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

[acbytesla]

The problem Grinder is that it is the prosecution's responsibility to prove who killed Meredith and these issues with her digestion certainly put a monkey wrench into their ability to prove that. They are for example willing to ignore the parts of Curatolo's testimony that are not convenient or the fact that Quintavalle told a detective within days of the murder something entirely different than he testified to.

The TOD should be a serious problem for the prosecution and for whatever reason, this just doesn't matter.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

discovery of DNA evidence

A professor of law whose specialty is scientific evidence, Paul C. Giannelli wrote a chapter in the book “Race to Injustice” on the DNA evidence in the Duke lacrosse case, which is well worth one’s time to read. “In any event, no attorney should have to search through the haystack for the exculpatory needle. A laboratory report should be comprehensive and include a section specifying the limitations of the technique used in the analysis. The report should also be comprehensible to laypersons.” He also notes, “In short, adequate representation often requires expert assistance.” Of course, even the experts need data. Show of hands: how many think that Stefanoni's conduct is consistent with the principles given by Professor Gianelli?

 

[anglolawyer]

A professor of law whose specialty is scientific evidence, Paul C. Giannelli wrote a chapter in the book “Race to Injustice” on the DNA evidence in the Duke lacrosse case, which is well worth one’s time to read. “In any event, no attorney should have to search through the haystack for the exculpatory needle. A laboratory report should be comprehensive and include a section specifying the limitations of the technique used in the analysis. The report should also be comprehensible to laypersons.” He also notes, “In short, adequate representation often requires expert assistance.” Of course, even the experts need data. Show of hands: how many think that Stefanoni's conduct is consistent with the principles given by Professor Gianelli?

It has to be if lay juries are to decide cases. But I don't know how, say, Balding's maths could be rendered comprehensible.

 

[kwill]

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.

I know.

What's so interesting (if by interesting you mean deeply frustrating) about the digestive evidence is the way the case gets turned inside out.

The evidence is:

Meal consumed, beginning sometime between 5:30 and 6:30, according to the witness testimony. Dessert finished around 7:45, according to the witness testimony. Dessert recognizable in the stomach at time of death, according to the coroner. Empty duodenum at time of death, according to the coroner. Still alive at 9 pm, according to CTV camera and attempted phone call home.

The case for reasonable doubt about a time of death closer to 9 pm than 9:30 pm is:

She could have eaten later in the evening than originally thought, because the English women were wobbly about the time. She could have had slow digestion that day because of her alcohol binging the night before. She could have had digestive problems we don't know about. Lalli might have made a mistake.

And aliens might have landed yesterday. But I don't have any reason to think so, except if I just really want to believe that. It's the same with this absurd case for reasonable doubt about the TOD; there's no reason to believe any of those things are true, unless you just really want to. That's called bias.

 

[Grinder]

The problem Grinder is that it is the prosecution's responsibility to prove who killed Meredith and these issues with her digestion certainly put a monkey wrench into their ability to prove that. They are for example willing to ignore the parts of Curatolo's testimony that are not convenient or the fact that Quintavalle told a detective within days of the murder something entirely different than he testified to.

The TOD should be a serious problem for the prosecution and for whatever reason, this just doesn't matter.

Guys and gals we all know that the defendants are not required to prove innocence but that's what has been contended here because of the digestion evidence.

I have always said that the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is a three hour non-emptying time possible for what Meredith ate? If yes then if they ate at 7 then 10 is possible. If it isn't possible then something is amiss with the data.

If the 2.5 from 6:30 to 9 (oops I typed 8 once, oh my) is possible then 7 to 9:30 is possible.

Has anyone bothered to read the testimony of the girls? Is there other statements by them that would shed more light on this.

The problem here isn't my inability to understand diminishing curves or no linear or anything else, it's that the science hasn't been demonstrated to show that regardless of whether she ate at 6 or 6:30 or 7 that gastric emptying would have to start within 20 minutes of her arriving home.

