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

[Planigale]

I have actually noticed that as a general feature on this forum. JREF posters are very used to supporting the establishment view. Man did really land on the moon, homoeopathic pills really are just sugar, JFK was shot by LHO and nobody else, and so on. I think that's part of why discussions about alleged miscarriages of justice attract such hostility from some quarters, with calls to banish all such woo talk to the CT subforum.

Despite all the hoo-hah about "critical thinking", there is an entrenched mindset that automatically takes the default position that authority is always right. Sometimes it's not pretty.

The fact is, authority is usually right. It's the extrapolation to "always" that's the problem. We know that most swans are white, but we also know that black swans are occasionally encountered. It's therefore no use saying to someone who claims to have spotted a black swan that this can't be so because "swans are white". And yet that is how many guilters think.

Even those in Australia, where I understand most swans are black. Italy - the Australia of the criminal justice system.

Rolfe.

Whilst I cannot speak for others I would accept that as a fair description of me. I would normally accept the police view. For me to be arguing for wrongful prosecution is unusual. On the other hand I am argumentative and do like to check things out for myself. What convinced me was the motivation report from the first court was so illogical that it made me look at things in more detail. Once I did I realised that much of the forensic science was bogus. There is a common theme for experts to be given undue weight in courts and the underlying arguments to be insufficiently proven. Robbins on footprints is a good example. There seem to be multiple cases of poor fire analysis in resulting in wrongful convictions, this seems to be because 'unqualified' fire people give forensic evidence.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete Duplicate

 

[acbytesla]

He was a fence. The only time he was caught where he shouldn't be he only had a cheap kitchen knife and some petty cash. he wasn't loaded up with loot.

Just as no one had an interest in showing only one perp during Rudi's trial, there is no one interested in disputing the meme about him. Hell he is usually referred to a drifter when in fact he lived in the same city for years and had an apartment. He played on a local semi-pro basketball team and IIRC had just lost his job.

Naturally everyone wants him to look as bad as possible, except maybe Mignini.

Though you continue to put faith into CT you never address a key question. CT DID report the break-in but failed to fill out a report at the police station. He claims he recognized Rudi at a club and had him banned. A guy that is local breaks into your place steals money and a credit card, threatens you with a knife and you don't bother to tell the police?

RW's Spanish article has him with a stash of computers. Kokomani was at the scene of the murder, knew Rudi and was associated with the Albanian criminal element in Perugia. Why was he let off so easily? Have the Albanians paid off the PLE?

Part of the difficulty of recovering stolen property, the police say, is that burglars - typically men in their 20's, who commit as many as five thefts a day - work quickly to dispose of their loot through a network of middlemen, or fences, and tracing the property becomes extremely difficult. Among the easily portable items most often stolen are video-cassette recorders, cameras, stereos and other electronic equipment and jewelry.​

He was fence. He had connections in Milan where he could sell Perugian stolen merch.

So Tesla do you believe that CT recognized Rudi but AFTER having called the police initially then just let him off with a banning from a couple of clubs? If the prosecution would benefit from saying it is reasonable, you'd be crying foul just like with Curatolo, Quintavalle and Nara.

You make me laugh Grinder. While I agree entirely that Rudy was NOT a drifter, the idea that Rudy was a fence is the dumbest idea you have had. Even dumber than Rudy dating Meredith. You hear he has a few computers in his apartment and you immediately jump to the conclusion that he is a fence? Fences are buying and selling things constantly. They REQUIRE that the person has money. Note that Rudy was pretty much broke when he was found on his last day in Milan. Being a fence also means that you must be in contact with suppliers and customers constantly and Rudy seems to be electronically challenged not having a phone.

And while Rudy might have been trying to sell his stolen goods in Milan, that does not make him a fence. A round trip fare on the train from Perugia to Milan is about a 140 Euros. Doesn't seem like good business to steal a laptop that might fetch 200 Euros and then waste 140 Euros just to sell it in another city. It would be far more likely that Rudy was trying to sell items that he stole as opposed to items he "bought from someone else to sell".

I do believe that CT recognized Rudy at the club.

 

[Desert Fox]

acbytesla:
You and I also both agreed (from different sides of the business), that selling computers is much more difficult than Grinder seems to believe.

 

[acbytesla]

Legitimate authority never rests on its own authority as a measure of its own legitimacy. It constantly "proves" it is reliable by self-critique and transparency.

It NEVER says, "You must listen to me because I am the authority," which is in essence what Stefanoni said, and what Massei confirmed in his motivations report.

