Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Guilt support

Thanks. This is not the one I saw, but consistent with what I saw. I had only inferred the quote above from Dershowitz from what I'd seen.

Dershowitz is perhaps the only bona fide "expert" that the Pro-guilt lobby can point to for support, outside of PLE or the internecine war within Italians legal system. And man oh man, is THAT support?

Here's my view of something.......

...... whenever someone says, "There's something Amanda Knox knows that she's not telling us...."

...... I'm beginning to think that that statement is shorthand for, "I've not yet made enough money from this tragedy."

I like your language decoding! On the first part, they invoke David Balding too.

 

[Diocletus]

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe would, I believe, work to get her conviction for calunnia annulled, if the ECtHR found her rights violated during the interrogation that produced the statement (no lawyer, no fair translator, coercion, incitement). But even an ECtHR judgment in her favor would not automatically overthrow the calunnia conviction, since ECtHR is not an appeal court.

No one will care about the callunnia.

All anyone will care about will be this newspaper headline: "European Court: Italy Violated Amanda Knox's Human Rights". That will end this thing.

 

[Diocletus]

Really? What is the process in Italian law for having a conviction annulled in these circumstances? Is there one? You are right that an ECHR judgement does not overthrow a conviction. However I am not aware of a duty imposed on Council of Europe ministers to work for anullments.

Here is a nightmare scenario: Cassation uphold convictions. Mr Sollecito is immediately arrested and imprisoned. His defence file an Article 6 application with the ECHR. Some time later, it is upheld. Mr Sollecito wins. What happens next under Italian law?

First this: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=964583&Site=COE

Then, other things: see the Palomar cases.

 

[LondonJohn]

I totally agree on the odd and incongruous specks of luminescence (that's what I was referring to as "mist" in my earlier post).

I know for sure that many of these photos have the exposure settings documented (can't remember whether it's in the metadata or simply written below them) - i.e. aperture setting, speed setting and equivalent film ASA. I also know for sure that the exposures work out at 2-3 times the recommended exposure settings for Luminol photos.

It's late here and I'm turning in. If I have some time tomorrow, I'll seek out the appropriate info. And regarding photoshop, it's hard to tell visually just how much the contrast and brightness might have been digitally altered, but they very accreditation of "Photoshop" raised large red flags.

Of course a competent, open police department would have supplied all the source data, including full disclosure of any digital alterations..........

Re. the above: here's a link to two pertinent posts from back in 2011:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7505041#post7505041

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7507709#post7507709

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Balding did not testify either.

I like your language decoding! On the first part, they invoke David Balding too.

Whenever I bring up Dr. Gill or Dr. Lednev, some PG commenter replies with words to the effect, "He did not testify at the trial." Well, neither did Dr. Balding or Colonel Garofano. That inconsistency noted, the fact that an outside expert did not testify is not a good general argument against listening to him or her. There is plenty of information in the public domain, and the arguments can stand or fall on their own merits.

 

[Desert Fox]

If you could resist the urge to categorise all those who believe Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted as the "Knox fan club", that might be more becoming of an Ethical Consumer.......

And to address your other "arguments", I am British - so I presume I fail your catch-all "blind patriotism" test; and secondly, the only other time when I've had any engagement in this sort of issue was many years ago I made a small contribution to the campaign to quash the conviction of Barry George for the Dando murder - and I'm guessing that George is about as far away from the description "pretty...and doesn't look like (she) did it" as it's possible to get.

Oh, and when Dershowitz has come out with an ill-informed and flat-out incorrect zinger on the Pistorius trial along the lines of "If the court decided that Pistorius knew it was Reeva behind the door, it has to be murder, but if the court decided that Pistorius believed it was an intruder behind the door, it has to be full acquittal", then it's probably time to start evaluating one's choice of legal role models, eh? (I wonder if Jackie would agree hehe)

I argued for the innocence of Cameron Todd Willingham. . . .I don't think anybody would call him a nice guy. He very well might have beaten his wife to death one day. The problem is however is that the evidence does not support him having murdered his children through arson.

 

[Kaosium]

Re. the above: here's a link to two pertinent posts from back in 2011:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7505041#post7505041

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7507709#post7507709

Thank you for digging that up LJ.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglolawyer and Diocletus,

I did not understand that passage, but I would point out that Nencini goes to great pains to defend Stefanoni against the charge that her interpretation was suspect-centered, which is both odd and informative. For Stefanoni not to receive criticism for her handling of the clasp, while Conti and Vecchiotti are criticized on dubious grounds is remarkable.

The defence teams presented the Florence hearing with a long list of requests for further testing, confrontations, re-examination of witnesses, all of which Nencini rejected. I just quoted the PMF translation of his reason for rejecting re-testing of the clasp. His reason is larded with sarcasm, suggesting that the request itself implied that C-V had missed something which, if true, would mean they were incompetent and that all their findings would have to be discarded.

