Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Can we have the long form of those citations?

This is what I found
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title22/html/USCODE-2010-title22-chap23-sec1732.htm

 

[Grinder]

They seem to have gone to the crime scene to pick up one item of evidence and made a big show out of it. They then could not follow proper crime scene procedures. . ..That is not a show?

You're not correct. They picked up much more than just the bra clasp. They were on video with the defense team and were showing the camera and therefore the defense what they were doing. At that point I don't think handling the clasp with tweezers would make any difference.

Maybe to see if there is something about the lay of the crime scene.
Collecting evidence at that point is close to useless however

I can come up with at least one later collection that made a significant impact on a case. How much would you be willing to bet that I can't?

Certain people here have mistakenly said that if a scene is compromised then nothing found can be legitimate which just isn't true. Most every scene has been compromised as the initial discoverers of the crime don't follow protocol.

Obviously LCN DNA is very easy for transfer but that is hardly true of all evidence.

Would you say if Meredith's bloody clothing had been retrieved in Dec. with Rudi's semen on it would be useless?

 

[Grinder]

Can we have the long form of those citations?

http://uscode.regstoday.com/22USC_CHAPTER23.aspx

At your service, Sir.

 

[acbytesla]

Raf's comment is most definitely odd, so what?

This is a matter of opinion Grinder. I didn't think his statement was precise, but I really didn't find it odd.

"Grinder doesn't know me and has never even seen me therefore how could he have seen me with Bertha" is odd if the truth is that you never were with Bertha. You would say that "Grinder is lying because I was never with Bertha".

Are you ever going to let up needling me about Bertha? She may be broken down, but she's not dead yet.

The fact is because of PMF sleuth work you have been outed and you were with Bertha and therefore I could have seen and recognized you

You would have to know what I looked like first Grinder. Unfortunately I couldn't get a tour of Bertha, even though I wanted to.

Tesla read slowly, they knew the clasp was missing, they were revisiting the cottage to collect it and other missed items, the defense was part of this visit because the kids were held and had lawyers, the CSI people were playing to the cameras so the defense experts could see and therefore it wasn't theater done by the CSI on their own.

Once again the clasp was obviously very important and that was known in advance as they had it on video from the initial collection visits.

ETA - I'm sure the best CSI people return to crime scenes and in some cases more than 46 days later.

Why was the bra clasp important? Why would it be more important that the sweatshirt Meredith was wearing that they didn't collect until too late? There is NO reason at all to believe that the bra clasp was any more or less important than countless other pieces of evidence.

 

[anglolawyer]

This is what I found
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title22/html/USCODE-2010-title22-chap23-sec1732.htm

http://uscode.regstoday.com/22USC_CHAPTER23.aspx

At your service, Sir.

Thanks both. What exactly is a (or the) United States Code?

I wonder whether there are any cases? What does 'unjustly deprived' of liberty mean? Does it mean only 'otherwise than in accordance with the law of the foreign power' (itself not free from ambiguity) or merely 'unjust'? And how is it 'made known' to the President? You just write him a letter or convene a four-week hearing in the Oval Office to make submissions? There must be a department in the White House which exists to have things made known to it on the President's behalf.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks both. What exactly is a (or the) United States Code?

United States Code is "Federal law" as opposed to "State law". which in the State of Washington is RCW or Revised Code of Washington. Federal law is written directly be Congress or a Federal Agency that was given the right to create laws that are applicable to its mission by Congress.

Most crimes are in fact written by the specific state. Homicide for example is a state law which of course all 50 states have their own individual homicide laws. (most pretty much the same)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what is and is not best practice

Once again the clasp was obviously very important and that was known in advance as they had it on video from the initial collection visits.

ETA - I'm sure the best CSI people return to crime scenes and in some cases more than 46 days later.

Grinder,

That dog won't hunt. I already posted this once today, but it bears repeating. Reporting on the Patrick Waring case in Australia Estelle Blackburn wrote, “In court, police conceded they had not followed best practice in the case. Various officers said that the Central Park scene was left unguarded from 1.25am on the night, it was a week before it was searched, and the same officers had visited the homes of the girl and the accused which allowed for contamination of evidence.” When I told a former police officer (one whose job it was to secure a crime scene) about the collection done 46 days later and after stuff had been moved around, the first thing he said was, "Contaminated, contaminated." I have probably come up with half a dozen links discussing gloves over the last few years. Gloves are a demonstrated forensic contamination risk, no if's, and's, or but's about it.

