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

[RandyN]

Sorry this is like asking which is tastier apple or gooseberry crumble? But is it apple crumble with pecans or almonds? Is there oatmeal in the topping. Was ginger added to the gooseberries?

There is not just one Luminol and one TMB test there are a variety. So which flavour? With all tests there is a signal and a detector. For Luminol it is light emission and for TMB colour change. What is the detector? If we say a Mark 1 eyeball, then we need to ask for Luminol what is the background light, how long has the observer dark adapted. For TMB are we using a basic strip test, or a cotton wool bud. The substrate makes a difference too. An absorbent surface would favour Luminol whilst a non absorbent surface could be wiped and allow a swab to 'concentrate' substrate.

Luminol gives you a picture.

So no simple answer. If we specify the particular circumstances we could try and get an answer.

Actually there is a quite simple answer. Several in fact. If a crime scene scientist thought a sample was from blood even though the TMB test was negative then she should have done any number of simple and well know confirmatory tests.

That she did not do these tests makes further speculation on this matter just that...speculation. Not science and certainly not fact. We may as well say that Big Foot wore the ringed sneakers and he made those footprints...while hopping on one foot btw...

Stephoney the lab tech slob failed miserably and even Garafano admitted that. She is a non -professional and unqualified and the proof is available on video and in testimony.

Stroman brains.

 

[Samson]

Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.

On IIP it is being pointed out that Nencini has Amanda stealing the money. He also has her carrying a knife. Meredith does not know of the plot yet because she never mentioned it to the English girls at dinner. Therefore the only bizarre scenario becomes Amanda took the money after Meredith left mid afternoon. Remember also that she knows school is out tomorrow, and can reasonably expect Meredith to know, and stay out late. Therefore she carries a knife to the cottage, not expecting Meredith to be there, but what, just in case she is there and has discovered the money missing. Why take the money at all if expecting it to result in an argument requiring a knife?

Nencini has made a finding of fact that Amanda stole the money, the phones, and struck the fatal blow.
Rudy has been absolved of theft, and touching a knife, because he is a truth teller to Nencini.

I don't believe Amanda stealing the money or carting the knife meshes at all with her beliefs in Meredith's presence or absence.

This is all typical epicyclic doctoring of the available scenarios.

 

[GWCarver]

I know, right? You know what else is weird? Five thousand years of human civilisation subjugating women and fifty years ago someone decides that they should have the right to vote and that it's not okay for their husbands to rape them any more and now we're all on our high horses about it!

Sheesh, how about a little perspective? Don't get me started on slavery.

Perspective can be a two-way street. Expanding the argument to which you responded with the above straw man, so many millions of men, women, and children have been slaughtered in Europe in the last century, and the body count is so high, that no one even knows the actual total. I guess 20 million is good enough. The Europeans holier-than-thou attitude about convicted criminals being executed in the U.S. after due process is not appreciated by many of us here in America, especially while we are on the edge of our seats watching Putin do much the same thing in Crimea as Hitler did in Sudatenland as the Europeans sit there hoping peace is at hand. (I don't think Godwin applies here...)

 

[Planigale]

Perspective can be a two-way street. Expanding the argument to which you responded with the above straw man, so many millions of men, women, and children have been slaughtered in Europe in the last century, and the body count is so high, that no one even knows the actual total. I guess 20 million is good enough. The Europeans holier-than-thou attitude about convicted criminals being executed in the U.S. after due process is not appreciated by many of us here in America, especially while we are on the edge of our seats watching Putin do much the same thing in Crimea as Hitler did in Sudatenland as the Europeans sit there hoping peace is at hand. (I don't think Godwin applies here...)

I think this an unhelpful comment and irrelevant to the discussion here. But because I am a wicked Planigale, just to add a little petrol to the fire; the parallels for Crimea that come to mind are Texas and California!

 

[proudfootz]

Perspective can be a two-way street. Expanding the argument to which you responded with the above straw man, so many millions of men, women, and children have been slaughtered in Europe in the last century, and the body count is so high, that no one even knows the actual total. I guess 20 million is good enough. The Europeans holier-than-thou attitude about convicted criminals being executed in the U.S. after due process is not appreciated by many of us here in America, especially while we are on the edge of our seats watching Putin do much the same thing in Crimea as Hitler did in Sudatenland as the Europeans sit there hoping peace is at hand. (I don't think Godwin applies here...)

