Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Danceme]

Charlie, thanks for the spheron images.

The whole story about the feces in the large bathroom and why she didn't flush makes more sense to me now. She didn't dry her hair in the bathroom itself but in the ante-room to the bathroom where there is a large vanity, sink and mirror, with the washer tucked under the counter. There is even a hairbrush on the counter.

She may have noticed the smell at some point after drying her hair, entered the bathroom itself, briefly glanced in the toilet and left. The toilet is quite far into the bathroom itself and unless you are standing close to it, perhaps you will not see the contents, accounting for her visually missing it the second time.

This was one of her strange behaviors for me, but I see now how it could have happened.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Guess you never studied Marxism- or cultural criticism then.
To discredit an accomplished writer based on your own narrow view of the pair's guilt or innocence seems to be the workings of the minds of small, uneducated persons.

Let me just say that unlike "professor" Mudede, I have some first hand experience with "socialist utopias" ran by "benevolent dictators" that he is so longing for.

To not be completely off-topic I'll add that Mudede's story is completely fabricated, IMHO.

 

[nopoirot]

What I was wondering, was if it's a 'trial de novo' then it would seem the defense has most of the best cards to play. It was their errors and odd judgments against them that allowed for even the skeleton of a case against Amanda and Raffaele. If the bra clasp is thrown out with the 'murder knife' then all trace of either of them at the scene is gone, and the rest of the physical evidence includes very little of Raffaele and only those expected of Amanda. The 'bloody footprints' trick won't work again, neither will the 'phone call before everything happened,' nor will anybody be confused this time that Amanda and Meredith's blood mixed in the sink.

Do you think nailing down just when that spinello was smoked, and with exactly whom, will make up for this massive evidential discrepancy? Do you suspect they will try to make that apologetic waif we see in front of us now into 'Foxy Knoxy' one last time? Do you think this might be considered a desperation ploy?

Not sure I agree with this assessment. I assume the jury will be instructed not to consider Raffaele's failure to testify on Amanda's behalf. I expect that admonition, and a $5 note, would get you a cup of coffee just about anywhere. It's possible they may decide "Oh, well, he's got a lawyer, and lawyers never let a client take the stand." It's quite possible, though, that they may, in the back of their minds, decide otherwise.

I've not been able to ascertain the evidentiary status of Raffaele's admission that Amanda left him on the evening of the murder. I've read that the Supreme Court has now ruled that it can't be used against Raffaele. As I understand it, in a very garbled way, this has to do with the principle that "declarations" made by a witness can only be used against third parties, not against the witness himself. Presumably, it couldn't be used in the first trial at all, because Raffaele and Amanda were codefendants. It's my impression, though, that the history of this business is part of the trial record.

I think the danger here is that the jury may weigh the evidence they can't understand in light of the evidence they can. This could make them disinclined to give Amanda the benefit of a doubt on close questions. Should they come to the conclusion that she has been untruthful, I wouldn't give odds on the chances of them setting her free.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie, thanks for the spheron images.

The whole story about the feces in the large bathroom and why she didn't flush makes more sense to me now. She didn't dry her hair in the bathroom itself but in the ante-room to the bathroom where there is a large vanity, sink and mirror, with the washer tucked under the counter. There is even a hairbrush on the counter.

She may have noticed the smell at some point after drying her hair, entered the bathroom itself, briefly glanced in the toilet and left. The toilet is quite far into the bathroom itself and unless you are standing close to it, perhaps you will not see the contents, accounting for her visually missing it the second time.

This was one of her strange behaviors for me, but I see now how it could have happened.

I'm glad you found this material useful.

I understand why people find it odd that Amanda didn't flush the toilet when she saw it. But, if her account of what she did that morning was a ruse, she need not have mentioned drying her hair in the large bathroom. She only mentioned it because it was she actually did.

 

[Kaosium]

Not sure I agree with this assessment. I assume the jury will be instructed not to consider Raffaele's failure to testify on Amanda's behalf. I expect that admonition, and a $5 note, would get you a cup of coffee just about anywhere. It's possible they may decide "Oh, well, he's got a lawyer, and lawyers never let a client take the stand." It's quite possible, though, that they may, in the back of their minds, decide otherwise.

I've not been able to ascertain the evidentiary status of Raffaele's admission that Amanda left him on the evening of the murder. I've read that the Supreme Court has now ruled that it can't be used against Raffaele. As I understand it, in a very garbled way, this has to do with the principle that "declarations" made by a witness can only be used against third parties, not against the witness himself. Presumably, it couldn't be used in the first trial at all, because Raffaele and Amanda were codefendants. It's my impression, though, that the history of this business is part of the trial record.

I think the danger here is that the jury may weigh the evidence they can't understand in light of the evidence they can. This could make them disinclined to give Amanda the benefit of a doubt on close questions. Should they come to the conclusion that she has been untruthful, I wouldn't give odds on the chances of them setting her free.

I think that might be a better avenue of attack. But what if it's just solved by Raffaele going on the stand and saying Amanda was with him all night, he's sorry he got confused when the police started yelling at him?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the translation done by the volunteers at PMF.

