Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Over at .net this was all that was posted:

The wiki has recovered more cctv camera captures including those by the upper parking lot. Curiously, no one runs up the iron stairs after 11 PM. I'll report further once I've viewed the rest.

They claimed a while back all the court file was now available to "the wiki". I would guess it would have come from there. I have a lot of knowledge of video recovery by the police here and it is a hit and miss operation. Stores rarely keep video over 30 days sometimes 60 on the outside but without a request the recording is gone in a week. I would be surprised if the staircase video was kept even 30 days. The police should have gathered all the video within a day or two or at least let the owners know to keep them.

As LJ pointed out, if there are videos of this staircase and other things it raises the question: What was the defense doing?

It is very hard to believe (but it's Italy) that they would keep these videos and wouldn't have stored them in a magnetic box.

Dan O had pictures of video cameras along the way showing nothing. IIRC the police didn't provide those but only said nothing was on them.

 

[Grinder]

Has the CCTV footage actually been posted on the internet?

How can we be certain that the CCTV is legitimately from the date and time of interest? Can the date and time indicators on CCTV footage be faked or altered?

I'm sure they could be faked but .net would never make it seem no one was on the stairs. The moderator seems to have a dispute with the later TOD so it does fit his theory. At least as I understand it:

With all due respect to those who came before me I don't accept a later time of death, for reasons given earlier: The stomach contents, the known times of the tow truck by the driveway, times of the Curatolo sightings.

 

[Numbers]

I believe the mechanics of the process would be as follows:

1. After the ECHR judgment that Italy violated Knox's Convention rights under Article 6.1 with 6.3c (and likely under other provisions, including Article 6.1 with 3) became final, Knox would request a revision trial under CPP Article 629, using Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011 as the reason required by Article 630. (Note that under CPP Article 632, not only Knox, the convicted person, but also the General Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal in the district where conviction occurred may request revision.)

2. Because the alleged evidence was in its entirety inadmissible, the judge in the revision trial, before the actual trial began, would declare an acquittal under CPP Article 469, on the grounds that prosecution should not have been started. An Article 469 acquittal is final and not subject to appeal.

3. Knox would then be fully entitled to compensation for the miscarriage of justice under CPP Article 643.

For (2) above, the judge's verdict could be instead given under CPP Article 529, Judgment of non prosecution; Article 530, Judgment of acquittal; or Article 531, Declaration of extinguishment of the offence. Those three articles are the ones specifically identified in CPP Article 631 as follows:

Under penalty of inadmissibility of the request, the arguments underlying the request for revision must be such as to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person must be dismissed under Articles 529, 530, or 531.

 

[acbytesla]

Has the CCTV footage actually been posted on the internet?

What? Are you going to post hours of nothing to the Internet? Here lies part of the problem. The police were never interested in finding nothing. Who looks for nothing when conducting an investigation? Note that they never found any images of Amanda and Raffaele from that evening and never considered their not finding any to be exculpatory. So in not finding anything during their original search they simply moved on. If they collected or viewed any of the footage with a whole lot of nothing, they simply did not save it because it wasn't evidence of anything.

Then Nara comes along months later with her story, they simply never went back and looked to see if they could find any CCTV footage to corroborate her story. Also not all CCTV cameras function the same way. Some are on timers, some are motion activated and some are on full time capturing from 24fps to a frame per 15 seconds.

How can we be certain that the CCTV is legitimately from the date and time of interest? Can the date and time indicators on CCTV footage be faked or altered?

Absolutely, they can be faked. Fairly easily. But if it isn't done right, the fakery can probably be detected.

 

[Grinder]

What? Are you going to post hours of nothing to the Internet? Here lies part of the problem. The police were never interested in finding nothing. Who looks for nothing when conducting an investigation? Note that they never found any images of Amanda and Raffaele from that evening and never considered their not finding any to be exculpatory. So in not finding anything during their original search they simply moved on. If they collected or viewed any of the footage with a whole lot of nothing, they simply did not save it because it wasn't evidence of anything.

Then Nara comes along months later with her story, they simply never went back and looked to see if they could find any CCTV footage to corroborate her story. Also not all CCTV cameras function the same way. Some are on timers, some are motion activated and some are on full time capturing from 24fps to a frame per 15 seconds.


