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

[Kaosium]

Once again, the thread has become quite lengthy, so here is another new continuation thread. This continues from Part Six. For further reference, see also Part Five, Part Four, Part Three, Part Two, and Part One.

Posted By: LashL

It's one, Kaosium, only one mitigation. The mitigation is from life to 24 years.
It was applied only once, and only on Guede's appeal; not on the first instance.
On his first instance he got life, which became 30 years for fast track reduction. If you read Micheli's report you might get it.

The second cut is not a mitigation, it's a reduction. It cuts down sentencing to 30 years when the penalty is life, and it cuts it down t 16 years if it's 24 years. It's the automatic reduction caused by the fast track option. it was applied only once (but the final effect changes depending on the original application of sentencing and mitigation).

Only one mitigation is what he got on appeal, from life (first instance) to 24 (second instance). Exactly the same of what Knox and Solelcito got.

Whether they're called mitigations (which amount to reductions) or reductions outright and which step of the abbreviated process they're officially applied doesn't really matter. What does matter is that the way Mignini prosecuted it led to a huge reduction in sentence for Rudy Guede, making true Barbie Nadeau's report of eating with Biscotti, Rudy's lawyer, and him getting a call saying he got a deal for Rudy.

Now, why wasn't there any appeal to the mitigations or advancing of aggravations in the Rudy Guede case?

And no way he could be found guilty of theft on appeal, he was charged and Micheli found him innocent.

And that's the proof of it all, Mignini didn't try to prosecute Rudy for the theft, in defiance of the evidence showing that even if Raffaele and Amanda were involved in the murder, Rudy was the one who ended up with the cash.

They weren't involved in the murder though, the whole case against Raffaele and Amanda is just more demented theorizing in defiance of the evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lo, clouds

The reported reason was security of handling the item. The lab is in Rome, the item needed to be transported. But it was a cutting and pointed knife and the procedure for these items includes concern that the blade could cut or poke the bag. So it was unpacked and transferred into a rigid box.

Actually he never entered Meredith's room.

Gubbiotti testified he put on a pair of new gloves.
The search at the cottage occurred previously in the morning. The unpackaging and packaging of the knife occurred hours later.
SNIP
Unfortunately for your theory, I think it will be deemed unrealistic.
That could be taken into consideration as a hypotheses, let's say realistic, in statystical terms, if Gubbiotti was wearing a shirt spattered with the victim's blood while he was handling the knife. Or if he unpacked the knife while inside Meredith's bloody room.

Very, very weak. Really worrying for the defence if these are their arguments.

Assuming that there is even one scintilla of truth in what you say, then the problem was the way that it was packaged first, which was incompetent.

Do you have a citation for what Gubbiotti did and did not do?

You missed the point about the gloves. If he put on a new pair and touched his clothing, he could transfer DNA onto the gloves at that point.

Another weak argument from personal incredulity. The trouble is that the CSC would not listen to reason with respect to proper versus improper handling and analysis of DNA if Jesus Christ came down with clouds descending to tell them the truth about Adventitious DNA from wishful thinking.

 

[Mary_H]

Actually I have spoken about sexual encounter between Knox and Guede.
The concept of "trade of sex for drugs" is reported by the police as the activity that the drug dealer was used to do with female students.
This is reported. But it is totally secondary and irrelevant to the scenario. I was actually not interested in the reason why Knox and Guede had a sexual meeting.

Before reflecting on your disinterest in why they had a sexual meeting, you are going to have to establish they had a sexual meeting, and your claim certainly cannot be based on anything the police "reported," unless you can also document that.

You instead picked up the mention of "sex for drugs" deal and you reported it as if it was the core of my reasoning. While instead it is absolutely irrelevant, it is there just because it belongs to the record about this particular drug dealer that used to have contacts with Knox.
It is reasonable to infer that his contacts with Knox had to do with sex (because this is what the police found out), or with drug exchange, or with both. But actually, this is alos irrelevant, because the only thing that logically matters is that there is evidence that Knox had repeated phone contacts with people of the very same environment to which also Rudy Guede belongs.