 

[Desert Fox]

You're not correct. They picked up much more than just the bra clasp. They were on video with the defense team and were showing the camera and therefore the defense what they were doing. At that point I don't think handling the clasp with tweezers would make any difference.

You are special pleading at this point. You are talking about hunting for trace evidence at the crime after a month and a half. What can you expect to find of value.

I can come up with at least one later collection that made a significant impact on a case. How much would you be willing to bet that I can't?

Certain people here have mistakenly said that if a scene is compromised then nothing found can be legitimate which just isn't true. Most every scene has been compromised as the initial discoverers of the crime don't follow protocol.

Obviously LCN DNA is very easy for transfer but that is hardly true of all evidence.

Would you say if Meredith's bloody clothing had been retrieved in Dec. with Rudi's semen on it would be useless?

These are the exceptions not common. Curious, have you watched "Forensics on Trial"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html

 

[Grinder]

This is a matter of opinion Grinder. I didn't think his statement was precise, but I really didn't find it odd.
Are you ever going to let up needling me about Bertha? She may be broken down, but she's not dead yet.

Tesla Bertha is an example of your ability to do critical thinking - I told you she was down for a count and you insisted she would be starting up in mere days.

Raf's way of saying Rudi couldn't have seen him was convoluted and odd. "he didn't know me, had never seen me so how could he have seen me with Amanda at the murder" is odd. If Rudi had seen him why didn't he say so to his skype friend would have been a more normal response considering the circumstances or just saying "I wasn't there that night and had nothing to do with his murdering Meredith. Given that he had plenty of time to prepare it makes it even odder.

You would have to know what I looked like first Grinder. Unfortunately I couldn't get a tour of Bertha, even though I wanted to.

If I had kept track of your name and cared I could have googled your image.

Why was the bra clasp important? Why would it be more important that the sweatshirt Meredith was wearing that they didn't collect until too late? There is NO reason at all to believe that the bra clasp was any more or less important than countless other pieces of evidence.

A piece of underclothing that had either been cut or torn would seem as important as it gets. As it turned out the clasp had Raf's DNA on it so it was the key evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks both. What exactly is a (or the) United States Code?

I wonder whether there are any cases? What does 'unjustly deprived' of liberty mean? Does it mean only 'otherwise than in accordance with the law of the foreign power' (itself not free from ambiguity) or merely 'unjust'? And how is it 'made known' to the President? You just write him a letter or convene a four-week hearing in the Oval Office to make submissions? There must be a department in the White House which exists to have things made known to it on the President's behalf.

Don't they have Google over there

The Code of Laws of the United States of America[1] (variously abbreviated to Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, U.S. Code, or U.S.C.) is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal laws of the United States. It contains 51 titles,[2] along with a further four proposed titles.[3] The main edition is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, and cumulative supplements are published annually.[

To me this part: if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, almost goes to the Amendments to the Constitution.

 

[Grinder]

You are special pleading at this point. You are talking about hunting for trace evidence at the crime after a month and a half. What can you expect to find of value.

A bullet in a wall. A secret stash. A concrete anchor. Many times more information gathered will make a new search fruitful as new items are subject of the search. Though I don't know the details of the Scott Peterson case I doubt that they examined the boat and bags of concrete mix when they first went to the house

It is absurd to say that the police must gather all evidence on the first visit or it is useless.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

That dog won't hunt. I already posted this once today, but it bears repeating. Reporting on the Patrick Waring case in Australia Estelle Blackburn wrote, “In court, police conceded they had not followed best practice in the case. Various officers said that the Central Park scene was left unguarded from 1.25am on the night, it was a week before it was searched, and the same officers had visited the homes of the girl and the accused which allowed for contamination of evidence.” When I told a former police officer (one whose job it was to secure a crime scene) about the collection done 46 days later and after stuff had been moved around, the first thing he said was, "Contaminated, contaminated." I have probably come up with half a dozen links discussing gloves over the last few years. Gloves are a demonstrated forensic contamination risk, no if's, and's, or but's about it.

If the clasp had shown abundant DNA from an Albanian friend of Koko's and Rudi would that have any probative value?