No authority, for instance, would say, "I've never had an example of contamination in my lab." A legitimate authority would have thrown the doors wide open at the first suggestion of impropriety, and invited every world expert in to write peer review evaluations of the brag.

Extremely well said Bill. This in a nutshell is why I prefer science over religion. I grew up going to church but we were never supposed to question the teachings of the church. Whereas science is not about the results per se but about the method that we approach those results.

So much of Stefanoni and prosecution is like the church. Don't question us. Don't make us accountable. Don't make us prove what we have told you.

Just believe it and blindly follow.

 

[Strozzi]

Legitimate authority never rests on its own authority as a measure of its own legitimacy. It constantly "proves" it is reliable by self-critique and transparency.

It NEVER says, "You must listen to me because I am the authority," which is in essence what Stefanoni said, and what Massei confirmed in his motivations report.

No authority, for instance, would say, "I've never had an example of contamination in my lab." A legitimate authority would have thrown the doors wide open at the first suggestion of impropriety, and invited every world expert in to write peer review evaluations of the brag.

I wonder if the manufacturer of the testing machine would or should have any moral or legal liability here? If they become aware that a machine operator is using the machine improperly to generate results used in a trial to perhaps harm/ falsely convict innocent people, shouldn't they address it? Perhaps they should have issued a public statement or sent a certified letter to Stefanini, her supervisors, the court, and attorneys stating that this model is NOT to be used for amplifying LCN DNA and that results of such are unreliable (and revoke a license granted to Stefanoni's employer, buyer of the machine.). When the manufacturer learned from press coverage that an operator of their machine claims to have used it in her lab and never over many years experienced any contamination - which honest scientists (and machine manufacturers) should know is scientifically impossible dishonesty/fraud, shouldn't the manufacturer know that proper use instructions are not being followed? They should have issued a public alert and revoked any license granted to the buyer, Stefanoni's police lab.

I think Knox or Sollecito should force the issue into the public eye. Suppose the manufacturer is a US company. Knox should file suit in US court against the manufacturer for a massive amount ($100 million?) damages. Make the company get involved and force them to repudiate Stefanoni's bad techniques.

Knox should claim that the manufacturer knew or should have known that their machine was being misused, that the misuse included scientific fraud, and that Knox and Sollecito were gravely damaged by it. Put the manufacturer's scientists on the stand in a US court and require them to walk through and critique (and illuminate) Stefanini's machine date results and her Incorredt claims.

ETA: Perhaps include Stefanoni's police lab and Stefanoni herself as co-defendants. Force them to engage attorneys to appear in US court to claim/challenge the court's jurisdiction over them, even if the court affirms jurisdiction over the (US?) manufacturer.

This is tailor made for the evening news . . . There must be a US product liability lawyer that will take this on, benefit from the publicity, and make a name for himself/herself.

 

[acbytesla]

acbytesla:
You and I also both agreed (from different sides of the business), that selling computers is much more difficult than Grinder seems to believe.

It is. It is work and it has become harder and harder and harder. There was a time when equipment was expensive and margins were very good,(My first pc had an 8088 processor a 10MB hard drive and 512K and cost $2,000) but that time has long since past.

Why buy a stolen laptop when a new one is cheap? Finding a customer for that crap is a big challenge. My guess is that Rudy would do better buying and selling phones and digital cameras than PCs. Grinder seems to assume that the computers that the Spanish girls saw were valuable. You and I know better. I can't imagine how Rudy without a phone could buy and sell a tower pc. He's not going to carry those around with him so his customers would have to come to his apartment. I could see Rudy stealing a laptop during a burglary and trying to sell it at the university carrying it in a backpack. But he is not likely to get much money for it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Extremely well said Bill. This in a nutshell is why I prefer science over religion. I grew up going to church but we were never supposed to question the teachings of the church. Whereas science is not about the results per se but about the method that we approach those results.

So much of Stefanoni and prosecution is like the church. Don't question us. Don't make us accountable. Don't make us prove what we have told you.

Just believe it and blindly follow.

Lenny Bruce said, "Every day, more and more people are leaving church and returning to God."

If I may, you went to the wrong church! And it is not as if science is perfect in this regard, either. There are scientific fundamentalisms, too, like when Ernst Rutherford said, "When we have found how the nucleus of atoms is built up we shall have found the greatest secret of all — except life. We shall have found the basis of everything — of the earth we walk on, of the air we breathe, of the sunshine, of our physical body itself, of everything in the world, however great or however small — except life."