Absolutely, they can be faked. Fairly easily. But if it isn't done right, the fakery can probably be detected.

So sorry to be so pedantic (pe·dan·tic
pəˈdan(t)ik/
adjective
of or like a pedant.
"many of the essays are long, dense, and too pedantic to hold great appeal"
synonyms: my favorite three precise, exact, perfectionist)

but it was NOT the case it took months for Nara to come forward.

From Amandaknoxcase.com - Witness statements - November 27, 2007:

Name Description Document Name Description Document
Nara Capezzali Resident who claimed to hear a scream Italian

If they had secured the recordings, it is likely those would be the last they would look at as the TOD wasn't moved to after 11 until after Nara had given testimony.

Almost no CCTV security cameras are on timers except to turn on and off coinciding with a store being open. If a CCTV were trained on the stairs, there is no way it would be turned on and off during the night except for motion activation.

And yes the .net people certainly would post hours of nothing of a video if it made their case - it will be interesting to see what they do if the initial reports are correct. IIP should post the video.

 

[acbytesla]

So sorry to be so pedantic (pe·dan·tic
pəˈdan(t)ik/
adjective
of or like a pedant.
"many of the essays are long, dense, and too pedantic to hold great appeal"
synonyms: my favorite three precise, exact, perfectionist)

but it was NOT the case it took months for Nara to come forward.

From Amandaknoxcase.com - Witness statements - November 27, 2007:

Name Description Document Name Description Document
Nara Capezzali Resident who claimed to hear a scream Italian

If they had secured the recordings, it is likely those would be the last they would look at as the TOD wasn't moved to after 11 until after Nara had given testimony.

Almost no CCTV security cameras are on timers except to turn on and off coinciding with a store being open. If a CCTV were trained on the stairs, there is no way it would be turned on and off during the night except for motion activation.

And yes the .net people certainly would post hours of nothing of a video if it made their case - it will be interesting to see what they do if the initial reports are correct. IIP should post the video.

No, that's OK. I spoke from memory. I guess I should have prefaced it with IIRC.

AS for how CCTV security cameras function, I sold CCTV cameras that defaulted to an operator SW timer selection but that also could be triggered via a motion sensor as well. (that was an option). But that was probably a decade before the murder. Still I really believe the list of options for image capture are still many. I guess I could research the options today available but the murder took place 8.5 year ago, so today's product doesn't reflect what was in Italy at the time.

 

[LondonJohn]

If they had secured the recordings, it is likely those would be the last they would look at as the TOD wasn't moved to after 11 until after Nara had given testimony.

Capezzali first came forward to the police a few weeks after the murder (and thus well over a year before the Massei trial started). It has to be assumed that Capezzali's story was broadly similar all along, and that from the start she claimed to have a) been woken/alerted by this "scream of death", b) heard the sounds of people running up the iron staircase shortly after that scream, and c) put the timeframe for all of this as follows: she'd gone to bed at around 9.00-9.30pm ("as usual"), and had woken around 2 hours later (she stated that the medication she was on always made her wake to use the bathroom some two hours after going to bed), thus placing the time of the scream and the people running up the iron staircase firmly at some time later than 11pm.

So the police/PM MUST have had, from late 2007, a clear understanding that this fairly important "earwitness" was placing the timing of the things she said she'd heard at some time later than 11pm. And we also know that the police/PM MUST have decided that Capezzali's account was of probative value and was relevant to the murder trial of Knox and Sollecito - since she was used as a prosecution witness in the Massei trial. So we can easily deduce that the police/PM were using Capezzali as part of their case, and were going to claim (as they did in Massei's court) that what Capezzali had heard was the sound of Kercher screaming as she was attacked, followed by the sound of more than one attacker running up the iron staircase.

