TOD . . . the only way that would be true is if we knew she arrived home at 10 pm.

It is clear that once passed the mid point of the curve that it becomes more unlikely not to have started by the minute but we don't know from the studies how much and if you look at LJ's work Kaosium referenced he had it at 5% at 9:30 using only a standard bell curve.

The closer you are to 9, the more likely you are to have landed on the correct TOD.

This isn't a probabilty game using Bayesian assumptions. We don't know when and how much she ate and we have to trust Lalli's (two Ls) work and the police or ICSI that handled the body.

You can argue all you want about whether this is sufficient to "prove innocence" but I don't think there's any question that it raises reasonable doubt. It's not reasonable to think that Meredith was still alive at 9:30, based on the gastric evidence.

I don't think you understand reasonable doubt in this context. Since everyone here arguing that the digestion sets them free is a absolutely sure of innocence it has all the signs of confirmation bias.

I've read enough of the girls' testimony to know that the times are fungible

 

[Desert Fox]

It's not the case that we "must consider" 10 pm as a possible TOD . . . the only way that would be true is if we knew she arrived home at 10 pm.

The closer you are to 9, the more likely you are to have landed on the correct TOD.

You can argue all you want about whether this is sufficient to "prove innocence" but I don't think there's any question that it raises reasonable doubt. It's not reasonable to think that Meredith was still alive at 9:30, based on the gastric evidence.

If you have to "prove innocence", it is an epic fail. Courts should never expect that.
I cannot prove that the Salem women accused of being witches were not actually witches.

I think though we are far past reasonable doubt and instead in the realm of extreme probability of innocence.

 

[kwill]

Sir if 3 works in one case it must work in the other. I am saying that something is wrong in the data but because it is handy for the alibi argument others prefer to accept the data and make an assertion about TOD before they could get there.

Nope, you've still missed the central issue. A 9 pm murder after a 6 pm dinner doesn't "work" -- it's just a very extreme outlier that you would have to accept as the window if you knew for sure that the meal began at 6 pm and the victim was still alive at 9.

That doesn't mean -- without a very solid reason for the conjecture -- that you can arbitrarily say she could have eaten at 7 and therefore we have to accept that she might have been alive at 10. There is no reason whatsoever to think she was alive at 10, and her stomach contents argue strongly that she was not alive very long after 9.

Also, I am very much not a "sir."