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

[Samson]

Yeah. I actually wondered if somebody hacked Dan O's login to post something so strange . . . her clothes came off by accident? I can't believe anybody would suggest that.

I suggested a while ago Rudy should be an entry for most evil person of the 21st century. He knows he killed alone, and will sacrifice two fine families without remorse. What he did that evening pales into insignificance, in light of what he is doing with enduring malice a forethought right now. The Italian system may believe it is possible he acted with co-conspirators, but he alone is possessed of the certain knowledge of his total culpability.

 

[Diocletus]

Look on the third photo in that last set I posted. The palm print is to the far right opposite the semen stain.

This print on fabric is not going to present the fine ridge detail typically used in identification of fingerprints but it appears to show the major crease lines in the palm. It may be detailed enough to confirm the identity once they have a suspect but it is doubtful that it could be used to locate the suspect.

Italy does record palm prints and has many on file (we found the number earlier). This print was supposedly in Rudy's immigration records and may have more recently been taken when he was caught in Milan.

Really? That's it? It looks like something that could be a palm print, but I have no idea how they could get a match off if that. Even they could, how would they know to look at Rudy's prints?

 

[MichaelB]

http://borsinibellardi.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/

The first judge noted that according to the first analysis, Lalli-Epicopo, the purple marks of bruising present on the internal side of the labia minora of the victim could be explained by the absence of vaginal lubrification* symptomatic of sexual activity in the absence of the preparation and availability of the woman, that can be attributed therefore either to, hurried intercourse, completed or attempted, or [penetration] against the wish of the individual.

The consultants nominated by the Public Minister observed that “in absence of vaginal lubrification, the introduction of the penis or even only of the fingers is capable of making such bruises due to the pressure employed and/or due to the rubbing”.

The consultants Bacci-Liniero-Marchionni nominated later by the Public Minister also leaned towards penetration of a violent nature; and again the expert Professor Aprile, in the pre-trial investigation, stated the sexual activity was about the same time as the lethal event, and a crime of a sexual nature. ..

 

[codyjuneau]

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

.
Interesting, to me at least.

The phone record, including both phone numbers, for that phone call from Rudy to Mr. Egbaria should still be available in the telephone company's archives.

I wonder if the phone Rudy was using was stolen, and could be traced to a burglary? Perhaps one we have not heard about yet?

I also wonder what other phone calls, and to whom, Rudy might have made with that same phone? Even on the night of the murder. That information should be discoverable.

Most of all, I wonder if that phone Rudy was using might by chance also be the one that made the bomb threat phone call? That record should also be available. A match could be Raffaele and Amanda's get out of jail free card.

Seriously, that phone number could be a gold mine of information.
.

Don't you think a competent law enforcement agency would have traced those call records the moment they learned about them? Even the Italians would have tracked these down if there was a possibility they could find a link to Amanda. Look what they wrote on Amanda's phone record. They were disparate to find anything linking the American to this crime. So the question becomes, why are these records not known? Is this another case of information helpfull to the defense just disappearing?

.
Exactly Danno. If we have learned anything, it is that the defense cannot accept Perugian police investigations at face value. However, when it comes to telephone calls, the defense should be able to do their own investigating without relying on the police. The defense should be able to find out the new telephone number Rudy began using just days before Meredith's murder. And once the number is known, then all the calls to or from that number also become available. That means phone numbers, times, and cell towers connected to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think there are currently any phone records for Rudy immediately before, during or after the murder? And now here is an opportunity to get the phone records for this new phone he was using.

I am mildly surprised by the lack of interest in this. What if it showed a phone call from Rudy to Meredith, or from Meredith to Rudy? Or a phone call to or from Meredith's boyfriend? Or how about to or from Kokomani? What if it connects to a cell by Rudy's house around 9:45 pm the night of the murder? What if it turns out it was a cell phone stolen from one of Lana's neighbors, and it had her on speed dial? So many possibilities. All the calls available, with times and cell tower connections, all for a little effort.

Note: I am assuming the statement by Mr Egbaria is a clumsy Italian to English translation, and where it says 'with the GUEDE to say who was in Milan and that it would be returned the next day' to mean Guede would be returning the next day, not the telephone.
.

 

[Samson]

If there is unequivocal proof of innocence, how is it possible for an Italian court to make a guilty judgement?

This question is posited by a sceptical friend.

 

[Bill Williams]

If there is unequivocal proof of innocence, how is it possible for an Italian court to make a guilty judgement?

This question is posited by a sceptical friend.

Good for the friend. The issue here is also, If there is unequivocal proof of guilt, how is it possible for an Italian court to make a innocent judgement?