As I say, in the light of when Capezzali presented herself to the police, and given the very large amount of time (over a year) between that and the start of the Massei trial, I find it literally unbelievable that a) the police hadn't also obtained the CCTV footage showing the iron staircase many, many moths before the start of the Massei trial (and thus had both Capezzali's account and the CCTV footage in their possession for many months before the start of Massei), and that therefore b) the police didn't go through the following general thought process:

1) We believe Capezzali when she says she heard a scream and the sound of people escaping up the iron staircase;

2) We believe that what Capezzali heard was the sound of Kercher being attacked, followed by the sound of more than one of her attackers escaping the scene by running up the iron staircase (and we plan to use Capezzali at trial accordingly);

3) Capezzali is pretty firm and confident in her belief that all of this occurred at some point later than 11pm;

4) We also have in our possession CCTV footage showing the iron staircase throughout that evening;

5) So let's look at that CCTV footage carefully, since it will be able to prove whether or not anyone ran up that staircase after 11pm (or even at any time between 9pm and 11pm), and it also might well help identify who - if anyone - ran up that staircase.


Frankly, if the police (or the PM instructing the police) had both Capezzali's account and the CCTV footage in their possession and didn't go through this form of thought process at some point between late-2007 and late-2008 (at the latest), then the police/PM were grossly incompetent and negligent. If they didn't realise they had that CCTV footage in their possession, then they were grossly incompetent and negligent. If they knew they had that CCTV footage in their possession but somehow didn't realise its significance in supporting or disproving Capezzali's testimonly, then they were grossly incompetent and negligent. If they hadn't even tried to obtain that CCTV footage well before the Massei trial (or hadn't even realised it existed), then they were grossly incompetent and negligent.

And if the police/PM had both Capezzali's account and the CCTV footage in their possession and did go through this form of thought process at some point between late-2007 and late-2008 (at the latest) - and I find it somewhat difficult to believe that they didn't - then we're potentially looking at something much, much worse than gross incompetence or negligence. We're potentially looking at the police/PM realising that the CCTV footage in their possession discredited the entire testimony of one of their pretty important prosecution witnesses, and neither a) disclosing this information to the court, nor b) providing this evidence and information to the defence teams.

 

[Grinder]

Tesla if you just switched sides you wouldn't have a grinder to correct you:

Regarding timing, I personally base the timing on the concordance of the three ear witnesses- Capezzali, Monacchia and Dramis. The timing of when they heard the scream roughly works with Lalli's median estimation of time of death at 23:30. This also works with Curatolo's sightings, because in Massei testimony, at the end of his testimony under questions from Judge Massei, Curatolo clarifies he actually saw K and S from roughly 21:30 to 23:00 and not after 23:00. Two families with a broken down car were in the immediate vicinity of the cottage from roughly 22:30 to 23:15, a time range when Curatolo saw K and S once or twice at the piazza. They heard and saw no commotion at this time.

I agree that a 2 hour attack scenario seems odd. I personally have favored a two phased assault where the trio, perhaps instigated by a fight between K and Meredith, wind up raping poor Meredith, and then they later attack to kill her. This scenario helps fit a number of other case details, including Kokomani's testimony.

But it's all conjecture. Ergon favors earlier attack time. I do not because the scream would have been heard by other witnesses returning to the car park, none of whom came forward. And it wouldn't work with what the three women heard.

Do you remember how Massei changed the Curatolo testimony?

 

[Grinder]

Capezzali... teams.

Perhaps waiting for the video to be released if it exists would be prudent. It seems an odd place for a video though I readily admit I have no idea if the staircase would be important surveillance. If someone knows please let us know.

If this alleged video was in the the case file then the defense should have been able to view it and present it and it would reduce and culpability of the police, as they would have made it available.

If the staircase had video, one wonders how much video could/was gathered by the PLE. I would like them to post video from all around town and read Dan O's analysis.

 

[Grinder]

No, that's OK. I spoke from memory. I guess I should have prefaced it with IIRC.

AS for how CCTV security cameras function, I sold CCTV cameras that defaulted to an operator SW timer selection but that also could be triggered via a motion sensor as well. (that was an option). But that was probably a decade before the murder. Still I really believe the list of options for image capture are still many. I guess I could research the options today available but the murder took place 8.5 year ago, so today's product doesn't reflect what was in Italy at the time.

I also sold CCTV for drive-through order windows. Perhaps if you could explain why a CCTV on a staircase would have a timer for anything but turning it on at dusk and off a dawn it would elucidating.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps waiting for the video to be released if it exists would be prudent. It seems an odd place for a video though I readily admit I have no idea if the staircase would be important surveillance. If someone knows please let us know.