As I have tried to make clear, I doubt the data but even if she ate at 6 and hadn't started to empty at 9:05 we still have no solid study that says there is a less than 5% chance it could have held off for 30 minutes. Even if it were less than five percent that doesn't rule it out but does add to the argument for being not guilty.

LJ's analysis was to prove that she was dead before 11:30 and that is very hard to find any fault with. His numbers had a 5% chance by 9:20 so I'll say a 4% chance by 9:35.

It will be interesting to see if any real experts in the field step-up and voice opinions. I hope they do and blow the case out of the water.

Too bad the defenses' experts couldn't prove TOD before 11:30.

 

[anglolawyer]

Guys and gals we all know that the defendants are not required to prove innocence but that's what has been contended here because of the digestion evidence.

I have always said that the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are already down three yachts on this, having agreed (in writing) they are innocent beyond any reasonable doubt.

Too bad the defenses' experts couldn't prove TOD before 11:30.

At precisely which point in the proceedings were the defendants aware that a 23.30 p.m. TOD was being suggested?

 

[kwill]

Is a three hour non-emptying time possible for what Meredith ate? If yes then if they ate at 7 then 10 is possible.

If the 2.5 from 6:30 to 9 . . . is possible then 7 to 9:30 is possible.

So what? The question we're trying to answer is not what is possible. It's what does the digestive evidence show is most likely. And the evidence shows that it's highly likely that Meredith died closer to 9 than 9:30. You need some other reason to think that the TOD was after 9:30. What is it?

Has anyone bothered to read the testimony of the girls?

Sure.

Robyn Butterworth:
Question: Tell us what you ate that evening and at what time and when you have finished eating?

Answer: We have prepared a pizza so we made the base, then put the c'abbiamo tomato, cheese, mozzarella, eggplant, onion perhaps, I do not remember what time we ate, maybe around six.

Sophie Purton:
Question: Listen, then at what time you remember you have finished eating?

Answer: I do not remember because it took us quite a lot of time because we were relaxed, and ate quietly.

Question: How long before departure you have finished eating roughly?

Answer: Maybe an hour

Question: What time did you go away, you and Meredith?

Answer: I would say that it was eight and three quarters.

You can say whatever you like about this, but the fact is that it's all we have.

We ate maybe around six. We finished eating maybe around 7:45, about an hour before we left. A relaxed, slow meal.

 

[acbytesla]

Guys and gals we all know that the defendants are not required to prove innocence but that's what has been contended here because of the digestion evidence.

I have always said that the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is a three hour non-emptying time possible for what Meredith ate? If yes then if they ate at 7 then 10 is possible. If it isn't possible then something is amiss with the data.

If the 2.5 from 6:30 to 9 (oops I typed 8 once, oh my) is possible then 7 to 9:30 is possible.

Has anyone bothered to read the testimony of the girls? Is there other statements by them that would shed more light on this.

The problem here isn't my inability to understand diminishing curves or no linear or anything else, it's that the science hasn't been demonstrated to show that regardless of whether she ate at 6 or 6:30 or 7 that gastric emptying would have to start within 20 minutes of her arriving home.

As I have tried to make clear, I doubt the data but even if she ate at 6 and hadn't started to empty at 9:05 we still have no solid study that says there is a less than 5% chance it could have held off for 30 minutes. Even if it were less than five percent that doesn't rule it out but does add to the argument for being not guilty.

LJ's analysis was to prove that she was dead before 11:30 and that is very hard to find any fault with. His numbers had a 5% chance by 9:20 so I'll say a 4% chance by 9:35.

It will be interesting to see if any real experts in the field step-up and voice opinions. I hope they do and blow the case out of the water.

Too bad the defenses' experts couldn't prove TOD before 11:30.

If we can't tell that Meredith was dead by 10:00 PM, we really can't tell if she was dead by 11:30 or 2:00 AM either. Even the apple crumble pie desert should have been emptying from her stomach by then.

What we have is a total breakdown of unbiased procedures and analysis by the Italian legal entity.

 

[Samson]

If we can't tell that Meredith was dead by 10:00 PM, we really can't tell if she was dead by 11:30 or 2:00 AM either. Even the apple crumble pie desert should have been emptying from her stomach by then.

