Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Rolfe]

Ballistics, fingerprint, DNA etc. evidence is all "circumstantial" evidence. To complain that this evidence was obtained using "imperfect or low quality, less than state-of-the art methods" is to go to the absolute heart of the case.

Excuse me, but is Machiavelli intending to put forward a contention that Meredith died at the time she obviously did (that is between 9 pm and 9.30, with the greater probability being towards the earlier part of that time window), and that Knox and Sollecito managed to be there to kill her at that time?

This should be good.

 

[anglolawyer]

I've said quite often, explain to me how Knox and Sollecito could have killed Meredith and left a corpse with all her last meal still in her stomach. Nobody has ever answered.

Maybe they force-fed her a pizza and an apple crumble dessert? There are no less ridiculous theories sustaining the pro-guilt case so I would not reject this one out of hand.

On Mach's thing about the defence failure to attend testing, I was reading Mark Waterbury again and he makes the point that the defence teams cannot be expected to have had their experts at the readiness 24/7 to attend all tests of everything, no matter how extraneous. This may be a much stronger point than it looks. Professional people like to be paid. How exactly was anyone supposed to know this random knife would prove to be the key item in the case?

More basically still, why are we even discussing this piece-of-crap 'evidence' 7 years later? It's like the clasp. They treated the knife with reverence before it was tested! **** off.

 

[Rolfe]

Welcome back. Maybe I should have also specified an empty duodenum and jejunum.

 

[Machiavelli]

I may not have fully replied to this bit:

​

It has a simple rebuttal: Matriculation must be proven.

Would it be so difficult to provide a link confirming Stefanoni's credentials? Either Machiavelli has nothing and is playing some kind of game or Machiavelli is withholding the evidence as some kind of game. Either way, it is Machiavelli's own credibility that is lost.

I did due diligence in researching before making my claim. I was able to find the other Patrizia Stefanoni that really is a doctor and provides verifiable links to prove it. It is a shame that a charlatan is soiling a good name so reference to the misdeeds of the forensics spurt need to be distinguished from the real Doctor Patrizia Stefanoni.

Could there be information that I missed that would change my stance: Possibly. I expect there is a lot of data that I don't have. When I revisit a subject I'll make a few more searches just to see if anything new pops up. So far I haven't seen anything that goes beyond "40 years (going on 48), BA in Biological Sciences". But I'll let everyone here know if I do.

I have just linked two sources stating that Stefanoni held a title of researcher, that she had worked for 8 years at university with such title, and I explained how universities work in Italy and what that means.

But I also pointed out that you are the person making a claim. Because you have stated that Stefanoni is underqualified insofar as you claim she only has a 'BA' and you stated that thus she had less qualification than Vecchiotti and other PhDs in her field. This 'less qualification' is your argument, which you present as if it was information you have.

This is your claim, you made a statement claiming you have information about that, it is only your credibility at stake. But I think it should be useful rather as a yardstick to you for an exercise of self- criticism. Observing your prejudicial method may help you put in discussion the rest of your beliefs.

 

[Rolfe]

You know, I like to dip into this from time to time to see where the discussion is at. You all realise you've been going round and round like Pooh and Piglet nearly catching a Woozle for about three years now?

 

[Machiavelli]

This goes to the core of the disagreement about this case.

Name one single piece of evidence, direct or circumstantial, that cannot be explained equally well under a "they are innocent" scenario.

.

This is not a defensive argument, absolutely not.

 

[Diocletus]

Maybe they force-fed her a pizza and an apple crumble dessert? There are no less ridiculous theories sustaining the pro-guilt case so I would not reject this one out of hand.

On Mach's thing about the defence failure to attend testing, I was reading Mark Waterbury again and he makes the point that the defence teams cannot be expected to have had their experts at the readiness 24/7 to attend all tests of everything, no matter how extraneous. This may be a much stronger point than it looks. Professional people like to be paid. How exactly was anyone supposed to know this random knife would prove to be the key item in the case?

More basically still, why are we even discussing this piece-of-crap 'evidence' 7 years later? It's like the clasp. They treated the knife with reverence before it was tested! **** off.

Just going from memory, the three most oft-tested pieces of evidence in this case are:

Bra
Shoes
Knife

She did extraction-after extraction on these items, sometimes out of the purview of the defense consultants. It's almost like she knew she would find something if she just kept pulling profiles.