It is why in the U.S., an innocent finding (actually a "not guilty finding") stops the process. One of the bases of double jeopardy is reasonable doubt, and if a court finds reasonable doubt, a prosecutor cannot simply go shopping around for another tribunal.

 

[Bill Williams]

I provided a detailed step by step theory of what could have happened that is consistent with the known evidence. But you are falling back on the fuzzy logic of "we can't know exactly what happened" to avoid having to show how ridiculous your own position really is. I'll set aside my theory when I see a better one. So far, my theory is the only one on the table.

Strangely, this method is exactly the way the Massei and Nencini courts seem to work. As long as a prosecutor can come up with a logical theory that "could have happened", the judges are required to osmotically accept it until a better theory comes along.

This assumes that theories do not stand or fall upon their own merits, or until another one is put on the table.

 

[Samson]

Good for the friend. The issue here is also, If there is unequivocal proof of guilt, how is it possible for an Italian court to make a innocent judgement?

It is why in the U.S., an innocent finding (actually a "not guilty finding") stops the process. One of the bases of double jeopardy is reasonable doubt, and if a court finds reasonable doubt, a prosecutor cannot simply go shopping around for another tribunal.

Thank you Bill, I will refer it back, a very good response. Of course I never mentioned that an Italian judge essentially presided over a de novo trial and declared innocence, rather than
NGBRD

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you Bill, I will refer it back, a very good response. Of course I never mentioned that an Italian judge essentially presided over a de novo trial and declared innocence, rather than
NGBRD

There's also the issue of this being a case tried within (essentially) the inquisitorial system. As Dan O. argues above, the Inquisitorial system has an expanded role for the prosecutor, who is (really) equivalent to a judge. As such, the prosecutor does not need to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt"....

..... all the prosecutor needs to do is offer a "theory of the crime" that is osmotically logical. Therefore, the original prosecutor, Mignini, can even make what sounds like to us startling admissions. Unless proven wrong by the defence, then the theory stands. (Thus is born the "contamination must be proved, meme of this case. The prosecution doesn't have to prove a non-contaminated sample, all they have to do is assert it. It is then up to the defence to prove contamination, or face calunnia for suggesting it....)

On his closing at the Massei trial he can simply make up dialog and have it entered into "the record". He proposed that when (as he alleged) Amanda attacked Meredith, she'd said, "We will make you have sex". Even the author of "Darkness Descending" admits that this was first heard at summation - meaning, that the summation was anything BUT a summation, it was entering new theories and "evidence" in a way which could be be rebutted with.... ah, er, **evidence** and exhibits.

Mignini even admits that this is made up and didn't actually happen - yes, he admits that to Massei - but it stands anyway. Thus, the sex-game gone wrong theory. Not entered as evidence, but as a "logical theory" from the prosecutor.

So for your skeptical friend to make the remark he/she makes is part of the problem. It assumes way, way too much - as if the trial had been in a western, adversarial court.

 

[Samson]

There's also the issue of this being a case tried within (essentially) the inquisitorial system. As Dan O. argues above, the Inquisitorial system has an expanded role for the prosecutor, who is (really) equivalent to a judge. As such, the prosecutor does not need to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt"....

..... all the prosecutor needs to do is offer a "theory of the crime" that is osmotically logical. Therefore, the original prosecutor, Mignini, can even make what sounds like to us startling admissions. Unless proven wrong by the defence, then the theory stands. (Thus is born the "contamination must be proved, meme of this case. The prosecution doesn't have to prove a non-contaminated sample, all they have to do is assert it. It is then up to the defence to prove contamination, or face calunnia for suggesting it....)

On his closing at the Massei trial he can simply make up dialog and have it entered into "the record". He proposed that when (as he alleged) Amanda attacked Meredith, she'd said, "We will make you have sex". Even the author of "Darkness Descending" admits that this was first heard at summation - meaning, that the summation was anything BUT a summation, it was entering new theories and "evidence" in a way which could be be rebutted with.... ah, er, **evidence** and exhibits.

Mignini even admits that this is made up and didn't actually happen - yes, he admits that to Massei - but it stands anyway. Thus, the sex-game gone wrong theory. Not entered as evidence, but as a "logical theory" from the prosecutor.

So for your skeptical friend to make the remark he/she makes is part of the problem. It assumes way, way too much - as if the trial had been in a western, adversarial court.