Apparently some Americans don't appreciate convicted criminals even going to jail after due process.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

 

[Bob001]

In case it hasn't been posted, CNN ran a 30-minute interview tonight with Amanda. Chris Cuomo is not an especially sympathetic interviewer, but he gave her a chance to speak for herself. It continues to disappoint me that Amanda hasn't gotten some media training that would allow her to take control of an interview. She basically responded to his questions and his premises. She didn't say something like "Let's start from the beginning. There are two alternative theories. One is that a known burglar surprised a woman alone in her home and killed her. The other is that two college students with no prior criminal records conspired with a known thug that they didn't know to murder another college student. Which makes more sense?" I would like to have seen her take apart the allegations.

Only an excerpt at their site:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/amanda-knox-interview/

 

[anglolawyer]

The pro-innocence posters are looking like beacons of rationality right now!!!

Raffaele is on CNN tomorrow night. Some Italian newspapers are "coming out" supporting Raffaele. Hellmann is being vocal too.

For my money the internecine war is about to go public.

Dreyfus anyone?

Just a totally speculative theory...

Perhaps Nencini is way smarter than some are giving him credit for being.
He was essentially told by the ISC to find them guilty, and so he has, this way he can stand up hand on heart and say, I did what I was told to do, and so keep his reputation and his job (unlike Hellmann who received a quick push out the door.)

However... at the same time he is aware that the evidence doesn't agree with that verdict, so what to do.

If you make up a motivations report that is obviously fantasy and mistake ridden then you set up the ISC to take the fall.

Either they have to reject the guilty finding and order a new appeal trial, and in doing so they also have to drop the demand to find for guilt (it's hard to say, "find them guilty" at the same time they are rejecting a guilty verdict)

Or, if they accept it, blatant mistakes and all, then it sets up the case as a full toss for the ECHR.

Either way, Nencini wins.

Of course this is totally speculative.

Oh no. We had this about Hellman too. He tossed them a bone by convicting her of calunnia. Like that worked out well.

[Such a circumstance] acquires probative value only when multiple pieces of evidence can all be traced to a single cause or a single effect. In applying this, therefore, the judge must first examine each item of evidence [indizio], identifying all its possible logical connections, then ascertaining their gravity, which is inversely proportional to the number of such connections, as well as the precision, which is correlated to the sharpness of [the item's] contours, the clarity of its representation, to the direct or indirect source of knowledge from which it derives, [and thus] to its reliability.


I think it means that the more connection to one piece of evidence the less value it has. So if a finger print might be compatible with 10 people that were related to the cottage it would have a much lower gravity than if it were only two. It lines up with the three compatible rule.

We would just say 'it's a useless fingerprint'. I don't see the point of this dubious principle.

Another blunt assertion from Nencini (from PMF)

Finally, she was perfectly aware that, throughout the night of 1-2 November 2007, none of the other residents of the flat would return home, and therefore she had all the time necessary to undertake the alteration of the crime scene and the obstruction of the investigation.

So there you are Anglo, sorted.

Thanks Samson. Mind-blowing. On which part of the evidence is this finding based? I don't recall Amanda being asked nor have I seen reference to Laura's or Filomena's evidence on this easily-provable point. In her book she says she was not aware and for me it makes a huge difference whether she was or not.

 

[Bill Williams]

J'accuse.

 

[Bill Williams]

CNN is quoting Hellmann as being quite convinced that Cassazione must confirm Nencini now.

If nothing else, they will make it a procedural fact that women carry Y-haplotypes.

Italy.

 

[anglolawyer]

She knew that Meredith was going to the pizza party and Filomena was going to Luca's or whatever her boyfriend fiancee. Laura was in Rome and it is a fair assumption IMO that Amanda would be aware of it.

Had she murdered Meredith I do believe the email would be structured for her position.

This is important and you are getting it wrong. To prove Amanda knew the others would be away you would have to ask them whether they told her their plans. Was that evidence elicited or not? This is an easily provable point or, if you like, an easily falsifiable lie on Amanda's part if she is lying.

I am glad others are waking up to this. It was one of the most important things in her book (and amazing her lawyers forgot to bring it out in the trial) since it was new. It's true though that her Friday morning story could have been falsified by proof that she knew no one would be home (except Meredith of course).

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Perspective can be a two-way street. Expanding the argument to which you responded with the above straw man, so many millions of men, women, and children have been slaughtered in Europe in the last century, and the body count is so high, that no one even knows the actual total. I guess 20 million is good enough. The Europeans holier-than-thou attitude about convicted criminals being executed in the U.S. after due process is not appreciated by many of us here in America, especially while we are on the edge of our seats watching Putin do much the same thing in Crimea as Hitler did in Sudatenland as the Europeans sit there hoping peace is at hand. (I don't think Godwin applies here...)

