Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

hope this helps

I did the search and what you were told is well short of credible sourcing. Please show me the emails with either the reporter or the cameraman. Do you have the name of the cameraman?

Btw, the issue has nothing to do with anything significant. Why does it matter if the police caravan went one way or the other?

Grinder,

My email concluded with "Hope this helps. Have a nice day."

It matters in two ways. The first is that PG commenters were doubting whether or not it happened IIRC. The second is that it is one of many reasons why the trial should not have been held in Perugia (the police were saying in effect, "we caught them; end of story"). Upon reflection it also shows a lack of professionalism on the police, and it also was an enlightening example of how reflexively combative members of the PG commentariat were capable of being.

 

[LondonJohn]

What would motivate any of us to read, write and post, and to follow this case for years, if there's no emotions involved? Really? Come on.

Answer: a feeling that one is right in one's analysis of the issue.

And I think it's crucial to distinguish between a) emotional investment in a position (e.g. that Knox/Sollecito should not be convicted) and b) emotional investment in the people themselves (e.g. Knox/Sollecito). As I stated clearly in that post, I term myself a strong supporter of their cause, but not a supporter of them per se.

I go back to what I've said: to be described as a "supporter" of Knox or Sollecito automatically implies (in my mind) an emotional attachment to those people that goes beyond (and possibly even overrides) an analysis of what crimes they might or might not have committed. That's why I think it's important to draw the distinction between support for the person and support for the cause.

 

[Samson]

All we know is that when Dr. Vecchiotti went to retrieve it in 2011, it has decomposed. I am not certain whether or not it was actually submerged, but the extraction buffer was present in a (presumably closed) tube. In a 2013 article Dr. Vecchiotti wrote: "It could not be analyzed by the Appellate Court experts as it had been stored by the scientific police in a tube containing extraction buffer, which made it completely rusty."

Thanks Chris, I raised (not quoting you) this on Ground Report just now,and got this reply

Storage is trick and there is a debate in the forensic community about whihc way is best.

If you store it in paper, no condensation but it could be damaged by external spills.

If you store in plastic, no damage from external spills, but could be condensation.

Either way, the pretrial testing in this case was through. Sollecito had some of the most expensive DNA experts in the world go over it. Defense was given all the tools to challenge the case to be met.

I'm sure some of the forensic evidence on Manson and his followers has degraded but I don't think we should let him out because of that.

The evidence was fresh when it counted and the paper records pertaining to it are sufficient now.

A lot of these details do get these sort of off the cuff replies.

 

[Bill Williams]

Answer: a feeling that one is right in one's analysis of the issue.

And I think it's crucial to distinguish between a) emotional investment in a position (e.g. that Knox/Sollecito should not be convicted) and b) emotional investment in the people themselves (e.g. Knox/Sollecito). As I stated clearly in that post, I term myself a strong supporter of their cause, but not a supporter of them per se.

I go back to what I've said: to be described as a "supporter" of Knox or Sollecito automatically implies (in my mind) an emotional attachment to those people that goes beyond (and possibly even overrides) an analysis of what crimes they might or might not have committed. That's why I think it's important to draw the distinction between support for the person and support for the cause.

Can you give an example? For instance, I cannot really see any difference in the positions held between supporters and what is being pejoratively termed, "invested" supporters; aside from that somehow the latter group have something "invested", namely "to gain" by holding that position.

Grinder regards me as an "invested" supporter, yet we hold mainly the same views. Am I in it for the money??

 

[Bill Williams]

Ooh did someone mention my name?!

On this "supporter" issue, I think it's fairly easy to explain using a football analogy (whether American football or proper football ): I might think, based on my analysis of the teams' strengths, that Team A is going to win the league (or Superbowl). But I needn't be a supporter of Team A to come to that conclusion - indeed, I might well be a supporter of a rival team, Team B. So I might "want" my team, Team B, to win the league/Superbowl, but I might at the same time analytically think that Team A actually will win.

And so it is with the Knox/Sollecito issue. Personally, I believe that they should never be judicially convicted of anything related to the murder of Meredith Kercher, and that they almost certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with it. That's what my analysis of the evidence (and non-evidence) leads me to believe. But that doesn't automatically make me a "supporter" of Knox/Sollecito. I would argue that the very term "supporter" automatically implies some level of emotional attachment.

Have I ever said anything that has led you to believe I am not of the latter stripe?

 

[Grinder]

Answer: a feeling that one is right in one's analysis of the issue.