What we have is a total breakdown of unbiased procedures and analysis by the Italian legal entity.

Machiavelli has posted 30 pictures of the bathmat footprint on TJMK to rapturous applause, and poster after poster declares that proof is now absolute that it is Raffaele's. Extradition is seen as a rapid formality for his co-accused Amanda. Picture 28 shows an indentation to the left edge of the big toe. This from a top view is similar to Raffaele's footprint, but is due to the elevation of anatomy at the joint of the toe. This can be immediately understood by glancing at your own toe. One poster declares this to be the pivotal affirmation of compatibility.
Meanwhile keyboards are being worn out demonstrating hard science of digestion and time of death, to the deafening silence of these people, who will never again acknowledge they have a problem. After all they are supported by legal fact.

 

[acbytesla]

Machiavelli has posted 30 pictures of the bathmat footprint on TJMK to rapturous applause, and poster after poster declares that proof is now absolute that it is Raffaele's. Extradition is seen as a rapid formality for his co-accused Amanda. Picture 28 shows an indentation to the left edge of the big toe. This from a top view is similar to Raffaele's footprint, but is due to the elevation of anatomy at the joint of the toe. This can be immediately understood by glancing at your own toe. One poster declares this to be the pivotal affirmation of compatibility.
Meanwhile keyboards are being worn out demonstrating hard science of digestion and time of death, to the deafening silence of these people, who will never again acknowledge they have a problem. After all they are supported by legal fact.

Machiavelli also now says that the bloody knife imprint is somehow the cooking knife.

I have looked at the bathmat print until my eyes blurred red. They are not proof of anything. The print is similar to Raffaele foot but also very similar to Rudy's foot. One simply cannot rule either foot out or even someone unknown. It equals out to a big fat maybe....definitely NOT proof. Machiavelli, just likes the sound of his own voice or his thoughts on paper. He seems to lack the courage to post where his ideas are challenged. He is only comfortable where sycophants will bow to his tune.

 

[Grinder]

You are already down three yachts on this, having agreed (in writing) they are innocent beyond any reasonable doubt.

If that makes you happy, i'm so glad but what I said was that the prosecution didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you believe that's the same thing...

At precisely which point in the proceedings were the defendants aware that a 23.30 p.m. TOD was being suggested?

I'm not sure but Introna sure seemed to be working the TOD by 10:30 angle pretty hard. For the uninformed here that was Raf's expert on this. Head of forencics at Bari U IIRC.

So what? The question we're trying to answer is not what is possible. It's what does the digestive evidence show is most likely. And the evidence shows that it's highly likely that Meredith died closer to 9 than 9:30. You need some other reason to think that the TOD was after 9:30. What is it?

I've said it over and over. Don't really understand why you don't get it but this convo started when someone said that the digestion PROVED they were innocent. I don't think it does.

Robyn Butterworth:
Question: Tell us what you ate that evening and at what time and when you have finished eating?

Answer: We have prepared a pizza so we made the base, then put the c'abbiamo tomato, cheese, mozzarella, eggplant, onion perhaps, I do not remember what time we ate, maybe around six.

Sophie Purton:
Question: Listen, then at what time you remember you have finished eating?

Answer: I do not remember because it took us quite a lot of time because we were relaxed, and ate quietly.

Question: How long before departure you have finished eating roughly?

Answer: Maybe an hour

Question: What time did you go away, you and Meredith?

Answer: I would say that it was eight and three quarters.

You can say whatever you like about this, but the fact is that it's all we have.

We ate maybe around six. We finished eating maybe around 7:45, about an hour before we left. A relaxed, slow meal.

Where are those from? I'm still working off the official Italian version of their interviews/testimony from Amanda's page.

If we can't tell that Meredith was dead by 10:00 PM, we really can't tell if she was dead by 11:30 or 2:00 AM either. Even the apple crumble pie desert should have been emptying from her stomach by then.

What we have is a total breakdown of unbiased procedures and analysis by the Italian legal entity.