If this alleged video was in the the case file then the defense should have been able to view it and present it and it would reduce and culpability of the police, as they would have made it available.

If the staircase had video, one wonders how much video could/was gathered by the PLE. I would like them to post video from all around town and read Dan O's analysis.

Granted we're dealing in real hypotheticals at this point, based on nothing more than a single enigmatic post on a website which has made unsupported claims.

But

You seem to be working on the premise that this CCTV footage (assuming for a moment that it really exists etc) was in the case file since it was entered into court evidence (and that this is how the website would have come across it).

This might or might not be the case. But if it is, then I'd make three observations: 1) the footage must have been placed into evidence by the prosecution (via the police), since nobody but the police/PM would have had the authority/means to obtain this footage; 2) it would be effectively impossible (and extremely negligent/incompetent) for the prosecution to have entered this CCTV footage into court evidence without the police or prosecutors even having looked at it or understanding why it constituted "evidence" in this case; 3) so the prosecution must necessarily have brought Capezzali to the stand before Massei's court knowing that there was CCTV evidence which massively dented (and maybe destroyed) Capezzali's reliability and credibility, yet did not reveal this to the court.

As you say, it would also raise questions about the competence of the defence lawyers, if there was evidence entered into court which would have seriously damaged an important prosecution witness (and a witness whom we know ended up featuring significantly in the court's ultimate reasoning behind the guilty verdicts). But I would still argue that any incompetence/negligence on the part of the defence would be greatly outweighed by the acts of the prosecution, since they had to have known what the CCTV footage showed (and didn't show) if they entered it into evidence. That's serious professional misconduct.


But there's another scenario. What if this CCTV footage (again, assuming it really exists etc) was never entered into evidence in court? I see this as a very real possibility. As I said before, it could have been on the part of either a) serious incompetence/negligence on the part of police and prosecutors, if they had obtained the footage by (say) mid-2008 and had either never looked at it or had not realised its significance; or b) something much worse than simple incompetence/negligence, if the police/PM had viewed the footage and realised its significance, and had made a conscious decision to keep the footage to themselves. Or there's a small possibility that the police/PM only very recently (post 2014) came into possession of this footage - but that in itself would demonstrate incompetence and negligence, since the footage by definition must have been in existence and available ever since November 1st 2007.


Of course it's presently impossible to even begin to figure out which of these scenarios might be accurate (as it is also impossible to even know whether this CCTV footage a) really exists, and b) shows what it pertains to show (and not show)). But I absolutely would not discount the possibility that police and PM had the footage well before the Massei trial, knew its implications, and decided to withhold it as they knew it would wreck the account of one of their more important witnesses.

 

[acbytesla]

I also sold CCTV for drive-through order windows. Perhaps if you could explain why a CCTV on a staircase would have a timer for anything but turning it on at dusk and off a dawn it would elucidating.

Why not? There was a time when data storage was a much higher bigger issue than today. (I still am in awe that for $100 you can buy 128GB micro SD flash or 1TB disk drive today)

You could set it to take a picture every second or every 3 seconds. I would actually imagine easily where it would take a shot every 1 or 5 or15 minutes just to show that the system wasn't turned off during a specific time.

 

[Bill Williams]

CNN is covering the tragic Ashley Olsen situation in Italy (Florence), which the police are treating as a homicide.

However, it's stunning hearing Barbie Nadeau saying that she hopes it doesn't turn into another debacle which formerly afflicted Knox and Sollecito. Sh's been particularly hard on the lead detective in the Olsen case, who coincidentally was the one who announced "Cased Closed" 8 years ago... "We'll see if he's learned anything at all from the Amanda Knox case," says Barbie.

Also, when Nencini convicted in 2014, Paul Callan of CNN crossed swords with Steve Moore on Erin Burrnett's segment, telling both Burnett and Moore that as far as he was concerned, there was enough to convict.

However in commenting on the developing Olson case - he has obviously read the Marasca/Bruno report, saying that a bungled police investigation led to years of vilifying Knox.