Oh, now she had repeated contacts? I thought she just had the number of a drug dealer in her phone. Can you provide the records to support your claim?

No no, that's false, the truth is I vehemently denied it. I denied it actually even implicitly, before you attempted to make such interpretation; because even in the most extreme scenario, that is the biggest implication that you could draw out from a "sex trade in exchange of drugs" scenario is that Guede at best could have been Knox's client.
But a client cannot be the pimp.

But you just swept away what I actually said, and you jumped head down into your attribution of "pimp" scenario.
Which is just obviously incompatible with what I had just said.<snip>

I also vehemently specified that Knox was not a prostitute, because she did that for fun and not for money or utility; so it would be unlikely and improper to even think tha Guede was a client. He was likely just a sexual partner like Daniel, Juve, Federico, Sollecito.

You claim Amanda had sex with Rudy, and you imply Amanda got drugs from Rudy, but you deny suggesting an exchange of sex for drugs. So you are saying Amanda and Rudy had basically the same type of relationship as Meredith and Giacomo, is that right?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dietrologia

Could someone be kind enough to explain what this word means? I can't find it on any online dictionary and Wikipedia redirects to "conspiracy theory" without any further reference or explanation. I would be interested if any website can be linked to which discusses uses of the word. Thanks!

Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi's book may be where I saw this term defined. The Economist wrote about this term, "The idea is that many Italians believe that the surface or official explanation for something can rarely be the real one. There's always something behind, or dietro, that surface. It's a great word."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Patrick Waring and investigative tunnel vision

I linked to the Patrick Waring case yesterday. Here is a terrific article about the Patrick Waring case in Australia (he was accused of rape), but it has more general relevance. The police were late in collecting evidence, and they ignored exculpatory evidence (the tunnel-vision effect) A defense expert, Robin Napper, was quoted: “Practices and procedures [in Australia] are years out of date. The police simply refuse to change.

Forensic science should be totally independent [but in Western Australia] the DPP, PathWest and the police are very much part of the same prosecutorial team …

[In Europe and the UK] the crime scene belongs to the scientists and the investigation belongs to the police.

[In Australia] police are missing key forensic evidence in every crime. The evidence is far too complex for police to collect.”

 

[Mary_H]

Mary H and katy-did, it is most interesting to read your posts. Rudy had a very tough upbringing although I am glad to see that a number of good people in Perugia came forward and tried to help him - teachers, basketball coach, and the wealthy family who took him in.

I would like to ask and encourage you to please share your thoughts on Mignini, Stefanoni, Comodi, Judge Massei. Also, the police who conducted the interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele and withhold what reaally occurred that night. Also, what do you think of the individuals who deliberately failed to record the interrogation or destroyed the recording?

Good question, Strozzi. When I use my standard of judging how unethical an act is according to how powerful the actor is, I have no problem arguing that the behavior of the people you mentioned is more unethical than Rudy's, who seems to have acted impulsively. But some will argue that the end result of Rudy's actions amounted to a greater evil than the end result of PLE's actions. And who am I to say that the rest of these schmoes have not acted impulsively?

It's probably most useful to leave judgments and a discussion of evil out of it altogether, and just look at the facts. Rudy did "this act," and when he did "that act," he caused "this harm." It would be in everyone's best interests, including his own, for him to be honest and try to make amends to the extent it is possible.

The same with PLE. They did "these acts," and when they did "those acts," they caused "these harms." It would be in everyone's best interests, including their own, for them to be honest and try to make amends to the extent it is possible.

In my opinion, the prospect of being thought of as evil is often what prevents perpetrators from coming clean.

 

[andreajo]

Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi's book may be where I saw this term defined. The Economist wrote about this term, "The idea is that many Italians believe that the surface or official explanation for something can rarely be the real one. There's always something behind, or dietro, that surface. It's a great word."