As I have repeatedly said I think something is wrong with the data. We know she ate with the girls and we know that she returned home by nine so the meal had to be before that. It would seem even with their vague memories that they finished eating by 8. That would indicate that they started eating by seven since there were at least two courses. Everyone agrees that gastric emptying starts within 4 hours on the outside therefore she couldn't have lived past 11.

No one can possibly assert that it is far far less likely she lived until past 11 then she lived until 9:50.

ETA -I had those quotes before but can't find them now or maybe you posted them befoe

 

[Samson]

Machiavelli also now says that the bloody knife imprint is somehow the cooking knife.

I have looked at the bathmat print until my eyes blurred red. They are not proof of anything. The print is similar to Raffaele foot but also very similar to Rudy's foot. One simply cannot rule either foot out or even someone unknown. It equals out to a big fat maybe....definitely NOT proof. Machiavelli, just likes the sound of his own voice or his thoughts on paper. He seems to lack the courage to post where his ideas are challenged. He is only comfortable where sycophants will bow to his tune.

It is a good blind test. I have tried it on a few people, and Rudy's gets the nod. Unsurprising really, because it can only be his.

 

[kwill]

Machiavelli has posted 30 pictures of the bathmat footprint on TJMK to rapturous applause, and poster after poster declares that proof is now absolute that it is Raffaele's.

The human id on display. Last week on This American Life, there was a story about a guy whose life was trashed by his willing-to-hate-online-and-in-person neighbors. It's quite chilling . . . until the very satisfying conclusion.

It's 18 minutes long and well worth a listen. When I heard it the other day, I thought of TJMK and all the hyenas baying for blood.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli also now says that the bloody knife imprint is somehow the cooking knife.

I have looked at the bathmat print until my eyes blurred red. They are not proof of anything. The print is similar to Raffaele foot but also very similar to Rudy's foot. One simply cannot rule either foot out or even someone unknown. It equals out to a big fat maybe....definitely NOT proof. Machiavelli, just likes the sound of his own voice or his thoughts on paper. He seems to lack the courage to post where his ideas are challenged. He is only comfortable where sycophants will bow to his tune.

That the bathmat is at issue is proof that deep down even Machiavelli admits the DNA evidence which convicted the pair in 2009 is bogus.

That Crini (and now Machiavelli) is claiming that the kitchen knife from Raffaele's is now a match for the bedsheet stain, is proof that deep down even Machiavelli admits the DNA evidence which convicted the pair in 2009 is bogus.

Both those issues prove nothing, except that even guilters have given up on the DNA evidence. Even Crini had to give up on it once the RIS Carabinieri reported on sample 36i to the Nencini court on Florence.

The strangest thing is that even with Nencini's conviction of the pair, the guilter-bunch still feel a need to prove things. They've won. Unjustly, yes, but they've won just the same.

Why are they bothering trying to reinvent the crime? Every time some court rules to convict them, that court (and this applies to both Massei as well as Nencini, not to mention the ISC in March 2013) had to reinvent the crime.

The hallmark of an unjust conviction is that guilters simply can't agree on what they two are being convicted of.

 

[acbytesla]

It is a good blind test. I have tried it on a few people, and Rudy's gets the nod. Unsurprising really, because it can only be his.

I definitely think it looks more like Rudy's. That said, I could never convict anyone on that evidence. The print is simply to fuzzy for an actual ID. I can see that you could use the print to eliminate someone...for example, it is definitely NOT Amanda's foot, but to use it for a conclusion is just wrong.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mignini's closing remarks

At precisely which point in the proceedings were the defendants aware that a 23.30 p.m. TOD was being suggested?

anglolawyer,

My understanding (which may come from Darkness Descending) is that Mignini changed the TOD to 11:30 in his closing remarks in 2009. I seem to recall some discussion, perhaps even here, about whether or not he should have been allowed to make a change that late. If he had said so earlier, the defense would have had more opportunity to refute it. That is one of at least three highly questionable things that Mignini did in his closing remarks; the other two were putting words into Amanda's mouth and defining what beyond reasonable doubt was in a patently false way.