 

[toto]

This is not a defensive argument, absolutely not.

I find this a most disturbing answer.

 

[carbonjam72]

Here is a graphical timeline for the events on November 1, 2007: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/timeline-november-1/

Meredit and Sophie parted in front of the lawyers office (the same office that was broken into and had stollen the laptop and cell phone that Rudy was discovered with in Milan). Sophie went through the passage under the office and to her home a few meters away. She arrives home a 8:55 in time for her show to start on TV.

Meredith's call to her mother was logged at 8:56 by her cell phone only. It never connected to the network. This call was clearly made just after Sophie parted before Meredith could have walked the rest of the way home. That street is a narrow canyon with no direct line for the cell tower signal. It is clear to me that the call would fail due to a lack of signal and not the start of an altercation.

The CCTV camera in the parking structure captures what appears to be Meredith crossing the street headed into the cottage. When the CCTV time is properly corrected, this time is well after the failed phone call. The prosecutions attempt to claim that the CCTV time was fast is not supported by evidence. They have only the second hand hearsay report that the parking lot attendant told the postal police officer that the clock was wrong. They didn't even have the name of the attendant. Evidence based on the prosecutions CCTV time should never have been allowed in court.

Thanks DANO, that's helpful. I was wondering if the call had connected, so that's a piece of info that it did not.

I had also forgot about the CCTV showing Meredith getting back to the cottage - which I think dates her getting home at about 9pm.

I imagine there are CT minded folks who will make much of Sophie passing by the lawyer office that Rudy broke into, but I'll leave it alone.

I maintain that Meredith seems to have fought for her life by the description of the bruising, and I think that takes time to succumb.

But I'll leave that to others more able with any bio-medical insights.

Main point is, the call most likely occurred from the outside, so was likely not interrupted by attack. But shows that Meredith was attacked before she tried to call again from the house.

 

[carbonjam72]

This is not a defensive argument, absolutely not.

If so, then actual innocence is not a defense.

 

[Bill Williams]

This goes to the core of the disagreement about this case.

Name one single piece of evidence, direct or circumstantial, that cannot be explained equally well under a "they are innocent" scenario.

This is not a defensive argument, absolutely not.

Machiavelli - the very definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt", includes this:

If the case can equally be explained with a guilt-narrative, as well as an innocence-narrative, the court is required to choose the innocence-narrative.

Of all the troubling things you've said............

 

[Bill Williams]

This is not a defensive argument, absolutely not.

If so, then actual innocence is not a defense.

Not only that, presumption of innocence is not a defence!

 

[anglolawyer]

Just going from memory, the three most oft-tested pieces of evidence in this case are:

Bra
Shoes
Knife

She did extraction-after extraction on these items, sometimes out of the purview of the defense consultants. It's almost like she knew she would find something if she just kept pulling profiles.

It is ridiculous, isn't it? The panto of the bunnies all crowding round the clasp pointing things out, shining a torch on it, photographing it etc is priceless. Mach, I like you man. Come over from the dark side, willya?

 

[Dougm]

I thought if the evidence could be explained in a scenario that fits innocence ...

This goes to the core of the disagreement about this case.

Name one single piece of evidence, direct or circumstantial, that cannot be explained equally well under a "they are innocent" scenario.

Please.

This is not a defensive argument, absolutely not.

I think this tells us all we need to know about both Machiavelli's, and the Prosecution's, approach to the case.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The study in question found no delays between sexes in t lag. I have seen studies where there is a difference in total emptying time and t 1/2, but not t lag. t lag is the variable in question. Could you produce the study you are referring to? I suspect you are conflating variables.

The only study I see on how alcohol affects gastric emptying are measuring t 1/2. Not t lag. Again I suspect you are conflating variables. Can you produce the study in question?

Even if your hypothesis is true, this is only an explanation for why Meredith could have deviated a couple standard deviations from the median. Not why she deviated ~4 to 5 standard deviations from the median, as she would have had to do if she died as late as you and Mignini claim. The far more likely conclusion based on sound statistical reasoning is that she probably didn't actually die 4 hours after her meal. As this is incredibly unlikely, based on probability (using the actual definition of "incredibly unlikely"). Dr. Lalli's analysis and estimate acts as an independent confirmation of this.