 

[acbytesla]

Granted we're dealing in real hypotheticals at this point, based on nothing more than a single enigmatic post on a website which has made unsupported claims.

But

You seem to be working on the premise that this CCTV footage (assuming for a moment that it really exists etc) was in the case file since it was entered into court evidence (and that this is how the website would have come across it).

This might or might not be the case. But if it is, then I'd make three observations: 1) the footage must have been placed into evidence by the prosecution (via the police), since nobody but the police/PM would have had the authority/means to obtain this footage; 2) it would be effectively impossible (and extremely negligent/incompetent) for the prosecution to have entered this CCTV footage into court evidence without the police or prosecutors even having looked at it or understanding why it constituted "evidence" in this case; 3) so the prosecution must necessarily have brought Capezzali to the stand before Massei's court knowing that there was CCTV evidence which massively dented (and maybe destroyed) Capezzali's reliability and credibility, yet did not reveal this to the court.

As you say, it would also raise questions about the competence of the defence lawyers, if there was evidence entered into court which would have seriously damaged an important prosecution witness (and a witness whom we know ended up featuring significantly in the court's ultimate reasoning behind the guilty verdicts). But I would still argue that any incompetence/negligence on the part of the defence would be greatly outweighed by the acts of the prosecution, since they had to have known what the CCTV footage showed (and didn't show) if they entered it into evidence. That's serious professional misconduct.


But there's another scenario. What if this CCTV footage (again, assuming it really exists etc) was never entered into evidence in court? I see this as a very real possibility. As I said before, it could have been on the part of either a) serious incompetence/negligence on the part of police and prosecutors, if they had obtained the footage by (say) mid-2008 and had either never looked at it or had not realised its significance; or b) something much worse than simple incompetence/negligence, if the police/PM had viewed the footage and realised its significance, and had made a conscious decision to keep the footage to themselves. Or there's a small possibility that the police/PM only very recently (post 2014) came into possession of this footage - but that in itself would demonstrate incompetence and negligence, since the footage by definition must have been in existence and available ever since November 1st 2007.


Of course it's presently impossible to even begin to figure out which of these scenarios might be accurate (as it is also impossible to even know whether this CCTV footage a) really exists, and b) shows what it pertains to show (and not show)). But I absolutely would not discount the possibility that police and PM had the footage well before the Massei trial, knew its implications, and decided to withhold it as they knew it would wreck the account of one of their more important witnesses.

Of course I don't know, but my guess is that it was never placed in evidence as it never showed anything.

 

[Grinder]

Why not? There was a time when data storage was a much higher bigger issue than today. (I still am in awe that for $100 you can buy 128GB micro SD flash or 1TB disk drive today)

You could set it to take a picture every second or every 3 seconds. I would actually imagine easily where it would take a shot every 1 or 5 or15 minutes just to show that the system wasn't turned off during a specific time.

I could see a CCTV being turned on and off in certain circumstances but by 2007 storage wasn't that expensive as a CD ROM could provide 8 or more hours. Now if it took pictures every second that wouldn't save much space but would provide a picture of anyone using the stairs. By guess is motion detection was used as that limits storage usage and makes it easier to review.

I have no idea what the highlighted section means.

My first experience with a hard drive was a 5MB $1500 unit.

 

[Grinder]

Granted we're dealing in real hypotheticals at this point, based on nothing more than a single enigmatic post on a website which has made unsupported claims.

But

You seem to be working on the premise that this CCTV footage (assuming for a moment that it really exists etc) was in the case file since it was entered into court evidence (and that this is how the website would have come across it).

This might or might not be the case. But if it is, then I'd make three observations: 1) the footage must have been placed into evidence by the prosecution (via the police), since nobody but the police/PM would have had the authority/means to obtain this footage; 2) it would be effectively impossible (and extremely negligent/incompetent) for the prosecution to have entered this CCTV footage into court evidence without the police or prosecutors even having looked at it or understanding why it constituted "evidence" in this case; 3) so the prosecution must necessarily have brought Capezzali to the stand before Massei's court knowing that there was CCTV evidence which massively dented (and maybe destroyed) Capezzali's reliability and credibility, yet did not reveal this to the court.