And I think it's crucial to distinguish between a) emotional investment in a position (e.g. that Knox/Sollecito should not be convicted) and b) emotional investment in the people themselves (e.g. Knox/Sollecito). As I stated clearly in that post, I term myself a strong supporter of their cause, but not a supporter of them per se.

I go back to what I've said: to be described as a "supporter" of Knox or Sollecito automatically implies (in my mind) an emotional attachment to those people that goes beyond (and possibly even overrides) an analysis of what crimes they might or might not have committed. That's why I think it's important to draw the distinction between support for the person and support for the cause.

Were your ears burning?

Anyway as you may remember I agree with you on this and surprisingly that soccer is proper football.

The level of investment might surprise you. I think there are levels of supporters with those with the most having the biggest emotional attachment as well.

I would add that for me picking up on the case immediately as a Seattleite and seeing the craziness from the beginning (buckled and told us what we knew to be correct) and then having totally loony locals start the PG movement. I await the day the kids are set free and am able to pleasantly let them know what vile people they are. Pleasantly!

 

[Desert Fox]

Answer: a feeling that one is right in one's analysis of the issue.

And I think it's crucial to distinguish between a) emotional investment in a position (e.g. that Knox/Sollecito should not be convicted) and b) emotional investment in the people themselves (e.g. Knox/Sollecito). As I stated clearly in that post, I term myself a strong supporter of their cause, but not a supporter of them per se.

I go back to what I've said: to be described as a "supporter" of Knox or Sollecito automatically implies (in my mind) an emotional attachment to those people that goes beyond (and possibly even overrides) an analysis of what crimes they might or might not have committed. That's why I think it's important to draw the distinction between support for the person and support for the cause.

There are cases where I think the defendants are not guilty but I still don't think they are very nice people. At least with Amanda and Raff, they seem to be genuinely decent people.

 

[Grinder]

LJ has done a magnificent job highlighting many of the factors that show this is a miscarriage of justice, especially in regards to ToD and the stomach contents. That he has done so as someone looking only for the facts to take his view where it will makes his contributions all the stronger. I do appreciate his declaration that he does see this as a miscarriage of justice. Nothing worse than someone talking about the case for 5 years and making a perverted stance that both sides are somehow equal in credibility, they are firmly not in any way.

Who's doing that? Point me in their direction and I'll take care of them.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would add that for me picking up on the case immediately as a Seattleite and seeing the craziness from the beginning (buckled and told us what we knew to be correct) and then having totally loony locals start the PG movement. I await the day the kids are set free and am able to pleasantly let them know what vile people they are. Pleasantly!

I am almost positive you did not mean this to come out the way it reads.

 

[carbonjam72]

Answer: a feeling that one is right in one's analysis of the issue.

And I think it's crucial to distinguish between a) emotional investment in a position (e.g. that Knox/Sollecito should not be convicted) and b) emotional investment in the people themselves (e.g. Knox/Sollecito). As I stated clearly in that post, I term myself a strong supporter of their cause, but not a supporter of them per se.

I go back to what I've said: to be described as a "supporter" of Knox or Sollecito automatically implies (in my mind) an emotional attachment to those people that goes beyond (and possibly even overrides) an analysis of what crimes they might or might not have committed. That's why I think it's important to draw the distinction between support for the person and support for the cause.

Well I do think one can be supportive of someone who's committed a crime, without losing objectivity. It happens all the time. That someone close to you gets into trouble, doesn't necessarily mean you want them to be found innocent of a crime they committed.

I think the Knox family earned some respect from the Italians when they were so supportive of Amanda while she was in prison.

I just find your distinction of support for a cause, from the individuals in whom the cause arises, to be somewhat dubious. And that's not at all a knock.

Have you ever seen 'My Fair Lady'? Another British gentleman with no emotional involvement.

Allowing emotions to distort reasoning is a trap we all have to avoid I'm sure. But emotions give us courage, passion, the things that make us feel alive. Nothing to be ashamed of. But have it your way. Not looking to get squishy here. I just don't think we always know and/or are in control of what we do, or why we do it. But I'll take your word for it, and hold my tongue.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

disingenuous deflection

Thanks Chris, I raised (not quoting you) this on Ground Report just now,and got this reply

Storage is trick and there is a debate in the forensic community about whihc way is best.

If you store it in paper, no condensation but it could be damaged by external spills.

If you store in plastic, no damage from external spills, but could be condensation.

Either way, the pretrial testing in this case was through. Sollecito had some of the most expensive DNA experts in the world go over it. Defense was given all the tools to challenge the case to be met.

