Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[griffinmill]

Really? How would recording her not be the right thing to do? Certainly at the point they were taking the statement they should have turned on the recording devices.

There can't be any doubt that Mignini had the time to realize how important recording his performing notary work was?



Not as important as all the communications Mignini had with Stefanoni and all the files from the good Dr.'s work on the DNA.

I'll answer your questions when you explain why Halkides should not have to produce a full interview he has been quoting from for years.

 

[griffinmill]

To you and you only: Would you ever believe a PGP report that quoted a scientist but didn't publish the interview?

I quote myself, but I notice Halkides doesn't answer.

 

[griffinmill]

Give it up Chris, Griffin is beyond help. He really isn't interested in anything that might change his mind. He is playing "gotcha". Trust me, if you sent more questions to L&V and they provided more detail, he wouldn't believe that either.

Simple question, yes or no: Would you take seriously any quote from any interview that didn't include the entire interview?

 

[kwill]

I'll answer your questions when you explain why Halkides should not have to produce a full interview he has been quoting from for years.

How very odd. Chris Halkides writes here under his own name. He quotes two resources by their own names. Anyone who thinks he is trying to distort the information he got from them is absolutely free to ask them, since both are easy to locate online. It would take five minutes to copy and paste what he has quoted from them into a polite email, asking if there's anything they'd like to add.

And if the suspicion is that the conversation as reported by Chris Halkides distorts the subject, I'd think that the one who holds that suspicion would definitely want to follow up with the resources himself, because by definition he thinks Chris Halkides can't be trusted.

But no. Instead the anonymous internet poster demands to be accommodated. It's hard not to conclude that you don't really want to know what they said -- that all this insistence on a screenshot of the whole exchange is just a way to avoid talking about what they said.

 

[Kaosium]

Stefanoni is a topic YOU are trying to bring up. I NEVER brought it up. You are also not responding to any question I asked, but desperately trying to make Stefanoni the ONLY topic.

That's because it's the only one that really matters regarding the TMB tests.

I find it conspicuous that you are not talking about why Halkides won't simply produce the full transcript of his conversation, even when he already lied and said he did.

I just want to talk about this issue. And I look forward to the full transcript I hope Halkides will provide.

OK, pretend that he's hiding something! Why not read that paper he posted earlier and see if you can catch him out!

Now, answer the question:

What do you think of Stefanoni hiding the TMB negatives and then lying about it in court?

 

[Kaosium]

Simple question, yes or no: Would you take seriously any quote from any interview that didn't include the entire interview?

I'd corroborate it! You can do the same by reading papers by other forensic experts. Go do that.

 

[Samson]

Are you serious? You have ONE quote! Nothing even remotely approximating a whole interview. And again, if Balding was quoted as saying Raf's DNA on the clasp was incontrovertible (which he said, actually), wouldn't you want to read the whole interview?

griffinmill, when the footprints of Raffaele were disqualified as evidence, Mignini said from central command, we have a problem. If we can not find evidence we must release this dangerous killer. I want a solution.
A pair of dirty gloves were provided, wiped with the dna from Raffaele's cell while he was exercising, and used to collect the bra clasp. Along with Raffaele's dna was collected weaker traces of previous inmates in that cell that were found also.

Prove this theory wrong by all means, and refer to "noble cause corruption " while preparing your proof.

 

[LondonJohn]

Simple question, yes or no: Would you take seriously any quote from any interview that didn't include the entire interview?

We're truly in bizarro world here.

The only reason why a complete unabridged transcript of the online exchange would be necessary would be if there were any doubt about the context or the completeness of the quotes provided. There is no doubt whatsoever about either. This is a ridiculous and moot issue.

Example: I email a geography professor:

"Dear Prof Smith. I am a geographically-challenged man with no ability to read an atlas or do even the most cursory of online searches. Please could you tell me the capital of Peru? By the way, how is your golf game at the moment? Best, LJ"

He emails back:

"Dear LJ. Thanks for your email. My golf game is great, except that I slightly cricked my back a couple of weeks ago so I can't swing as fully as I would like to with the long irons and woods. Regarding your question, this is indeed a question that's easy to answer by consulting any authoritative atlas or online resource. The capital of Peru is Lima. Best wishes to you, and I hope that your pet hamster has recovered from its recent minor operation."


If we here were having a debate about the identity of the capital of Peru, I could reasonably post that I had emailed Prof Smith with the question "Please could you tell me the capital of Peru?", and that he had responded "The capital of Peru is Lima".


Hope that makes things a bit clearer. I suspect not though, sadly.......

 

[anglolawyer]

For the simple reason that every interview should be recorded in its full context. It's bizarre you would ask if you are truly a lawyer.

At the very least, it should be as comprehensive as the Balding interview to take seriously. Do you disagree?

Yes.