This is what we call a tu quoque argument, where you attack something unrelated to cover up a weakness in your own position.

 

[Samson]

This is important and you are getting it wrong. To prove Amanda knew the others would be away you would have to ask them whether they told her their plans. Was that evidence elicited or not? This is an easily provable point or, if you like, an easily falsifiable lie on Amanda's part if she is lying.

I am glad others are waking up to this. It was one of the most important things in her book (and amazing her lawyers forgot to bring it out in the trial) since it was new. It's true though that her Friday morning story could have been falsified by proof that she knew no one would be home (except Meredith of course).

Well, remember Luca Cheli all those years go, nothing has changed. But as a posting lawyer, what do you think of this from the Italian Popper?

The Nencini report is a slam dunk to any remaining hope of the duo. It is written by an experienced judge and shows not only how in a court of law circumstantial evidence become irrefutable proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt but also as some evidence is direct and certain, being sufficient to convict even if taken alone. To the above we add the accusation/ confession to be there and the Guede admission the defendants were there to have a case much stronger than most murder cases in any Court. CC must have eaten his brain for breakfast if he says this evidence would not have led to an indictment in the US. AK would be serving life in prison in the US with half of that evidence, or awaiting execution, as Dershowitz rightly said.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, remember Luca Cheli all those years go, nothing has changed. But as a posting lawyer, what do you think of this from the Italian Popper?

The Nencini report is a slam dunk to any remaining hope of the duo. It is written by an experienced judge and shows not only how in a court of law circumstantial evidence become irrefutable proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt but also as some evidence is direct and certain, being sufficient to convict even if taken alone. To the above we add the accusation/ confession to be there and the Guede admission the defendants were there to have a case much stronger than most murder cases in any Court. CC must have eaten his brain for breakfast if he says this evidence would not have led to an indictment in the US. AK would be serving life in prison in the US with half of that evidence, or awaiting execution, as Dershowitz rightly said.

Well, from my perspective I'd say straight off that this comedy character clearly does not understand the definitions of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence (which is amusingly ironic given his "argument" here is largely based on his incorrect understanding). And of course he's utterly overlooked the multiple grotesque leaps of logic, incorrect/unlawful inferences and errors of fact scattered throughout the Nencini Report. However, I wouldn't really expect any more from an individual who's so invested in a pro-guilt position.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You seem gleeful about that and seems to be in contradiction to your love of what the court says - Hellmann's ruling was a court ruling.
They didn't exactly wipe out Hellmann since they required Nonsense to review Allesi or one of the whack witnesses heard only before at Hellmann's trial.

I am certainly not gleeful. I believe I am consistent as the Italian Supreme Court upheld all of the prosecution points of appeal in March 2013 it ordered a second appeal, judicially speaking the Perugia appeal verdict was set aside.

It is of note that Hellmann is not being silent as I'm sure he had been overruled before as most all judges are overrule many many times in their careers.
ETA - regardless of Hellmann or anything else it should bother your quest for truth for Meredith that Nonsense has made so many mistakes that can't be disputed.

I look forward to reading the translation of the Florence motivations, given your view you must be confident of the defence team’s chances of a successful appeal?

Do you believe either defence teams should use legal arguments based on findings in the Perugia appeal against the Florence motivations?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I've never understood this. 5000 years of human civilization, and basically everyone has practiced capital punishment for 4950 of it. 50 years ago, Europeans decide that capital punishment is uncivilized (this is right after they go through with a couple of wars that killed, idk, 20 million people), and now they're all up on a high horse about it. Weird.

Please allow me to clarify, I am not criticising America for its use of the death penalty on the contrary America as ever right to exercise its own laws as does any sovereign democracy.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I've never understood this. 5000 years of human civilization, and basically everyone has practiced capital punishment for 4950 of it. 50 years ago, Europeans decide that capital punishment is uncivilized (this is right after they go through with a couple of wars that killed, idk, 20 million people), and now they're all up on a high horse about it. Weird.

Please allow me to clarify, I am not criticising America for its use of the death penalty on the contrary America has every right to exercise its own laws as does any sovereign democracy, in my opinion.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, remember Luca Cheli all those years go, nothing has changed. But as a posting lawyer, what do you think of this from the Italian Popper?