Of course the encounter devolves to the authoritarian question, how can you know more than the Italian judiciary?
I do not see an enduring problem. This matter will be resolved soon with science. 6 1/2 years is too long, but it won't take 7 years. The reason I say this is that the Nencini motivation report, (I personally don't expect to see it this calendar year) will be the most embarrassing document in judicial history, because it must sensibly describe a 20 minute narrative of collusion and slaughter.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

juries do the strangest things

If there is unequivocal proof of innocence, how is it possible for an Italian court to make a guilty judgement?

This question is posited by a sceptical friend.

I have recently seen at least two examples of people who had powerful alibi evidence who were found guilty. One was wearing a police bracelet to monitor whether or not he was at home (IIUC he was under house arrest), but the jury concluded that somehow the electronic monitoring failed. He gave a false confession, but DNA pointed the finger elsewhere. The other had evidence in his pocket that he was in Florida within 5 hours of the time a murder was committed in Brooklyn. The jury did not see that particular piece of evidence due to police...incompetence, but they did see other alibi evidence. And don't get me started on Russ Faria. There is no predicting what a jury will or will not believe IMO. But in this case, we have the CSC making its own truth, which kicks the level of strangeness up a notch.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks, perhaps the simplest explanation is to say: the prosecution's own estimate on this evidence put the outside range of ToD at 2-3 hours after she started eating. That's the 'simple chart version.' That has the latest possible ToD at 9:30 assuming a 6:30 start, the latest of the girl's estimates.

Which has nothing to do with Introna.

The estimates from the girls was they started eating at 5:30-6:30. To help narrow that down we know they started eating before the movie and Sophie and Meredith left shortly after the movie,

Not correct. Or at least not complete.

we prepared the pizza, we have eaten, then
We looked at the pictures of Halloween to your computer and then
We started to watch the movie but we were talking,
R.G. 08/08-2/13/2009 c/KNOX AMANDA MARIE + 1
13
so every now and then stopped the film then we
share; then, in mid-films, we have prepared a
apple crumble, which is a kind of Apple Pie, then
After we ate the apple crumble with ice cream, then
We did chat and then to the nine,
have gone because it was supposed to be just a meeting place for the
the afternoon.​

From this account the time of the movie doesn't mean much because they talked and stopped it and it seems they didn't finish it. I'm looking for more of the girls' accounts.

which runs for 123 minutes and stopped shortly for the apple crumble.

They stopped for the crumble and a few times to talk.

No amount of speculative nitpicking is going to change this, she was well overdue to have passed something and when that's the case she is always going to be more likely to have done it earlier than later. This is entirely independent of the other evidence that suggests she was attacked soon after she got home, but if that's true it shouldn't surprise anyone that this suggests 9:00 PM is the most likely time she was attacked, assuming everything before 9:00 PM is eliminated.

If you believe they finished the movie it would seem since they didn't just watch it but rather talked a bunch and looked at picture dinner probably started earlier.


The issue isn't whether she should have started earlier than nine. The issue is whether something is wrong with the "facts". Did Meredith start eating when the pizza came out or did she wait. I can't find where they even asked. Did Lalli do a good job?

If a healthy person hasn't started GE for 2.5 hours or 3 hours what percentage of them don't start GE for another 30 minutes or 45 minutes?

Every study I have been directed to or have found has GE starting within the first hour for the vast majority. The one study with eggs and toast said that if more than 90% of the meal was still in the stomach after 1 hour that indicated a health problem or at least was abnormally slow. If the subject had more than 60% after 2 hours or 30% after 3 hours, they gave the same diagnosis.

So if Lalli did a correct job on the duodenum Meredith would have retained all of a meal from at least 2.5 hours at a point that less than 50% should be there in a healthy person. The test meal would most likely digest faster but still.

Now let's say that the meal was at 6:30, Meredith ate at that time, she arrived home at 9 and no food had made it to the duodenum and that she was not suffering from any long term or short term malady what percentage chance would there be that she could live until 9:45? Is there any actual data for that beyond bell curve assumptions? Remember this is only for people that didn't start until after the 2.5 or 3 hours.

One of the studies seemed to indicate that once it gets to 3 hours, 4 hours wouldn't be as unusual as one would guess from the normal bell curve.

But I'm sure by now all this has be made clear to the defense and they will feature this argument as the main proof to the ISC that Nencini is whack.

I would love to see a GE expert or more publish an analysis on this issue.

As I've said for quite some time, I have no doubt that she was murdered before 9:55. It truly is a shame that Raf wasn't emailing at 10 or have some ISP connections that could be verified.

 

[Dan O.]

Strangely, this method is exactly the way the Massei and Nencini courts seem to work. As long as a prosecutor can come up with a logical theory that "could have happened", the judges are required to osmotically accept it until a better theory comes along.

This assumes that theories do not stand or fall upon their own merits, or until another one is put on the table.