 

[Bill Williams]

anglolawyer,

My understanding (which may come from Darkness Descending) is that Mignini changed the TOD to 11:30 in his closing remarks in 2009. I seem to recall some discussion, perhaps even here, about whether or not he should have been allowed to make a change that late. If he had said so earlier, the defense would have had more opportunity to refute it. That is one of at least three highly questionable things that Mignini did in his closing remarks; the other two were putting words into Amanda's mouth and defining what beyond reasonable doubt was in a patently false way.

What I also don't get is that in the Massei motivations report, Raffaele and Amanda were essentially convicted of a different crime, with no chance to refute the claims made by Massei.

It starts with motive. At trial Raffaele and Amanda were defending themselves from Mignini's theories, that they've purposely gone over to the cottage to, as Mignini said, "Make Meredith have sex," and the murder was a result of a sex game gone wrong.

That's not what Massei convicted them of doing. Massei had them in Amanda's room making out, while Rudy pushed himself on to Meredith in Meredith's room. Essentially, Knox and Sollecito go into Meredith's room, acc. to Massei, to see what all the commotion is about.

And then Massei's reconstruction calls for two perfectly normal kids (I get in trouble here when I say that Massei thought they had no whiff of psychopathology about them), calls for them to make an on-the-spot, completely inexplicable "choice for evil". Massei says that bad choice must have been because of the drugs and that the two of them were so far from the moderating influences of a normal home.

And instead of bringing the kitchen knife over to the cottage with malice aforethought (Mignini), Massei has Amanda carrying it "for protection" and it just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Don't defendants get an opportunity in Italy to make full answer to the theory that is going to convict them?

Apparently not.

Now even Machiavelli (or Crini) gets to reinvent the bedsheet stain, a full 6 years after the crime - and where no one in six years, not even Mignini, claimed such a thing. This is what makes many believe they simply did not receive fair trials.

 

[Grinder]

anglolawyer,

My understanding (which may come from Darkness Descending) is that Mignini changed the TOD to 11:30 in his closing remarks in 2009. I seem to recall some discussion, perhaps even here, about whether or not he should have been allowed to make a change that late. If he had said so earlier, the defense would have had more opportunity to refute it. That is one of at least three highly questionable things that Mignini did in his closing remarks; the other two were putting words into Amanda's mouth and defining what beyond reasonable doubt was in a patently false way.

Introna surely was putting TOD between 21.30 and 22.30 to contend with Mignini and I don't see how they could use Curatolo and Nara and have the TOD before 11:15. Mignini worked on Curatolo to move the time he left to before midnight as he had originally testified. Massei then helped move the time by pointing out that the disco buses (that didn't run that night) would have been gone by 11:30 so Curatolo must have left earlier than he remembered.

They had Meredith fooling with her phone until at least 10.

 

[Grinder]

I definitely think it looks more like Rudy's. That said, I could never convict anyone on that evidence. The print is simply to fuzzy for an actual ID. I can see that you could use the print to eliminate someone...for example, it is definitely NOT Amanda's foot, but to use it for a conclusion is just wrong.

But it was compatible and we all know what that means in Italy.

I too think the print looks more like Rudi but even more importantly it isn't as if it has to be one or the other. Rudi could have had another accomplice that left the same DNA behind as the kids, none.

The bath mat print should have been picked out of a lineup of similar reference prints in order to make any claim. They should have shown the judges ten prints and asked which one it matched.

 

[acbytesla]

But it was compatible and we all know what that means in Italy.

I too think the print looks more like Rudi but even more importantly it isn't as if it has to be one or the other. Rudi could have had another accomplice that left the same DNA behind as the kids, none.

The bath mat print should have been picked out of a lineup of similar reference prints in order to make any claim. They should have shown the judges ten prints and asked which one it matched.

I know, it might be compatible...but compatible doesn't mean a match in the real world..only in Italy. Compare it blind to ten other men's footprints with similar size feet and they might have something. If 8 out of 10 of them picked Raffale's feet. But that isn't what happened here. Only in the mind of guilter does maybe and could be equal "they did".