The problem with the clasp is that it doesn't show just two obvious DNA profiles (MK and RS) and RS's DNA was in the house. The ICSI may only have found it on a cigarette but they didn't look everywhere.

I'm curious what would be said had they gathered it in the first visit and the exact same results were on it. I think exactly what is being said by both sides would remain the same.

And yes this duck will hunt.

 

[lonepinealex]

A bullet in a wall. A secret stash. A concrete anchor. Many times more information gathered will make a new search fruitful as new items are subject of the search. Though I don't know the details of the Scott Peterson case I doubt that they examined the boat and bags of concrete mix when they first went to the house

It is absurd to say that the police must gather all evidence on the first visit or it is useless.

That type of evidence is fundamentally different from DNA evidence though. If they found Rudi's discarded bloody clothes, or even the real knife, that might be useful evidence. Finding DNA in a trashed crime scene six weeks after the crime is not.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla Bertha is an example of your ability to do critical thinking - I told you she was down for a count and you insisted she would be starting up in mere days.

Wow!!! You just can't stop taking shots, can you? What is was, was me being a bit overly optimistic. I don't believe engineers undertake operations deliberately to fail. I also know that while there are occasionally problems tunneling, overall they are extremely successful.

Raf's way of saying Rudi couldn't have seen him was convoluted and odd. "he didn't know me, had never seen me so how could he have seen me with Amanda at the murder" is odd. If Rudi had seen him why didn't he say so to his skype friend would have been a more normal response considering the circumstances or just saying "I wasn't there that night and had nothing to do with his murdering Meredith. Given that he had plenty of time to prepare it makes it even odder.

Again, I don't see that. As I said, this is subject to opinion.

If I had kept track of your name and cared I could have googled your image.

Good luck with that.

A piece of underclothing that had either been cut or torn would seem as important as it gets. As it turned out the clasp had Raf's DNA on it so it was the key evidence.

No, it is not. You are using hindsight to come to this conclusion. If it had been so important they would have collected it on the first go around. Also, you would think Meredith's outer garment covered in blood would be just as important or more so.

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't they have Google over there

The Code of Laws of the United States of America[1] (variously abbreviated to Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, U.S. Code, or U.S.C.) is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal laws of the United States. It contains 51 titles,[2] along with a further four proposed titles.[3] The main edition is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, and cumulative supplements are published annually.[

To me this part: if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, almost goes to the Amendments to the Constitution.

Thanks again. Eschewing google I ask: are there any precedents for the use of this code where a US citizen has been convicted after due process by the courts of a friendly ally?

 

[Desert Fox]

While posted elsewhere, I thought this should be posted
http://www.humanrightseurope.org/20...s-commissioner-urges-defamation-law-re-think/

June 10, 2014 - Commissioner for Human Rights
Italy: Human rights commissioner urges defamation law re-think
Human rights commissioner Nils Muižnieks has urged Italy’s authorities to re-think plans for new legislation on defamation.

In a letter published by Il Corriere della Sera on 8 June, Muižnieks joins forces with Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Dunja Mijatović, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, to warn of problems with the current draft law.

Their joint statement reads: “When Parliament started reviewing the legislation on defamation last October, there were great hopes that Italy finally would succeed in carrying out a long overdue legal reform and strengthening media freedom in the country.

“Regrettably eight months later, the new draft law still falls short of both national and international standards and the whole reform process appears to be stuck in the Senate. The current version of the draft still includes the possibility to file penal suits for defamation, increases monetary fines and lacks effective deterrent measures to prevent the abuse of the law by the plaintiffs.

“The current legal framework criminalising defamation has led to Italy losing court cases in international tribunals and receiving repeated criticism, especially because of prison sentences handed down to journalists. Already in 1984, this anomaly was exposed by the Italian Court of Cassation.

“Since then, Italy has been regularly condemned by the Strasbourg Court for violating the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights because of disproportionate criminal sanctions in defamation cases.

“Meanwhile the instrumental use of defamation suits and claims for damages continues to hamper media freedom in Italy, as documented by the long list of journalists targeted by spurious legal actions published by Ossigeno per l’Informazione, an observatory which carries out valuable awareness raising work on threats against journalists in the country.