On the other hand, I'm not fluent in Italian and cannot independently assess its accuracy or the accuracy of the version you are promoting.

Have the people at PMF been notified of this alleged error? (They expressly welcome any input that people may have to offer.)

Well, I have no reason to distrust katy_did or komponisto. They supported their opinions quite well.
I'm sure PMF will be happy to receive feedback from you. Until some consensus is achieved we'll have to agree to disagree and postpone discussing it.

I think those two issues are not very important in your assessment of guilt. Or will it impede you in finally presenting your reasoning?

 

[christianahannah]

Here is one of the spheron pics.

I always wondered how the scientifica lab let a blood soaked towel mold up. Until I noticed this pic. Its not blood soaked. It barely has any blood on it at all. Instead what I see is water and blood soaked stains. Yep, that towel was wet with water not blood most likely. That brings up a few thoughts, first this towel wasn't used to stop the bleeding like Guede said, unless the bottom side is soaked with the blood. Also it appears to have water/blood mixed stains which would mean the user cleaned up with a water source before bringing the towel into the room. Guede claims to have brought that towel in the room.

There were two other towels near (one was under) Meredith's body that were blood-soaked. I believe it was one of these towels which is reported to have molded and no profiles resulted from testing.

 

[Chris C]

There were two other towels near (one was under) Meredith's body that were blood-soaked. I believe it was one of these towels which is reported to have molded and no profiles resulted from testing.

I was led to believe that all the towels were molded and bad.

 

[christianahannah]

In a US court there are some things that an attorney can do while court is in session without permission of the court, but walking out of the courtroom is not one of them.

I am not aware of any adverse repercussions that befell Maresca for it. I rather doubt that it was a spontaneous act, and my guess is that it was taken up with the court in advance.

Personally, I don't think it was a wise move. He squandered an opportunity to size up the jurors and see how they responded to her, and what parts of her statement got what sort of reaction.

I have no first-hand knowledge of walking out of a courtroom in Italy and I cannot say whether what I am about to write is true, however, I have read that what Maresca did was also done by both sides during the first trial. It is a way of protest or to show how one may perceive who is before the court during testimony.

In this case, Maresca had no way to cross-examine the statement of Amanda. To show his displeasure (or whatever else) he left the courtroom. I do not know if this move was taken up with the court in advance, if he was sanctioned, or if it was just attorneys being attorneys.

 

[christianahannah]

I was led to believe that all the towels were molded and bad.

Two towels yielded results of Meredith. I believe there was hair on all three towels but they were unsuitable for DNA analysis.

 

[Draca]

Green towel

Here is one of the spheron pics.

I always wondered how the scientifica lab let a blood soaked towel mold up. Until I noticed this pic. Its not blood soaked. It barely has any blood on it at all. Instead what I see is water and blood soaked stains. Yep, that towel was wet with water not blood most likely. That brings up a few thoughts, first this towel wasn't used to stop the bleeding like Guede said, unless the bottom side is soaked with the blood. Also it appears to have water/blood mixed stains which would mean the user cleaned up with a water source before bringing the towel into the room. Guede claims to have brought that towel in the room.

Chris,

The towel in your photo is ref. 62.

Rep. 62 Beige towel on mattress Match for victim (all of five samples); hair
formations were also examined but found unsuitable for DNA analysis.


The towel that rotted is Rep. 60.

Rep. 60 Blood-soaked green towel found beneath body
No profile obtained (3 samples); 2 hair
formations were also found but were unsuitable
for DNA analysis.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

 

[Kestrel]

Let me just say that unlike "professor" Mudede, I have some first hand experience with "socialist utopias" ran by "benevolent dictators" that he is so longing for.

To not be completely off-topic I'll add that Mudede's story is completely fabricated, IMHO.

To be more accurate, Mudede built his story using fabricated incidents that were already floating around Perugia.

 

[Chris C]

Chris,

The towel in your photo is ref. 62.

Rep. 62 Beige towel on mattress Match for victim (all of five samples); hair
formations were also examined but found unsuitable for DNA analysis.


The towel that rotted is Rep. 60.

Rep. 60 Blood-soaked green towel found beneath body
No profile obtained (3 samples); 2 hair
formations were also found but were unsuitable
for DNA analysis.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

Thanks for the info.

Where are all the missing REP results?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well Treehorn, I think it's time to round up a few disparate threads and bring them all together.

Firstly the issue of whether or not (in your words) "Amanda and Rudy smoked dope together several times". I think we've been over the relevant part of Amanda's cross-examination and the relevant parts of the Massei report often enough now to see that there was never any factual basis for this claim whatsoever. There is in fact no evidence that Amanda and Rudy ever used drugs together. Do you now acknowledge this?

Secondly, you seemed to think that it was a huge problem both for myself personally and for the pro-innocence argument as a whole that you thought I had got the number of times Amanda and Rudy had met wrong. It turned out, of course, that I was perfectly correct (Amanda was at one party where Rudy was present, and spoke to him at that party according to one of Rudy's friends, and Amanda saw Rudy present at her place of work on one occasion. That's it).