If you look at what the courts and prosecution did they were applying the "could haves" to the individual elements and not looking at the whole picture to see if everything fit together. They see the footprint on the bathmat and suppose that it must be the result of a trail of blood on a bare foot from Meredith's room and add in a cleanup to account for the lack of a trail leading up to the print. I see that there was no cleanup in the hall and therefore this is an impossible theory.

They said (and still repeat) that the bra was cut with a knife I look at all the photos of each part of the bra and see that the pieces are intact and only torn apart at the seems. I had already posted a theory of Rudy's actions supposing that the bra was cut and I had to abandon that theory because it didn't fit the new facts.

Dating the semen stain because it was tracked by Rudy's bloody shoe is a fine theory but it doesn't work with Meredith's body positioned on the pillow. To try and force the theory to work you have to move the body out of the way when it is inconvenient and then move it back. This is reminiscent of Mignini's double body swap. When you have to add these extra actions for no other reason but to hold onto your theory it is an indication that their is something wrong with the theory.

London John I believe earlier posted an excerpt from the defense expert on how the bra was torn apart. His analysis had Rudy attacking that bra with both hands from 3 different sides to tear the two shoulder straps and the back band. All that work just to expose the breasts of a dying girl? I say that is ridiculous. One hand grabbing the back band below the right shoulder and pulling away and down will cause the bra to come apart as seen in all three locations. This one location on the band just happens to correspond with where Rudy's DNA was also found on the bra. This evidence supports the bra coming off accidentally when used as a handle to move the body and not the rapist undressing his victim.

 

[Grinder]

Just saw your link to Chris' site and discussion of digestion.

A 2003 study by Chen et al. (J. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 18, 41-46) determined a value of t(lag), namely 81.9 ± 17.4 minutes, with a range of 37.1 to 117.8 minutes. The authors described the test meal: “The egg [one yolk and two whites] was ingested with two slices of white bread coated with 7 g of margarine and 8 g of grape jelly, followed by 150mL water.” A paper on gastric emptying times (Hellmig et al., "Gastric emptying time of fluids and solids in healthy subjects determined by 13C breath tests: influence of age, sex and body mass index" Volume 21, Issue 12, pages 1832–1838, Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, December 2006), was published in the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, which is peer-reviewed. Other articles cited this paper at least 25 times. These workers described their test meal: “After addition of 50 mL of low-fat milk, the egg was scrambled and fried in a pan. The solid test meal was completed by a piece of brown bread (50 g) and butter (20 g).” They showed that t(lag) for a solid meal did not follow a normal distribution. The median time was 82 minutes, with the 25% percentile at 66 min. and the 75% percentile at 102 min. Out of 82 subjects (Figure 1D), the longest value was 200 minutes, and the next longest was 170 minutes (each value corresponded to a single individual)​

.

Your outlier number of 200 minutes isn't for a normal meal of 500 ml or cc whichever is correct, it is for a much smaller and easier to digest meal than the one Meredith ate.

Taking the 6:30 meal start time best guess then add 3 hours and 20 minutes we get 9:50. I think it is pretty clear that a pizza meal that Meredith ate would be a slower to digest meal than the test one.

Add in the hangover and/or alcohol still in her system I don't see this proving beyond a reasonable doubt that kids' couldn't have been there at TOD.

Before the proving innocence rant comes in, yes an alibi has to be proven for the defendant to use it as a complete defense.

I thought the 200 minutes was supposed to be for a normal meal not a tiny test meal. I acknowledged that the studies I used with short T(lag) times were based on small meals.

The Chen study seems to say that the outlier is 117 minutes if I read correctly.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Good for the friend. The issue here is also, If there is unequivocal proof of guilt, how is it possible for an Italian court to make a innocent judgement?

It is why in the U.S., an innocent finding (actually a "not guilty finding") stops the process. One of the bases of double jeopardy is reasonable doubt, and if a court finds reasonable doubt, a prosecutor cannot simply go shopping around for another tribunal.

Raffaele and Amanda were found guilty in their 1st level trial and lost the Florence appeal; in the context of the Italian justice system they are innocent until the Italian Supreme Court rule in the 3rd trial.

Just throwing this out there; I wonder whether either defence teams have considered hiring Hellmann as a consultant.

 

[anglolawyer]

Good for the friend. The issue here is also, If there is unequivocal proof of guilt, how is it possible for an Italian court to make a innocent judgement?

It is why in the U.S., an innocent finding (actually a "not guilty finding") stops the process. One of the bases of double jeopardy is reasonable doubt, and if a court finds reasonable doubt, a prosecutor cannot simply go shopping around for another tribunal.