“We, our predecessors and other bodies of the Council of Europe, OSCE and the United Nations, have called on the Italian authorities for decades to reform anachronistic legislation which stifles criticism and muzzles the media toward a modern set of provisions which would strengthen free expression by removing prison sentences and excessive fines.

“If the latest draft law adopts some of our recommendations, above all the removal of the prison sentence for defamation, other elements remain a source of serious concern, particularly those which have been mentioned earlier. These concerns could have already been dispelled if some amendments which had been proposed to improve the draft law had not been met by a negative opinion by the rapporteur, who was also backed by the Government.

“But not everything is lost. Italy can still reverse a situation which puts it in breach of agreed international human rights standards, including those established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The best way to achieve this would be to stop considering defamation as a criminal offence altogether.

“Freedom of expression, and its corollary of media freedom, is a human right that does not exist by chance; it is the result of lessons learned from the past on how to strengthen democracy. In particular free media helps protect the rule of law and is a key source of information necessary for citizens’ effective participation in a democratic society.

“It also sustains democracy by helping protect a variety of human rights. Instances of torture, discrimination, corruption or misuse of power have many times come to light because of the courageous work of journalists. Truth-telling is often the first, essential step to start redressing human rights violations and hold governments accountable.

“However, as long as defamation is considered a crime and journalists can be threatened with disproportionate sanctions and fines, a chilling effect risks limiting the exercise of freedom of expression. This situation does not only stifle the media, but ultimately deprives citizens of their right to information, thus affecting negatively the healthy functioning of democracy.

“We therefore call on the Italian Senate to amend the draft law on defamation. To better reflect both national and international standards, a new law should be designed around three main sustaining principles. First of all, defamation should be fully decriminalised. The mere existence of laws which criminalise the offense to the reputation of a person results in undesirable forms of self-censorship.

“Second, the law should allow for corrections and apologies as remedies. In case civil sanctions are necessary, they have to be proportionate. Excessive and disproportionate damages awarded in civil defamation cases can exert heavy pressure on the offender, whose economic survival can be threatened in some cases.

“Third, stronger deterrent provisions should be introduced to avoid the abuse of defamation law by the plaintiffs. This safeguard is necessary to ensure that the overall balance of the law and of its implementation is in favor of media freedom and freedom of expression.

“Apart from these legal measures, a cultural change is also needed. International standards require policy and opinion makers, as well as public personalities, to accept a higher degree of public criticism and scrutiny, refraining from violent or intimidating reactions. This is crucial to help media operate freely.

“Only a minority of the European countries have officially fully decriminalised speech offences. By upgrading its legislation on freedom of expression Italy can lead the way in the battle to decriminalise defamation. It is an opportunity that cannot be missed. Fully overhauling the legal framework on defamation is an essential step to sustain the country’s democratic fabric.”

 

[Grinder]

That type of evidence is fundamentally different from DNA evidence though. If they found Rudi's discarded bloody clothes, or even the real knife, that might be useful evidence. Finding DNA in a trashed crime scene six weeks after the crime is not.

Go read what I'm responding to. The statements are not narrow but all inclusive and include all subsequent visits.

I've said that the LCN DNA on the clasp of RS has little to no value but primarily because of the other stuff found on it.

Just for drill, had they found Raf's semen on the bra would that be of any value?

 

[Grinder]

Thanks again. Eschewing google I ask: are there any precedents for the use of this code where a US citizen has been convicted after due process by the courts of a friendly ally?

Gesundheit.

I don't know specifically and wonder how public these kinds of actions would be.

 

[lonepinealex]

Go read what I'm responding to. The statements are not narrow but all inclusive and include all subsequent visits.

Well that's extremely pedantic. I took the other posters to be referring specifically to the collection of DNA evidence, but I'm happy to be corrected by them.

 

[Desert Fox]

Thanks again. Eschewing google I ask: are there any precedents for the use of this code where a US citizen has been convicted after due process by the courts of a friendly ally?

Have you ever heard of the US SPEECH act?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act

In a nutshell, it prevents foreign lawsuits unless they pass the US First amendment hurdle. I think a similar argument can be made in spirit of the other amendments and I am sure that the same argument can be made as far as other constitutional amendment.

In fact, to make it spelled out, might be interesting to wrote congress people to pass a law specifying this. Likely have bipartisan support as well.