This is the beginning of Chapter 40 in Preston & Spezi's Monster of Florence:

“Dietrologia,” said Count Niccolò. “That is the only Italian word you need to know to understand the Monster of Florence investigation.”
We were having our usual lunch at Il Bordino. I was eating baccalà, salt cod, while the Count enjoyed stuffed arista.
“Dietrologia?” I asked.
“Dietro—behind. Logia—the study of.” The count spoke grandly, as if still in the lecture hall, his plummy English accent echoing in the cavelike interior of the restaurant. “Dietrologia is the idea that the obvious thing cannot be the truth. There is always something hidden behind, dietro. It isn’t quite what you Americans call conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory implies theory, something uncertain, a possibility. The dietrologist deals only in fact.”

Excerpt From: Preston, Douglas. “The Monster of Florence.” Grand Central Publishing, 2008-06-1

 

[Mary_H]

Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi's book may be where I saw this term defined. The Economist wrote about this term, "The idea is that many Italians believe that the surface or official explanation for something can rarely be the real one. There's always something behind, or dietro, that surface. It's a great word."

Et tu, halides1?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9696102&postcount=9959

ETA: I hope I haven't scared you away. You know I am just teasing you. I have called out a few others lately for "gliding over" my posts, and if I didn't mention yours, they would have accused me of bestowing special privileges.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I still don't have it (I might have it soon) but I have a transcript of Sep. 2011 hearing where quoting from it were read in court.

An total index doesn't exist, but the chancellery depositation documents of negative controls from 2008 were addrssed as being in the file and cited by Alessandro Crini on Nov. 25-26.

I think I have the Oct. 4. 2008 hearing transcript. I think I quoted it to show Vecchiotti was lying on several things, like for example when she claims Stefanoni never talked about laboratory cleaning procedures, about using alcohol etc. In the Oct. 4. Stefanoni's testimony flatly contradicts Vecchiotti's claim that she never heard of this kind of information.

But you wrote:

… the hearing transcript exist as well as the chancellery records of what was deposited that day.

The hearing transcript is the October 8, 2008 transcript (I believe) but more importantly it is the "chancellery records of what was deposited that day" that I want to see. I am not interested in testimonies of anyone who states the negative controls were in the case file. I am interested in the actual proof they were in there so we can put this whole issue to rest. It would be a feather in the cap for the PGP if they really were in the case file, but the only way to show this is through the official chancellery record, backed up by the 08/10/08 transcript.

It is obvious the prosecutors in Italy can casually assert something to be true, without it necessarily being so. This is why those chancellery records are crucial.

 

[toto]

You will have better luck if you look up dietrologia, as it is distinctly Italian. For example:



Another one is here.

Dietrologia is the opposite of Occam's Razor. The "sex game gone wrong" theory is an example of dietrologia.

Thanks!

 

[toto]

Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi's book may be where I saw this term defined. The Economist wrote about this term, "The idea is that many Italians believe that the surface or official explanation for something can rarely be the real one. There's always something behind, or dietro, that surface. It's a great word."

Thanks also. Glad I asked now.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Et tu, halides1?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9696102&postcount=9959

Sorry I missed your response. But we got the question answered, and that is the important thing.

 

[Bill Williams]

Before reflecting on your disinterest in why they had a sexual meeting, you are going to have to establish they had a sexual meeting, and your claim certainly cannot be based on anything the police "reported," unless you can also document that.



Oh, now she had repeated contacts? I thought she just had the number of a drug dealer in her phone. Can you provide the records to support your claim?



You claim Amanda had sex with Rudy, and you imply Amanda got drugs from Rudy, but you deny suggesting an exchange of sex for drugs. So you are saying Amanda and Rudy had basically the same type of relationship as Meredith and Giacomo, is that right?

Machiavelli is now departing from dietorolgy to simply asserting completely unfounded factoids.

Much like the way Mignini conducted the case against RS and AK, Machiavelli is simply making things up.

It's as you say, Mary_H. Machiavelli used to be content with the (also) unproven "Knox had the number of a drug dealer in her phone," ramping up the factoidness of this to what he now goes on about.