 

[anglolawyer]

We're truly in bizarro world here.

The only reason why a complete unabridged transcript of the online exchange would be necessary would be if there were any doubt about the context or the completeness of the quotes provided. There is no doubt whatsoever about either. This is a ridiculous and moot issue.

Example: I email a geography professor:

"Dear Prof Smith. I am a geographically-challenged man with no ability to read an atlas or do even the most cursory of online searches. Please could you tell me the capital of Peru? By the way, how is your golf game at the moment? Best, LJ"

He emails back:

"Dear LJ. Thanks for your email. My golf game is great, except that I slightly cricked my back a couple of weeks ago so I can't swing as fully as I would like to with the long irons and woods. Regarding your question, this is indeed a question that's easy to answer by consulting any authoritative atlas or online resource. The capital of Peru is Lima. Best wishes to you, and I hope that your pet hamster has recovered from its recent minor operation."


If we here were having a debate about the identity of the capital of Peru, I could reasonably post that I had emailed Prof Smith with the question "Please could you tell me the capital of Peru?", and that he had responded "The capital of Peru is Lima".


Hope that makes things a bit clearer. I suspect not though, sadly.......

Oh no! That would be a gross distortion of the interview. It's obvious from reading the whole exchange that you buttered him up by asking about his favourite hobby, thereby inducing him to give the highly convenient answer you wanted in the first place. This sort of academic back-slapping and sycophancy is a large part of what's wrong with this whole discussion. Griffinmill is clearly onto something (or just on something )

 

[Samson]

We're truly in bizarro world here.

The only reason why a complete unabridged transcript of the online exchange would be necessary would be if there were any doubt about the context or the completeness of the quotes provided. There is no doubt whatsoever about either. This is a ridiculous and moot issue.

Example: I email a geography professor:

"Dear Prof Smith. I am a geographically-challenged man with no ability to read an atlas or do even the most cursory of online searches. Please could you tell me the capital of Peru? By the way, how is your golf game at the moment? Best, LJ"

He emails back:

"Dear LJ. Thanks for your email. My golf game is great, except that I slightly cricked my back a couple of weeks ago so I can't swing as fully as I would like to with the long irons and woods. Regarding your question, this is indeed a question that's easy to answer by consulting any authoritative atlas or online resource. The capital of Peru is Lima. Best wishes to you, and I hope that your pet hamster has recovered from its recent minor operation."


If we here were having a debate about the identity of the capital of Peru, I could reasonably post that I had emailed Prof Smith with the question "Please could you tell me the capital of Peru?", and that he had responded "The capital of Peru is Lima".


Hope that makes things a bit clearer. I suspect not though, sadly.......

LondonJohn RIP Robin Williams but all is not lost.

 

[platonov]

Give 'em enough rope .......

platonov,

This is a gross misrepresentation, but that is entirely consistent with your other comments. One, although I wished for Guede to receive a longer sentence, I did not seriously suggest that he be retried (the principle of double jeopardy is one that I would not violate). Do you think that a sentence that is likely to be twelve years (assuming a reduction for good behavior) is just? Two, a wrongful conviction is as easy to undo as it is to unbake a cake. The tanks may symbolize any justice system; they are notoriously reluctant to admit errors.

Denying the argument again halides1.
Your call.

I think you all forget Rudy Guede accused Amanda and Raffaele of murder, as a first hand witness. Previously he had accused a brown haired man as a first hand witness. We are still waiting for a case where this is possible without the accuser being cross examined in court by both the prosecution and the defence. In these circumstances the credibility of the witness, and the consistency of his story are examined by a jury. Of course he would be deemed not credible in spades as he would be tripped up in a thousand ways. But a mild quantum of humour was intended in the post.
I would add to the execution avoidance condition he must satisfy a panel from JREF and IIP he is telling it like it was.

Backtracking now Samson eh, where have we seen that before ?

It seem the final lines of my POST to Dan O were prescient.

Although I think the MDC wont pay out.

 

[Samson]

Denying the argument again halides1.
Your call.




Backtracking now Samson eh, where have we seen that before ?

It seem the final lines of my POST to Dan O were prescient.

Although I think the MDC wont pay out.

platanov, you should dredge up my post where I describe a reality game where the participants have real skin in. You will have to decide whether you live or die. You must get it right.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

impasse

And as I pointed out originally,their answers don't match your specific questions. There is more to the conversation you had which you are not disclosing.

griffinmill,

I have no idea what you mean. Their answers match the questions and make perfect sense, if one understands the subject. I am afraid that we are at an impasse.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How does one answer a nonsensical question

I quote myself, but I notice Halkides doesn't answer.

I answered as best as I could. Your idea that there was a transcript literally made no sense.

 

[Desert Fox]

Why would you not want to read an entire interview from experts who were quoted?