The Nencini report is a slam dunk to any remaining hope of the duo. It is written by an experienced judge and shows not only how in a court of law circumstantial evidence become irrefutable proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt but also as some evidence is direct and certain, being sufficient to convict even if taken alone. To the above we add the accusation/ confession to be there and the Guede admission the defendants were there to have a case much stronger than most murder cases in any Court. CC must have eaten his brain for breakfast if he says this evidence would not have led to an indictment in the US. AK would be serving life in prison in the US with half of that evidence, or awaiting execution, as Dershowitz rightly said.

What I think is the PGPs are bears of very little brain. They yap about circumstantial evidence because they picked up from the Galati appeal that Hellman had not combined all the evidence and if he had only combined all the evidence it would be clear to any reasonable person that they were guilty beyond all doubt. They think Hellman cheated by cunningly treating each piece of evidence in isolation and refusing to combine it with other pieces of evidence.

This is complicated and at the same time simple. Complicated because life is complicated in inconveniently throwing up infinitely variable sets of circumstances which resist organisation under comprehensive principles which can be easily expressed and universally applied. What the Italians shroud in impenetrable legalese the British express with beguiling simplicity (without having a legal system that does not work):

1. items of circumstantial evidence should not be viewed in isolation from each other, and
   
2. circumstantial evidence tends to work cumulatively

And that's it. If I were instructed by the owner of the apartment to recover damages from Rudy Guede for soiling her bathmat I estimate the chances of success on the civil standard at above 90% and on the criminal standard at above 70%. I have no direct evidence, only the circumstantial kind which most reading here can set out for themselves.

But, the Italians have a statutory threshold test which they apply before any item gets to be combined with the others. Galati set it out in the appeal [p.10 of the PMF translation]

"Our legislature, via the disposition of Article 192 Criminal Procedure Code, has dictated the rules for the evaluation of evidence in the criminal trial. It concerns itself with circumstantial evidence in paragraph 2 of the Article, specifying that: ‚The existence of a fact may not be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless this evidence is of sufficient weight, precise and consistent‛."

This is not a rule that exists in my jurisdiction. It is not necessary or logical. It is, however, Italian law and Hellman applied it to the 'bricks' making up the prosecution case when saying:

Now, however, the “bricks” of this edifice [costruzione] have themselves collapsed; that is, this is not a question merely of a differing arrangement [una diversa ricollocazione] of these bricks, so as not to permit the realization of the planned architectural project, but rather of a lack of material necessary for the construction [in the first place]. And the collapse of the material elements of the prosecution case [il progetto accusatorio] obviously does not permit us to arrive at a verdict [pronuncia] of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

and he was attacked for taking a piecemeal approach. This what Popper is on about. Popper is an idiot, though. What he is saying that if you have a piece of lousy evidence it suddenly becomes good because of other pieces of lousy evidence. That is not how it works!

Take Curatolo. Nothing corroborates him. If it did, his evidence, lousy as it is, might acquire some limited value. If there were CCTV footage of them walking down to the piazza, for example, or if somebody else saw them too, or one of them cracked and said they were in the piazza or they dropped something there etc etc. If you had all those things, mind, you probably wouldn't need Curatolo at all. What does not corroborate Curatolo is Nara, say, the phones being found at Lana's or a hundred other things and that is true of most (all?) the evidence - it does not line up and compel you to a particular conclusion. Instead it's a jumble of stuff treading on the toes of other stuff. Of course, it's really worse than that because a good deal of it is simply made up, which, of course, makes it circumstantial evidence of something else entirely!

Popper has latched onto something he or she has not properly understood.

 

[Samson]

Well, from my perspective I'd say straight off that this comedy character clearly does not understand the definitions of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence (which is amusingly ironic given his "argument" here is largely based on his incorrect understanding). And of course he's utterly overlooked the multiple grotesque leaps of logic, incorrect/unlawful inferences and errors of fact scattered throughout the Nencini Report. However, I wouldn't really expect any more from an individual who's so invested in a pro-guilt position.

Everything posted on pro guilt sites, by necessity relies on the precept of the infallibility of the judiciary. cf. Papal infallibility.
the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error.

Time and time again I am reminded of this, triumph of form over function. By importing a comment from a PMF high priest, I am simply focussing on a strange reality, that he is in his stunning ignorance collaborating in Sollecito's demise, and the transfer of his assets to Maresca.

Unless I misunderstand.

 

[Diocletus]

Please allow me to clarify, I am not criticising America for its use of the death penalty on the contrary America has every right to exercise its own laws as does any sovereign democracy, in my opinion.

Say what you mean.

Are you trying to say that Italy has a right to railroad and imprison innocent people because it's a sovereign democracy?

 

[Diocletus]

the parallels for Crimea that come to mind are Texas and California!

Good point. We could even expand that to the entire Americas.