The dietrology will be when he starts in on why he didn't actually say what he said. It's good to have both a Fastball and a good curve in your repertoire!

 

[Machiavelli]

Assuming that there is even one scintilla of truth in what you say, then the problem was the way that it was packaged first, which was incompetent.

Well but that occurred in Sollecito apartment.

Do you have a citation for what Gubbiotti did and did not do?

Well there is Gubiotti's testimony:
SG = Stefano Gubbiotti
GM = Giuliano Mignini
GCM = Giancarlo Massei

SG:
No, l'ispettore Finzi mi ha consegnato la busta, dopodichè io avevo preparato il materiale per la repertazione, naturalmente ero con i guanti anche io.
GM:
I guanti che usò quella mattina, aspetti, erano quelli che aveva usato per andare in Via della Pergola o erano nuovi?
SG:
No no, guardi io in Via della Pergola credo di aver cambiato i guanti almeno due volte.
GM:
E quindi, aspetti, quando lei ha repertato quel coltello aveva i guanti nuovi, li aveva messi poco prima?
SG:
Certamente
GCM:
Magari facciamo solo le domande, ecco. Quindi erano guanti... Come erano questi guanti?
SG:
Sono i nostri guanti che usiamo sempre.
GCM:
Dove li aveva presi?
SG:
Ce li abbiamo in ufficio.
GCM:
Li aveva usati in altre occasioni?
SG:
No, è impossibile anche riusarli perché dal momento che li toglie è impossibile rimetterli. Sono guanti in lattice che non...
GM:
Quindi lei si è messo prima i guanti, prima di fare ogni altra cosa?
SG:
Certamente.

Gubbiotti also explained that he only searched Amanda's room, collecting a few items. He looked at Filomena's bathroom from outside the door, and he stationed a few minutes in the kitchen area whil Barbadori was searching, before exiting.

GB:
Lei ha detto per quello che mi riguarda io ho fatto solo quella stanza, gli altri soggetti oltre Barbadori che mi ha detto le risulta oltre la singola stanza se hanno fatto altre attività?
SG:
No. Soltanto quella della perquisizione.
GB:
Poi il corridoio camminavate sul corridoio oppure no, nel corridoio?
SG:
Al termine della perquisizione di Amanda sono rimasto in cucina.
GB:
Sì, come ha fatto, una specie di salto o ha attraversato corridoio?
SG:
Certo che ho attraversato il corridoio.
GB:
E gli altri camminavano in questo corridoio o no?
SG:
L'attività della perquisizione della stanza di Meredith credo che era ancora in atto, io sono uscito dalla stanza di Amanda e mi sono portato sulla cucina, dopodichè sono entrato, mi sono affacciato sul bagno grande e poi sono uscito.
GB:
Degli altri lei non è grado di riferire cosa hanno fatto?
SG:
No.

You missed the point about the gloves. If he put on a new pair and touched his clothing, he could transfer DNA onto the gloves at that point.

If he has something like abudant large stains of biologic liquids from Meredith's on his clothes. If he was wearing a shirt spattered with Meredith's blood, that scenario of transferring DNA after touching clothes becomes reasonable. Otherwise, there is a statistical fence still before you.

Another weak argument from personal incredulity. The trouble is that the CSC would not listen to reason with respect to proper versus improper handling and analysis of DNA if Jesus Christ came down with clouds descending to tell them the truth about Adventitious DNA from wishful thinking.

Certainly, the Cassazione would consider only an argument based on statistical probability. If you had an argument which is a factual element, a proof of a circumstance, that makes the scenario of transfer of Meredith's DNA become a probable event, that would be a good argument about this piece of evidence. But there is nothing such as this evidence. The SC considers an argument based on probable versus improbable, while won't consider an argument based on a dycothomy "best practice" versus "improper practice".