I'm sure some of the forensic evidence on Manson and his followers has degraded but I don't think we should let him out because of that.

The evidence was fresh when it counted and the paper records pertaining to it are sufficient now.

A lot of these details do get these sort of off the cuff replies.

There might be one decent point in the reply you received (give me a week, and I might be able to find it), but the rest is disingenuous garbage. One, the defense was not given the electronic data files. Every DNA expert whom I asked or whose comments I have read has been crystal clear on their importance. In addition many egrams have never seen the light of day. Two, there is absolutely no reason to store any piece of evidence in the presence of extraction buffer whatsoever. I don't know how I can possibly be more emphatic. The discussion of tubes versus paper is deflection. Plenty of evidence has been stored for many years, then tested for DNA. Yet the bra clasp, one of the key pieces of evidence of this case, was destroyed in less than four. Three, the lab was having quantitation and contamination issues at the time the bra clasp was run (link). Those problems plus the later destruction of the clasp should be enough to discredit the lab's work on this case. Finally, there were multiple contributors both to the autosomal and to the Y-chromosomal profiles. The interpretation that Stefanoni offered was misleading. Without Conti and Vecchiotti's appointment, we might be in the dark about some of this, particularly the YSTR results. Who knows what else could have been learned by a retest? BTW, the attempt to compare this case to Manson is threadbare nonsense.

This case and the Hank Skinner case make me wish for adoption of a standard that whenever the prosecution loses or destroys a piece of evidence, the court would be obliged to accept the defense's interpretation of that evidence.

 

[Grinder]

I would add that for me picking up on the case immediately as a Seattleite and seeing the craziness from the beginning (buckled and told us what we knew to be correct) and then having totally loony locals start the PG movement. I await the day the kids are set free and am able to pleasantly let them know what vile people they are. Pleasantly!

I am almost positive you did not mean this to come out the way it reads.

Perhaps that makes it a little more clear for you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps that makes it a little more clear for you.

I thought so, but the "." between the two sentences made one eyebrow hit the ceiling... you know me, the invested folk cannot control their eyebrows.

 

[Grinder]

Can you give an example? For instance, I cannot really see any difference in the positions held between supporters and what is being pejoratively termed, "invested" supporters; aside from that somehow the latter group have something "invested", namely "to gain" by holding that position.

Grinder regards me as an "invested" supporter, yet we hold mainly the same views. Am I in it for the money??

Bill in your line of work I find it hard to believe you only see financial gain as a reward. Besides the tired old PR paid poster tripe, you are the only one suggesting financial gain for people like yourself.

LJ made it perfectly clear he was talking about emotional investment. Perhaps a non-sport analogy would help you. In politic they sell campaign buttons and yard signs. They do this not for the money but rather to get the people who take them a little more invested than they would be if just given away.

You don't like me to point to your involvement or ask about it, but I know you have "invested" yourself in thsi case on a different level than most of us posting here (though some of the recent newbies have POVs and knowledge of more invested people).

I believe you think that if TM or others on the other side are related to the Kerchers, they should make it known. I believe that those that are connected directly to the defense and the support group (I dare not use the three letters) should be transparent.

I also think that anyone claiming some information coming from some non-published source should be open about that source. Why would someone share something as important as the recordings with you and yet keep it secret from the public?

 

[carbonjam72]

From the link Bill provided, it looks like 'section 5' of cassation, has to decide whether to ask for a joint 'united session' panel (9 judges drawn from all sections), or to hear it themselves (5 judges drawn from section 5). So whether to grant a 'united sections' panel for Amanda and Raf, has not yet been decided.

And therefore, if Bill's citation is legit, it looks like Supercal has laid an egg on this one.

http://www.uv.es/coloquio/coloquio/ponencias/c3chia2.pdf

Nor must it be forgotten that the law proposal of linking the simple sections to the precedent of Sezioni Unite was already contained for the Cassazione criminal division in the definitive project of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1988 in article 610 bis, but it did not pass the scrutiny of the Parliamentary commission, so that the current article 618, which substituted it, now foresees the power and not the duty of the simple section to remit the challenge to the joint sections, when it finds that “the issue of law subjected to its examination has given rise to, or may give rise to, a case law conflict”.
Let us now ask whether the proposed innovation would actually be effective in ensuring the discharge of the task of nomofilachia. Only partially, I would say. Meanwhile it must be remembered that the conflicts between simple sections may remain alive for a long time before the full bench intervenes. And one must also mention the fact that conflicts of case law within the same Sezioni Unite are not unknown, and are, I believe, due to the swapping of members of the panels which make them up.