He was simply wrong about that.

Stefanoni and Mignini acted like SOME churches which say don't question anything. That does not speak for all religion, any more than Rutherford spoke for all science.

 

[acbytesla]

I wonder if the manufacturer of the testing machine would or should have any moral or legal liability here? If they become aware that a machine operator is using the machine improperly to generate results used in a trial to perhaps harm/ falsely convict innocent people, shouldn't they address it? Perhaps they should have issued a public statement or sent a certified letter to Stefanini, her supervisors, the court, and attorneys stating that this model is NOT to be used for amplifying LCN DNA and that results of such are unreliable (and revoke a license granted to Stefanoni's employer, buyer of the machine.). When the manufacturer learned from press coverage that an operator of their machine claims to have used it in her lab and never over many years experienced any contamination - which honest scientists (and machine manufacturers) should know is scientifically impossible dishonesty/fraud, shouldn't the manufacturer know that proper use instructions are not being followed? They should have issued a public alert and revoked any license granted to the buyer, Stefanoni's police lab.

I think Knox or Sollecito should force the issue into the public eye. Suppose the manufacturer is a US company. Knox should file suit in US court against the manufacturer for a massive amount ($100 million?) damages. Make the company get involved and force them to repudiate Stefanoni's bad techniques.

Knox should claim that the manufacturer knew or should have known that their machine was being misused, that the misuse included scientific fraud, and that Knox and Sollecito were gravely damaged by it. Put the manufacturer's scientists on the stand in a US court and require them to walk through and critique (and illuminate) Stefanini's machine date results and her Incorredt claims.

ETA: Perhaps include Stefanoni's police lab and Stefanoni herself as co-defendants. Force them to engage attorneys to appear in US court to claim/challenge the court's jurisdiction over them, even if the court affirms jurisdiction over the (US?) manufacturer.

This is tailor made for the evening news . . .

I really love this idea Strozzi, even though there is something nagging me about how it might not work...(not that I know..just thinking about what you haven't thought of)

 

[Desert Fox]

Stefanoni and Mignini acted like SOME churches which say don't question anything. That does not speak for all religion, any more than Rutherford spoke for all science.

No matter what, you will eventually dive down to problems that just cannot be answered. Religious leaders, no matter how liberal, will then start some sort of duck and dodge response. About the only exception is Universality Unitary where you can be openly atheist.

If you want to look at the whole thing with some humor, watch or listen to "Letting go of God" by Julia Sweeney.

 

[carbonjam72]

Who are those guys?

Well, aside from the fact that the police were blatantly confused regarding the idea of making an accurate record of who had actually been in the house and when, there's the issue that the defence would be sued into absolute poverty for even suggesting that any of those people could have contaminated the clasp. Hell, the prosecution openly and outright threatened the court appointed experts for suggesting the possibility of contamination, and they did so in front of the acquiting judge.

That's the defence lawyers that could be sued, not just Sollecito himself.

We know that people had been into the flat and trashed the place in the interim, and even after 7 years, the best we can do to ascertain their identity is 'probably someone from the postal police'. In any decent system, we'd know exactly who had (legally) been in the house at any time. Not so in the Italian system. That's a helluva risk to take on the off-chance that the profiles *might* belong to someone who *might* be on a record *somewhere* as having gone into the house.

Realize I'm down thread in this reply, but could you imagine the fun and mayhem if the unidentified males on the bra clasp came back as Mignini and/or Giobbi?

 

[Desert Fox]

Realize I'm down thread in this reply, but could you imagine the fun and mayhem if the unidentified males on the bra clasp came back as Mignini and/or Giobbi?

Never get as far as it to being "Fred" just a whole group of males who Fred belongs to.
As such, it is very possible that the the haplogroups contain both Mignini and Giobbi.

 

[Bill Williams]

No matter what, you will eventually dive down to problems that just cannot be answered. Religious leaders, no matter how liberal, will then start some sort of duck and dodge response. About the only exception is Universality Unitary where you can be openly atheist.

If you want to look at the whole thing with some humor, watch or listen to "Letting go of God" by Julia Sweeney.

Talk about a "duck and dodge" response!!!! It says that the only religion that doesn't do this, is not a religion at all! Which sort of begs the question....

But still, any religion worth its salt will have the same process of renewal that science has - things have to be verifiable and by definition open to criticism (and even correction) from outside of its own worldview.