As for incredulity, well nobody is bond to just believe any unproven theory. If you have like scientific literature expressing the phenomenon of tertiary DNA transfer in terms of probability, we would have a datum. As for the present state of knowldge, we know that tertiary transfer from microscopic sources, without even contact with biological liquids but through "air", is an inherently improbable event, and we can appreciate there is a number of clues about such improbability. Maybe improbable to the point of never having been observed.
You call me "incredulous" because I refuse to acknowledge it as "the most probable scenario". But I don't see any reasonable ground why I should consider that as something probable.

 

[Bill Williams]

Certainly, the Cassazione would consider only an argument based on statistical probability. If you had an argument which is a factual element, a proof of a circumstance, that makes the scenario of transfer of Meredith's DNA become a probable event, that would be a good argument about this piece of evidence. But there is nothing such as this evidence. The SC considers an argument based on probable versus improbable, while won't consider an argument based on a dycothomy "best practice" versus "improper practice".

As for incredulity, well nobody is bond to just believe any unproven theory. If you have like scientific literature expressing the phenomenon of tertiary DNA transfer in terms of probability, we would have a datum. As for the present state of knowldge, we know that tertiary transfer from microscopic sources, without even contact with biological liquids but through "air", is an inherently improbable event, and we can appreciate there is a number of clues about such improbability. Maybe improbable to the point of never having been observed.
You call me "incredulous" because I refuse to acknowledge it as "the most probable scenario". But I don't see any reasonable ground why I should consider that as something probable.

This should be read again and again. The only thing worse that if this is complete bollocks, would be if Machiavelli is actually describing how the ISC works. It is Byzantine.

 

[Machiavelli]

Before reflecting on your disinterest in why they had a sexual meeting, you are going to have to establish they had a sexual meeting, and your claim certainly cannot be based on anything the police "reported," unless you can also document that.

I don't have to establish anything actually. But I can well assume it is reasonable to believe a reporting by Il Corriere dell'Umbria which cites a police report, and it is reasonable on my part to believe my direct sources.
Knox had phone contacts with a a drug dealer who - incidentally - was also reported by the police as having the habit of giving cocaine to female stutents in exchange for sex.
I don't know how these elements are linked together. What I believe we may be all reasonably sure about is that Amanda Knox had contact with this person and with the environment of drug dealers hanging around in Piazza Grimana.

Oh, now she had repeated contacts? I thought she just had the number of a drug dealer in her phone. Can you provide the records to support your claim?

Yes they also had phone contacts. They also rang each other the day subsequent to the crime (that day they did not talk however).

You claim Amanda had sex with Rudy, and you imply Amanda got drugs from Rudy, but you deny suggesting an exchange of sex for drugs. So you are saying Amanda and Rudy had basically the same type of relationship as Meredith and Giacomo, is that right?

Well, actually Meredith had an exclusive relation, which tended to remain stable through many weeks, as for Knox and Guede I was thinking more to a casual episode rather similar to those Knox had with Daniel, Federico & Juve, or with the hypothetical encounter with the drug dealer. However I am not interested in judgeing what a "relation" is as opposed to an "episode". If Knox had a "relation" with Guede, I'd call that a relation "Knox-style" (Federico, Daniel, Juve etc.) rather than a "Meredith-style" relation.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't have to establish anything actually. But I can well assume it is reasonable to believe a reporting by Il Corriere dell'Umbria which cites a police report, and it is reasonable on my part to believe my direct sources.
Knox had phone contacts with a a drug dealer who - incidentally - was also reported by the police as having the habit of giving cocaine to female stutents in exchange for sex.

Ah, the old "reported by the police" nonsense again, huh?! The police also "reported" that a so-called "critical" sweater of Knox's was missing. Only it was lying on her bed in the cottage all along. Whoops! The police also "reported" that there was a receipt for bleach in Sollecito's house, dated after the murder. No such receipt ever existed - it was probably a pizza receipt. Whoops!

Most sceptical, logical people might therefore prefer not to believe anything "reported by the police" unless and until it is independently corroborated with tangible proof. Just sayin'....

I don't know how these elements are linked together. What I believe we may be all reasonably sure about is that Amanda Knox had contact with this person and with the environment of drug dealers hanging around in Piazza Grimana.