Again, let us take into account that having tried to transform the simple sections into bodies of lower status, subject to the awkward alternative of either excluding themselves or rendering homage to the precedent of the full bench, can easily incite them to rebellion. They could simply disobey the directions of the legislature, since the relevant prescription lacks any sanction6. Or, more reasonably, they could try to indulge in the art of distinguishing, and thus in those incredible acrobatics of which Anglo-Saxon judges are masters in avoiding the binding effect, by seeking differences in the case before them compared with that already decided, contraband intended to influence the ratio decidendi. This is not to mention the danger that, by creating two bodies of magistrates of the Corte di Cassazione with different functions, one obtains the professional humiliation of many and a power excessively concentrated in a few.
Lastly, the proposal does not satisfy the principle of economy of proceedings. It loses on one side what it proposes to gain on the other in terms of reasonable duration7. In order to establish whether or not to pay homage to precedent, the simple section will obviously have to study and discuss in depth the case before it. If the decision then goes in favour of a reasoned ordinance of remission to the joint sections, an analogous use of time and intellectual effort <snipping footnotes....> will have to be spent by the higher bench in order to decide whether to comply with its own precedent or diverge from it, by accepting the submissions developed during the ordinance of remission.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill in your line of work I find it hard to believe you only see financial gain as a reward. Besides the tired old PR paid poster tripe, you are the only one suggesting financial gain for people like yourself.

LJ made it perfectly clear he was talking about emotional investment. Perhaps a non-sport analogy would help you. In politic they sell campaign buttons and yard signs. They do this not for the money but rather to get the people who take them a little more invested than they would be if just given away.

You don't like me to point to your involvement or ask about it, but I know you have "invested" yourself in thsi case on a different level than most of us posting here (though some of the recent newbies have POVs and knowledge of more invested people).

I believe you think that if TM or others on the other side are related to the Kerchers, they should make it known. I believe that those that are connected directly to the defense and the support group (I dare not use the three letters) should be transparent.

I also think that anyone claiming some information coming from some non-published source should be open about that source. Why would someone share something as important as the recordings with you and yet keep it secret from the public?

Grinder - this is silliness. You are making bizarre extrapolations, and trying to somehow build me into someone important. What's your investment in trying to personalize this around me? Why don't you just write me off as a nut and leave it at that?

 

[carbonjam72]

Grinder - this is silliness. You are making bizarre extrapolations, and trying to somehow build me into someone important. What's your investment in trying to personalize this around me? Why don't you just write me off as a nut and leave it at that?

Bill, you're being framed for a nut!

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Bill, you're being framed for a nut!

-

He's got to be innocent, otherwise he couldn't be framed for it - at least according to Grinder's Law anyway,

d

-

 

[Mary_H]

Well I do think one can be supportive of someone who's committed a crime, without losing objectivity. It happens all the time. That someone close to you gets into trouble, doesn't necessarily mean you want them to be found innocent of a crime they committed.

I think the Knox family earned some respect from the Italians when they were so supportive of Amanda while she was in prison.

I just find your distinction of support for a cause, from the individuals in whom the cause arises, to be somewhat dubious. And that's not at all a knock.

Have you ever seen 'My Fair Lady'? Another British gentleman with no emotional involvement.

Allowing emotions to distort reasoning is a trap we all have to avoid I'm sure. But emotions give us courage, passion, the things that make us feel alive. Nothing to be ashamed of. But have it your way. Not looking to get squishy here. I just don't think we always know and/or are in control of what we do, or why we do it. But I'll take your word for it, and hold my tongue.

Emotions are the basis of ethics, morality, law and a sense of justice. You can't talk about the origins or intentions of any of these concepts without eventually resorting to a discussion of human emotion. You can't care about an injustice without, in whatever small way, having emotions about the people who are being treated unjustly or, conversely, about the people who are committing the injustice.

 

[Mary_H]

Were your ears burning?

Anyway as you may remember I agree with you on this and surprisingly that soccer is proper football.

The level of investment might surprise you. I think there are levels of supporters with those with the most having the biggest emotional attachment as well.

I would add that for me picking up on the case immediately as a Seattleite and seeing the craziness from the beginning (buckled and told us what we knew to be correct) and then having totally loony locals start the PG movement. I await the day the kids are set free and am able to pleasantly let them know what vile people they are. Pleasantly!

Why wait?