As you say, it would also raise questions about the competence of the defence lawyers, if there was evidence entered into court which would have seriously damaged an important prosecution witness (and a witness whom we know ended up featuring significantly in the court's ultimate reasoning behind the guilty verdicts). But I would still argue that any incompetence/negligence on the part of the defence would be greatly outweighed by the acts of the prosecution, since they had to have known what the CCTV footage showed (and didn't show) if they entered it into evidence. That's serious professional misconduct.


But there's another scenario. What if this CCTV footage (again, assuming it really exists etc) was never entered into evidence in court? I see this as a very real possibility. As I said before, it could have been on the part of either a) serious incompetence/negligence on the part of police and prosecutors, if they had obtained the footage by (say) mid-2008 and had either never looked at it or had not realised its significance; or b) something much worse than simple incompetence/negligence, if the police/PM had viewed the footage and realised its significance, and had made a conscious decision to keep the footage to themselves. Or there's a small possibility that the police/PM only very recently (post 2014) came into possession of this footage - but that in itself would demonstrate incompetence and negligence, since the footage by definition must have been in existence and available ever since November 1st 2007.


Of course it's presently impossible to even begin to figure out which of these scenarios might be accurate (as it is also impossible to even know whether this CCTV footage a) really exists, and b) shows what it pertains to show (and not show)). But I absolutely would not discount the possibility that police and PM had the footage well before the Massei trial, knew its implications, and decided to withhold it as they knew it would wreck the account of one of their more important witnesses.

I doubt very much that the recording would survive more than a week or maybe two. Why would the owner of the CCTV need to keep them longer?

As I said before, here in Seattle if the police don't acquire a surveillance recording with a week or maybe two the owner records over them. They just don't have a need to keep them longer. It is almost certain they would have had them by the time Nara came forward. While I'm always willing to accept PLE incompetence, not getting a recording of those obviously possible escape stairs stretches it.

 

[acbytesla]

I could see a CCTV being turned on and off in certain circumstances but by 2007 storage wasn't that expensive as a CD ROM could provide 8 or more hours. Now if it took pictures every second that wouldn't save much space but would provide a picture of anyone using the stairs. By guess is motion detection was used as that limits storage usage and makes it easier to review.

I have no idea what the highlighted section means.

My first experience with a hard drive was a 5MB $1500 unit.

I tend to agree with you about all of this but I'd add that we don't know old that CCTV camera setup was. Still, I'd bet 25 to 1 that it was some kind of motion trigger like the Car Park was.

As for your 1st experience, my first was buying a 10MB drive for $450. Sort of dates us. I first sold 20MB drives for $250 and 40MB drives for $370.

 

[acbytesla]

I doubt very much that the recording would survive more than a week or maybe two. Why would the owner of the CCTV need to keep them longer?

As I said before, here in Seattle if the police don't acquire a surveillance recording with a week or maybe two the owner records over them. They just don't have a need to keep them longer. It is almost certain they would have had them by the time Nara came forward. While I'm always willing to accept PLE incompetence, not getting a recording of those obviously possible escape stairs stretches it.

I'd doubt that is the case anymore. It wouldn't surprise me that they might keep recordings today for 6 months even a year or longer. There simply isn't a need to record over any more. But who knows, I might be talking out my backside.

 

[Grinder]

CNN is covering the tragic Ashley Olsen situation in Italy (Florence), which the police are treating as a homicide.

However, it's stunning hearing Barbie Nadeau saying that she hopes it doesn't turn into another debacle which formerly afflicted Knox and Sollecito. Sh's been particularly hard on the lead detective in the Olsen case, who coincidentally was the one who announced "Cased Closed" 8 years ago... "We'll see if he's learned anything at all from the Amanda Knox case," says Barbie.

I've looked for the name of the policeman that said "case closed" but I can't find it anywhere. The PI reported a policeman at the gate said it and elsewhere it was reported it was said at the press conference.

 

[acbytesla]

I've looked for the name of the policeman that said "case closed" but I can't find it anywhere. The PI reported a policeman at the gate said it and elsewhere it was reported it was said at the press conference".

I don't think it was Profazio. My memory has another name associated with that phrase.
Arturo De Felice said it at the Press Conference.