Ah, yes: confirmation bias rears its ugly head once again. What I believe sceptical, rational people can be "reasonably sure about" is that there is a suggestion (and nothing more than that) that Knox had telephone contact with someone who also dealt drugs. Was everyone who had Jimmy Savile's mobile number, and who communicated with him in that manner, involved in his illegal sex abuse activities? I think that sceptical, rational people who think clearly and objectively might see what I mean here. Others' mileage may vary......

Yes they also had phone contacts. They also rang each other the day subsequent to the crime (that day they did not talk however).

Ah yes, that's from the phone records that are in public evidence....... errrrm..... where, precisely? Or is this more stuff "reported by the police"? I imagine that they called each other the day after the murder so that Knox could boast to him about the crime, and to order up her repeat supply of Bolivian marching powder, eh? You know: the cocaine that did not show up in any blood or hair tests. The magic cocaine

Well, actually Meredith had an exclusive relation, which tended to remain stable through many weeks, as for Knox and Guede I was thinking more to a casual episode rather similar to those Knox had with Daniel, Federico & Juve, or with the hypothetical encounter with the drug dealer. However I am not interested in judgeing what a "relation" is as opposed to an "episode". If Knox had a "relation" with Guede, I'd call that a relation "Knox-style" (Federico, Daniel, Juve etc.) rather than a "Meredith-style" relation.

Yes: Knox probably had sex with a different man every day of every week she was in Perugia. Who cares that we have no evidence whatsoever that this was the case, nor that we have Knox's list - written in fear and confinement - of all of her sexual partners of her whole life. Who needs "evidence", eh?! Let's just go with what we feel, with what we want Knox to "be". That's good, rational, sceptical thinking, isn't it?!

 

[Strozzi]

OK... Massei and "logically correct" cant be used in the same sentence... in any country of the world cept Italy. There anything goes... Ship captains steer 100 millions worth of ship and passengers into rocks that have been charted for centuries I expect....oh and then the Italian trips and falls into a lifeboat meanwhile 30 plus of his passengers are dying. Also the "logical" land of arresting scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. The double body swap and shrunken pants of a Mason which leads to the arrest and nightmare of a family and friends of a poor suicide victim...should we bother with Sara Scazzi's confessed killer who remains free while the innocent aunt and cousin are in jail? Or the whole village that joined the case and spit on...yes they spit on people in Italy...the cousin and aunt....well the heathens also slap girls while questioning them so I guess nothing should be a surprise...all from the ancestors that crucified Christ! More proof that evolution is a lie. Italy seems to be devolving.

Randy, does this mean you are backing out on your agreement to buy my time share in Italy?

Strozzi

 

[Machiavelli]

Ah, yes: confirmation bias rears its ugly head once again. What I believe sceptical, rational people can be "reasonably sure about" is that there is a suggestion (and nothing more than that) that Knox had telephone contact with someone who also dealt drugs. (...)

No, no. Just a moment, you are very wrong here. This is not a suggestion: it is a fact that the drug dealer had phone contacts with Knox. Because in fact, he was investigated and charge of drug dealing because of these phone contact. I mean the police found him and they investigated him because they found his number in Knox's phone traffic. That was the element on which they started an investigation which lead them to find out three drug dealers.

 

[Samson]

No, no. Just a moment, you are very wrong here. This is not a suggestion: it is a fact that the drug dealer had phone contacts with Knox. Because in fact, he was investigated and charge of drug dealing because of these phone contact. I mean the police found him and they investigated him because they found his number in Knox's phone traffic. That was the element on which they started an investigation which lead them to find out three drug dealers.

Apart from this possibly showing one of Amanda's phone acquaintances might have been a "drug dealer", as well as knowing Amanda, I can't see any relevance to any committed crime. Many here are likely to have children to whom this vague innuendo could be attached, but I realise this is a pure diversion from the murder case. Unless that number was Rudy's, zilch nada nil relevance.