Is this error on your part as devastating for the pro-guilt case and yourself personally, as the error you thought I had made was supposed to be for me personally? Or are there two sets of rules here, where you get to declare victory if you get one fact right that I get wrong, but you are allowed to make wildly mistaken claims and defend them with misleading citations and then skate away from it?

This error about Amanda's drug use led us on to the cross-examination technique issue. So thirdly Treehorn, do you accept that the cross-examination that so confused yourself and TomM43, which you two thought was Carlo Pacelli being outmanoeuvred by Knox, was in fact Carlo Pacelli carefully framing his questions to get the incriminating facts he wanted into court without asking Knox directly if she ever shared drugs with Rudy Guede, or used drugs at the one party where she and Rudy Guede were present?

(There's a curious symmetry here... earlier you seemed to think that the maxim that one should never ask a question that you did not know the answer to was a rule for discussion in general, not a specific rule for risk-averse cross-examination. Then when you came across an example of a lawyer doing exactly this, it slipped past you completely and you and TomM43 thought Amanda was outwitting Pacelli and the court).

Moving swiftly on from the question of how two people who say they are lawyers have no idea how cross-examination actually works, almost like two bad students cribbing from each other in an exam, I think what well want to know is:

Do you have a coherent theory of the crime?

What do you think the most compelling pieces of evidence against Knox and Sollecito are? How strongly does each influence your final view of the likelihood of their guilt? Can you give us a (not necessarily unique) set of incriminating evidence sufficient to get you personally to >50% belief in their guilt?

 

[nopoirot]

I think that might be a better avenue of attack. But what if it's just solved by Raffaele going on the stand and saying Amanda was with him all night, he's sorry he got confused when the police started yelling at him?

You've put your finger on it--that's what I would be wondering, if I were a juror.

I don't know that Raffaele can plausibly claim that his admissions were coerced. To reconcile this claim with his diary entries, you have to do some serious cherry-picking. Then there is his "spontaneous declaration" made during the trial, where he complained of not being permitted to contact his father or a lawyer, and whined about being made to go bare of foot for a while. As far as I can make it out, he had no further complaints along these lines.

Perhaps he simply panicked, or perhaps he spoke the truth. Either way, in view of his failure or refusal to take the stand during the first trial, I don't expect to see him there now.

 

[Draca]

Thanks for the info.

Where are all the missing REP results?

I don't know what you mean by missing Rep results?

I just have the FOA pdf I posted..

 

[Justinian2]

Kevin_Lowe:

Good luck with the logic.

 

[Chris C]

I don't know what you mean by missing Rep results?

I just have the FOA pdf I posted..

THe largest Rep number i saw was 192, I didn't see that many results there

 

[Draca]

THe largest Rep number i saw was 192, I didn't see that many results there

I see. The number of reps that exist. IDK if there are more - this could be it. We'll have to ask Charlie.

 

[Katody Matrass]

One example of non-responsiveness is the rather lengthy effort of Mignini, and the judge, to get from her the identity of the officer she alleges cuffed her on the head. She begins with rambling narrative about doing her homework by the elevator,

This is a dishonest misrepresentation.
Her narrative was about the aggressive interrogation and was very on topic. In the course of it she answered both the questions about suggestions and cuffs on the head.

and after multiple re-asking by Mignini interrupted by multiple objections (which Massei comments appear to be "preventive"), and re-asking by the judge, she is only able to say that the officer was female with long brown hair.

Actually it was Mignini who interrupted repeatedly, and that prompted Vedova's objection, with which Massei agreed:

CDV: If a question is asked, she has to be able to answer.

GCM: Please, please. That's correct. There is a rule that was introduced,
which says that we should absolutely avoid interruptions from anyone.

CDV: I want to ask that she be allowed to finish her answer. She has the
right, no?

GCM: Please, please, pubblico ministero. It's impossible to go on this way.

GM: I would like to, I can--

GCM: No no no, no one can. We have to make sure that while someone is
speaking, there are never any superimposed voices. And since the accused is
undergoing examination, she has the right to be allowed to answer in the
calmest possible way. Interruptions and talking at the same time don't help
her, and they can't be written down in the minutes, which obliges the courts to
suspend the audience and start it again at a calmer and more tranquil moment.

GM: Presidente--

GCM: No, no, no! Interruptions are absolutely not allowed! Not between
the parties, nor when the Court, the President is speaking. So, interruptions
are not allowed. Now, the accused is speaking, and when she is finished,
we can return to her answers--

GM: Presidente.

GCM: Excuse me, please! But at the moment she is speaking, we have to avoid
interrupting her.​

Only after that Amanda is allowed finally to speak, and she explains the circumstances of the "cuffs to the head".

The single, not multiple objection of Vedova that to Massei appeared "preventive" occurred later.

she is only able to say that the officer was female with long brown hair.

So? Did they organize a lineup?