 

[Desert Fox]

Why buy a stolen laptop when a new one is cheap? Finding a customer for that crap is a big challenge. My guess is that Rudy would do better buying and selling phones and digital cameras than PCs. Grinder seems to assume that the computers that the Spanish girls saw were valuable. You and I know better. I can't imagine how Rudy without a phone could buy and sell a tower pc. He's not going to carry those around with him so his customers would have to come to his apartment. I could see Rudy stealing a laptop during a burglary and trying to sell it at the university carrying it in a backpack. But he is not likely to get much money for it.

Last week, I had a coworker decide to give himself ten+ years in jail.
He met a very underage girl on line and decided to drive some distance (across state lines) to have sex with her.
The police found them in a motel room tracing him through his cell phone.
She had used a friend's cell phone to text him and they used his number.
When did cell phones become effectively useless to steal?

 

[acbytesla]

Lenny Bruce said, "Every day, more and more people are leaving church and returning to God."

If I may, you went to the wrong church! And it is not as if science is perfect in this regard, either. There are scientific fundamentalisms, too, like when Ernst Rutherford said, "When we have found how the nucleus of atoms is built up we shall have found the greatest secret of all — except life. We shall have found the basis of everything — of the earth we walk on, of the air we breathe, of the sunshine, of our physical body itself, of everything in the world, however great or however small — except life."

He was simply wrong about that.

Stefanoni and Mignini acted like SOME churches which say don't question anything. That does not speak for all religion, any more than Rutherford spoke for all science.

Some scientific ideas that are often accepted by the world are not really science but just an idea. They almost resemble a religion as they can be accepted a bit too blindly. But the beauty of science is the methodology. It is the skeptics methodology. Put it to the test. Come up with a hypothesis and then try and prove it or prove it wrong.

I'm not sure what religion you subscribe to Bill and this wasn't really meant as a repudiation of religion. But the earth wasn't created in six days and The sun does not circle the earth and Lot's wife didn't turn into a pillar of salt and Noah didn't live to be hundreds of years old and Jonah wasn't swallowed by a large fish/whale and Jephthah isn't to be admired for killing his own daughter because he promised God that he would.

 

[acbytesla]

Last week, I had a coworker decide to give himself ten+ years in jail.
He met a very underage girl on line and decided to drive some distance (across state lines) to have sex with her.
The police found them in a motel room tracing him through his cell phone.
She had used a friend's cell phone to text him and they used his number.
When did cell phones become effectively useless to steal?

They are not DF. Pull the SIM card and they are easily still bought and sold. Stolen I-phones for example are bought and sold all the time.

 

[Grinder]

You make me laugh Grinder. While I agree entirely that Rudy was NOT a drifter, the idea that Rudy was a fence is the dumbest idea you have had. Even dumber than Rudy dating Meredith. You hear he has a few computers in his apartment and you immediately jump to the conclusion that he is a fence? Fences are buying and selling things constantly. They REQUIRE that the person has money. Note that Rudy was pretty much broke when he was found on his last day in Milan. Being a fence also means that you must be in contact with suppliers and customers constantly and Rudy seems to be electronically challenged not having a phone.

As usual you are stupidly wrong. He was in Milan with the stolen merchandise. He told the truth about a transaction at the train station only it was his attempt to SELL the laptop he was fencing. You have him stealing the 2000 Euro but not having the money to buy a few hot computers. Ever heard of fronting drugs or merchandise?

As usual you just make stuff up. When asked to provide cites or proof you just attack and move on.

You refuse to acknowledge that it makes little sense that CT would report the crime and when he later positively identified the burglar as Rudi he just let it drop.

There is no evidence that he wasn't let in the nursery and Prato doesn't mention it. Her video doesn't show where he broke in nor is it mentioned. Rather she demonstrates entering normally and finding Rudi coming out of her office.

So what we have is hard evidence he possessed stolen merchandise and none that he did the break-in. Going to the lawyers is consistent with having received the laptop and phone as a fence.

And while Rudy might have been trying to sell his stolen goods in Milan, that does not make him a fence. A round trip fare on the train from Perugia to Milan is about a 140 Euros. Doesn't seem like good business to steal a laptop that might fetch 200 Euros and then waste 140 Euros just to sell it in another city. It would be far more likely that Rudy was trying to sell items that he stole as opposed to items he "bought from someone else to sell".

Ah how did Rudi travel to and in Germany? any chance he didn't pay for the train? You have him broke but traveling to Milan for no purpose, that's just plain dumb. It's a better business to steal in Perugia and buy a ticket to Milan and not sell the merchandise?

I do believe that CT recognized Rudy at the club.