Regardless, this evidence is much stronger than a bra clasp that is known to be contaminated and a knife where proper LCN procedures weren't followed. Even if we can somehow infer Meredith did not exceed the 97.5% cumulative confidence interval by 40 minutes, you're still so far beyond the median this evidence overwhelmingly favors innocence.

Back in the day we used to explain it by saying that the pro-guilt argument was exactly like someone saying "Lots of things affect your height! Diet, hormones, how thick the soles of your shoes are, even the time of day affects your height! It's very complicated! Therefore our theory that Meredith Kercher was killed by someone who was two and a half metres tall is completely plausible and not unlikely at all".

They are right in a very weak sense about all the things that can affect t-lag to some extent, but what they can't show is that even if you add them all together that they add up to a two and a half metre tall giant.

The conclusion is extraordinarily unlikely and it doesn't help that all the "evidence" for the two and a half metre tall man is strictly conjectured evidence proposed to support the giant man theory. There is no evidence that Meredith had a digestive disorder, or had drunk alcohol with her meal, or had run a marathon immediately after eating or done anything else to mess with her t-lag time. She had an ordinary meal of moderate size while relaxing and watching a movie, then she walked home.

 

[Dougm]

It is ridiculous, isn't it? The panto of the bunnies all crowding round the clasp pointing things out, shining a torch on it, photographing it etc is priceless. Mach, I like you man. Come over from the dark side, willya?

Just that video alone would get this case laughed out of court in the US or UK*. How the few that are still doing it try to defend the indefensible is beyond me.




*Similarly bad cases of prosecutorial excess in those countries excepted.

 

[Kaosium]

Just that video alone would get this case laughed out of court in the US or UK*. How the few that are still doing it try to defend the indefensible is beyond me.




*Similarly bad cases of prosecutorial excess in those countries excepted.

Doug, do remember that Italian judge who retired shortly after the acquittal and listed the video of the bra clasp as one of the most embarrassing things he'd seen and indicative of the need for reform in the Italian judiciary or somesuch? I can't recall the name, but I do think it came out shortly after the acquittal in October, 2011.

 

[Dougm]

Doug, do remember that Italian judge who retired shortly after the acquittal and listed the video of the bra clasp as one of the most embarrassing things he'd seen and indicative of the need for reform in the Italian judiciary or somesuch? I can't recall the name, but I do think it came out shortly after the acquittal in October, 2011.

Not offhand, but it would be worth trying to find. I'll look.

 

[Kaosium]

Diocletus, I find the PMFs more challenging, regrettably, than this forum. I clicked Kaosium's music link and the Doors kept playing,

I chose that one for the song title, "The End," and the line about a 'Roman wilderness of pain.' It's also the one I linked in a post to Alt+F4 shortly after the appointment of the independent experts because I'd done enough reading about DNA by that time to realize real scientists would never back Stefanoni's work. I was a wee bit optimistic about just when that 'End' would occur however.

yet the PMFs are obsessed with demonstrating their knowledge of classical music and ballet* (*Peter Quennell I wonder why)

Peter Quennell likes ballerinas.

My fond wish is this case will be ascribed its massive importance by a new generation of academics.

There needs to be a final verdict and it will probably have to be guilty for that to occur. Because of the ECHR and the need to extradite Amanda it will most certainly get on the radar that way.

In the final analysis I suspect this case will serve as an egregious example of the the misuse of science in the courtroom for decades to come and highlight the need for full disclosure of data used to convict people. It will also likely underline the need for serious reform in the Italian judiciary.

At any rate, if you read this previous post of mine I noticed I brainfarted on what stutter position is. It's one less than the main peak, not one more. Thus if there's an allele at 13 then the possible stutter is at 12, not 14.

Here's something (probably) more to your liking, it's representative of what Italians can do besides railroad two innocents to preserve their meaty backsides. You ought to be in the stormy summer, while I'm still freezing my ass off with temperatures barely above zero (Fahrenheit!) the past few days.

 

[Kaosium]

Not offhand, but it would be worth trying to find. I'll look.

Thanks, Doug! If anyone else knows please link it. It may have been a few months after the acquittal, but I seem to recall it being shortly after it.