Bill, suppose, hypothetically speaking, a trial court made an error of law when acquitting a defendant and the error was alone responsible for the acquittal. Let's make it even better - say the guy is actually guilty and the crime is heinous. Would it offend any particular principle of yours if the system allowed a prosecution appeal to correct the court's error? Would you consider it double jeopardy if it did?

Say it was OJ and he had confessed in convincing detail but the court had ruled, incorrectly, that his confession was not admissible. Would the world come to an end if that could not be corrected on appeal?

If you answer 'no' to these posers what is your issue with the Italian process? If 'yes' then please explain the difficulty.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, suppose, hypothetically speaking, a trial court made an error of law when acquitting a defendant and the error was alone responsible for the acquittal. Let's make it even better - say the guy is actually guilty and the crime is heinous. Would it offend any particular principle of yours if the system allowed a prosecution appeal to correct the court's error? Would you consider it double jeopardy if it did?

Say it was OJ and he had confessed in convincing detail but the court had ruled, incorrectly, that his confession was not admissible. Would the world come to an end if that could not be corrected on appeal?

If you answer 'no' to these posers what is your issue with the Italian process? If 'yes' then please explain the difficulty.

You've been reading Canadian law!

This is exactly the case in Canada, especially with the Guy Paul Morin wrongful conviction. He was acquitted at his first trial, but wrongfully convicted at his second trial after the prosecution successfully appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, who ordered the second trial.

I don't know if it was this one, but there was one case which an acquittal was successfully reversed when the prosecution argued that it (the prosecution) did not receive a fair trial.

Last time I checked the world did not end, and Canada continues to be the largest oil importer to The United States, which is perhaps the only reason this corrupt regime is allowed to exist.

You, however, asked a more personal question about any offence I would take. Me, I would take none. Truly. Yet Guy Paul Morin, an unsavoury character by any measure, was acquitted. Then convicted. And the conviction was a wrongful one.

Was it a wrongful quashing of the acquittal by the Canadian Supreme Court?

 

[Desert Fox]

Bill, suppose, hypothetically speaking, a trial court made an error of law when acquitting a defendant and the error was alone responsible for the acquittal. Let's make it even better - say the guy is actually guilty and the crime is heinous. Would it offend any particular principle of yours if the system allowed a prosecution appeal to correct the court's error? Would you consider it double jeopardy if it did?

Say it was OJ and he had confessed in convincing detail but the court had ruled, incorrectly, that his confession was not admissible. Would the world come to an end if that could not be corrected on appeal?

If you answer 'no' to these posers what is your issue with the Italian process? If 'yes' then please explain the difficulty.

That would be an exceptional case though. . . .

It is far more likely that you (the prosecutor) don't have better evidence but just don't like the verdict. You then find a new jury that will convict with the same evidence.

As far as resources, the state is almost certain to have the advantage.
Remember reading the West Memphis Three that the defense attorneys spent several million dollars in pro bono labor.

 

[Bill Williams]

Anglo -I'm not sure I said I had a particular problem with the Italian process. Please remind if I am in error claiming that.

I made particular mention of why a "not guilty" verdict in the USA stops the process, because of double jeopardy as interpreted there.

It still does seem strange, though, that aside from interference from The Masons one of the courts in the Italian process can find them unequivocally innocent, to the point of saying that some of the crimes of which they are accused "did not exist".....

.... and still with some confidence say they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at another trial in that same process.

It casts suspicion on the process itself. More important it casts suspicion on THIS particular playing out of an otherwise modern process..... so the whole process in general does not have to take a beating. Then again, that was the whole point of those pesky Masons paying off Hellmann. Zanetti is still waiting for his cut.

 

[anglolawyer]

You've been reading Canadian law!

This is exactly the case in Canada, especially with the Guy Paul Morin wrongful conviction. He was acquitted at his first trial, but wrongfully convicted at his second trial after the prosecution successfully appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, who ordered the second trial.

I don't know if it was this one, but there was one case which an acquittal was successfully reversed when the prosecution argued that it (the prosecution) did not receive a fair trial.

Last time I checked the world did not end, and Canada continues to be the largest oil importer to The United States, which is perhaps the only reason this corrupt regime is allowed to exist.

You, however, asked a more personal question about any offence I would take. Me, I would take none. Truly. Yet Guy Paul Morin, an unsavoury character by any measure, was acquitted. Then convicted. And the conviction was a wrongful one.

Was it a wrongful quashing of the acquittal by the Canadian Supreme Court?

You didn't quite answer. What's the issue with the Italian process? How is it double jep?