Of course you do or your assumptions take another hit. the question wasn't if you believed it but rather if it makes sense that he would recognize a guy that had threatened him with a knife, has credit cards of his and his girlfriend that he had already reported the crime yet just lets it go with a temporary club banning. But I'm sure you have a bunch of personal experiences that verify your position.

Just remembered, you were going to supply the list of people convicted almost solely on motive.

acbytesla:
You and I also both agreed (from different sides of the business), that selling computers is much more difficult than Grinder seems to believe.

Desert are you saying that Rudi was just stealing to collect computers? Laptops may or may not have been easy to sell in 2007 in Italy but they would equally hard to sell for others as for Rudi. Rudi had his Milan connections and knew how to travel for free and could have been a better fence than burglar. The point I've been making is that the evidence of Rudi being a burglar really isn't solid and RW's Spanish article stating he had a bunch of laptops caused a reevaluation for me. Is there an equivalent to Occam's that states once an opinion has been formed it remains correct no matter what knew evidence comes up.

So much of the conversation on the case is one echo chamber or another. Just recently I pointed out that Nencini did grant a couple of requests and that Hellmann did allow some cross of Rudi. The chamber here was well on its way to substantiating more factoids.

Yes, yes, Nencini only granted one request and Rudi wasn't crossed by the defense and he should have lost his right to silence and that should have impacted his (don't tell the author it was over at that point) trial.

Someone here has Rudi stealing 2000 Euros but not having enough money for rent or to buy hot computers. Btw, if Rudi was fencing oops I mean he was fencing but did it by getting stuff fronted to him. This is very common a the bottom of the food chain.

 

[Strozzi]

I really love this idea Strozzi, even though there is something nagging me about how it might not work...(not that I know..just thinking about what you haven't thought of)

Knox would win massive media attention and focus on Stefanoni's fraudulent misuse of the testing machine by filing suit in a US court. Naming Stefanoni and her police lab as co-defendants in the suit against the manufacturer would focus US media attention on Stefanoni's and the police lab's possible misconduct and require them to engage a US attorney to appear before the US court to seek dismissal on grounds that the US court lacks jurisdiction over them. More news coverage. Her lawyer and scientists will appear of news shows discussing the case and show the machine data results which Stefanoni generated which include contamination, as revealed and explained at http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/contamination-stefanonis-labwork-coverup-thereof/

The manufacturer will be forced to defend itself in the media and in court. They will be asked why they did not issue a public notice to the parties that the machine was being misused and revoke any license granted to the lab.

The manufacturer's own scientists will have to read out/interpret in court what the machine data results say. If the Italian courts need a face-saving way to save themselves and turn this case around, the manufacturer being forced in court to publicly and legally repudiate Stefanoni's use of the testing machine could be the evidence and face-saving the court needs to throw Stefanoni under the bus, ruling that one bad lab tech is responsible for false DNA results which misled all the good police, prosecutors, and judges.

 

[acbytesla]

No matter what, you will eventually dive down to problems that just cannot be answered. Religious leaders, no matter how liberal, will then start some sort of duck and dodge response. About the only exception is Universality Unitary where you can be openly atheist.

If you want to look at the whole thing with some humor, watch or listen to "Letting go of God" by Julia Sweeney.

Also, watch Bill Maher's Religilous.

 

[Strozzi]

I really love this idea Strozzi, even though there is something nagging me about how it might not work...(not that I know..just thinking about what you haven't thought of)

She wins massive media attention and focus on Stefanoni's fraudulent misuse of the testing machine by filing suit in a US court. Naming Stefanoni and her police lab as co-defendants in the suit against the manufacturer would require them to engage a US attorney to appear before the US court to seek dismissal on grounds that the US court lacks jurisdiction over them. More news coverage. Knox's lawyer and scientists will appear of news shows discussing the case and show the machine data results which Stefanoni generated which include contamination, as revealed and explained at http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/contamination-stefanonis-labwork-coverup-thereof/

The manufacturer will be forced to defend itself in the media and in court. They will be asked why they did not issue a public notice to the parties that the machine was being misused and revoke any license granted to the lab.

The manufacturer's own scientists will have to read out/interpret in court what the machine data results say. If the Italian courts need a face-saving way to save themselves and turn this case around, the manufacturer being forced in court to publicly and legally repudiate Stefanoni's use of the testing machine could be the evidence and face-saving the court needs to throw Stefanoni under the bus, ruling that one bad lab tech is responsible for false DNA results which misled all the good police, prosecutors, and judges.