Would you accept a PGP quote from an expert where you couldn't read the entire interview?

I provided a linked source from a forensic training manual.

I am not sure why it matters if Chris provides all of his conversational e-mails?
The thing is that if you think that the Luminol evidence should be accepted without a confirmatory, you need to provide some kind of acceptable source arguing that. Otherwise, the Luminol readings must be considered useless.

 

[Bill Williams]

Simple question, yes or no: Would you take seriously any quote from any interview that didn't include the entire interview?

You mean like taking, "See you later" out of the context of a whole interview (interrogation) and going out and arresting three innocents?

 

[Skind]

Let's stop this silliness now, before the mods have to step in to stop Griffinmill further derailing the thread.

I'm professionally trained in giving interviews and assessments, as are many other pro-innocence people here.

The idea that full context and full content are the same thing is utterly absurd. You wouldn't last very long in professional interviewing if your reports quoted the entire exchange verbatim.

You give the context (done) and quote the relevant answers (also done).

It's time for griffinmill to give reasons for distrusting Prof Halkides, or shut up and get going with the information they have been given. No one else appears to have had any problem understanding the context and content of the exchange as presented by Prof Halkides. We should not allow further derailment (malicious or otherwise) just because one person out of dozens is a bit slow on the uptake.

Oddly, the people that have trouble understanding Prof Halkides have all been pro-guilt people. No-one else seems to have any problem, even when the information is well out of their own field of practice.

 

[anglolawyer]

Let's stop this silliness now, before the mods have to step in to stop Griffinmill further derailing the thread.

I'm professionally trained in giving interviews and assessments, as are many other pro-innocence people here.

The idea that full context and full content are the same thing is utterly absurd. You wouldn't last very long in professional interviewing if your reports quoted the entire exchange verbatim.

You give the context (done) and quote the relevant answers (also done).

It's time for griffinmill to give reasons for distrusting Prof Halkides, or shut up and get going with the information they have been given. No one else appears to have had any problem understanding the context and content of the exchange as presented by Prof Halkides. We should not allow further derailment (malicious or otherwise) just because one person out of dozens is a bit slow on the uptake.

Oddly, the people that have trouble understanding Prof Halkides have all been pro-guilt people. No-one else seems to have any problem, even when the information is well out of their own field of practice.

Aside from Mach, who is a special case, and Ergon Briars (where is he she by the way?) the PGPs posting here only survive either by circling the wagons around one tiny little supposedly bomb-proof point and refusing to discuss anything outside it (Vibio and Griffinmill) or piss-taking (Platonov). Or they don't survive at all (Supercal).

 

[Grinder]

Here were my questions (asked via email):

"1. Is DNA profiling not a confirmatory test for blood, and if so, why not? The only reason that I can think of is that one might detect DNA from any tissue.

2. If these tests (luminol, TMB, and DNA profiling) were the only tests done, what should one conclude about the luminol-positive footprints?"

Dr. Lednev indicated in his email that he and Kelly Virkler had discussed the matter and that this was a joint answer:

"-TMB can give a false negative if the blood is too aged or diluted, and other substances like acids or reduction compounds can interfere.

-On the other hand, Luminol can give a false positive with things such as bleach, Drano, and plant products. This would explain why there was no DNA found.

-Some luminol formulations can also damage DNA, so this might be a factor.

-So, there was either no blood and the luminol was wrong, or there was blood and the TMB had interference and the luminol damaged the DNA. We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else, possibly plant matter from the bottom of the shoes causing the footprints (the intensity of the luminol reaction might give some more insight). The prosecution should have used much more convincing evidence to prove the presence of blood.

It is correct to assume that DNA profiling is not a confirmatory test for blood because it can be found in so many other things. Just confirming the presence of the victim or suspect's DNA has absolutely no bearing on what type of tissue or fluid it is. There could have been skin cells scattered in a pile of ketchup that would match a person's DNA, but that doesn't make it blood. However, as outlined in our review (Forensic Sci. International 2009), there are several new mRNA based tests that CAN specify a body fluid based on certain markers, and some can even simultaneously compare DNA profiles."

Is there anything in these answers that is ground-breaking or new information? It does verify that the footprints could come from something besides blood, but we already knew that.

The false negative by TMB was known by some here because TMB needs a denser amount of blood mixture which could mean it was blood that was old or very diluted. Given that the prints match no one and the substance wasn't proven to be blood it isn't precise and the gravity is weak.

According to the most recent guidance from the United Sections of the Cassazione [8], the assessment of circumstantial evidence does not stop at a mere summation [sommatoria] of the evidence, and must therefore include the prior evaluation [valutazione preventiva] of each piece of evidence individually, each according to its own qualitative value and degree of precision and gravity; so that it may then be assessed in a unified, global perspective which will tend to bring to light its connections and convergence within a single probative context.
​