As I am reading Nencini in full, I will post any more of these nuggets that don't seem to have received much focus here yet. I already passed over the astonishing, brazen acceptance of the restrictions passed down by the ISC, principally that Guede committed the murder with others, that he did not gain access via the window and Meredith didn't let him in, therefore .... guess what. I don't yet understand why it took 355 pages to get to the punchline given the terms of reference.

 

[Diocletus]

RW wrote:

hat's a pubic hair in her grasp.
Italian Forensic Police collected it, and have lost both samples.
They will also not release any results of a probable semen test found next to the victim.

In a sex crime turned into a horrible murder,
I'll ask you, can you prove me wrong?
That is a pubic hair...
RW

Your theory may be correct.
The problem is the evidence is with the Italian police or lost.

ETA The photo may be good evidence that the Italian police did not conduct an effective investigation - for consideration by ECtHR or some other organization.

They should have kept it. Some pubic hairs become collectors' items.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Todd Willingham case

I argued for the innocence of Cameron Todd Willingham. . . .I don't think anybody would call him a nice guy. He very well might have beaten his wife to death one day. The problem is however is that the evidence does not support him having murdered his children through arson.

I have publicly argued much the same thing, and I did a little bit of reporting on the case to back it up (see the comments section of one of my blog entries). IMO he became a better person as he grew older, or at least his correspondence suggests this. Some evidence suggests that he was a better father than a husband. I have also discussed the Hank Skinner case, and he is middle-aged and slightly pudgy. The existence of Injustice Anywhere contradicts the notion that the PI-commenters are only interested in one case.

 

[Diocletus]

The defence teams presented the Florence hearing with a long list of requests for further testing, confrontations, re-examination of witnesses, all of which Nencini requested. I just quoted the PMF translation of his reason for rejecting re-testing of the clasp. His reason is larded with sarcasm, suggesting that the request itself implied that C-V had missed something which, if true, would mean they were incompetent and that all their findings would have to be discarded.

He seems undignified and vindictive. Rather troubling, especially for a judge who is making a ruling as to people who he technically can't even convict (because only the ISC can do the actual convicting). I think he's a douche.

 

[Kauffer]

Whenever I bring up Dr. Gill or Dr. Lednev, some PG commenter replies with words to the effect, "He did not testify at the trial." Well, neither did Dr. Balding or Colonel Garofano. That inconsistency noted, the fact that an outside expert did not testify is not a good general argument against listening to him or her. There is plenty of information in the public domain, and the arguments can stand or fall on their own merits.

Yes you are wholly right. But didn't the Italian Forensic Institute (or whatever it may be known as) approach Prof Balding about the case? Isn't that how he got involved? I believe he does get a mention in Crini's closing remarks to Nencini.

 

[Kauffer]

I have publicly argued much the same thing, and I did a little bit of reporting on the case to back it up (see the comments section of one of my blog entries). IMO he became a better person as he grew older, or at least his correspondence suggests this. Some evidence suggests that he was a better father than a husband. I have also discussed the Hank Skinner case, and he is middle-aged and slightly pudgy. The existence of Injustice Anywhere contradicts the notion that the PI-commenters are only interested in one case.

The Cameron Todd Willingham case is the best bet we have of proving that an innocent man was executed in the United States. Doesn't the President have a posthumous pardon amongst his various gifts? Perhaps we should all be writing to President Obama on this issue as he approaches the end of his final term. It was a dreadful case.

 

[Dan O.]

They should have kept it. Some pubic hairs become collectors' items.

There has been much talk about the police protecting Rudy. But the fact that Rudy was prosecuted and convicted should dismiss that theory. They aren't going to be putting their own careers at risk to protect somebody unless the person is important or holds some control over them. A person like Mignini would be protected at all costs.

 

[Desert Fox]

I have publicly argued much the same thing, and I did a little bit of reporting on the case to back it up (see the comments section of one of my blog entries). IMO he became a better person as he grew older, or at least his correspondence suggests this. Some evidence suggests that he was a better father than a husband. I have also discussed the Hank Skinner case, and he is middle-aged and slightly pudgy. The existence of Injustice Anywhere contradicts the notion that the PI-commenters are only interested in one case.

There are cute girls who commit murder all the time. I can name probably a dozen cases where the guilt is not in dispute. If the evidence was solid against Amanda and Raff, I would not support their exoneration.

My interest actually started after the acquittal. I had not looked at the case before then. I was incensed by the idea that the prosecution could fight for overturning this and then I actually looked at the case and realized what a farce it was from the beginning.

 

[Numbers]

Really? What is the process in Italian law for having a conviction annulled in these circumstances? Is there one? You are right that an ECHR judgement does not overthrow a conviction. However I am not aware of a duty imposed on Council of Europe ministers to work for anullments.

Here is a nightmare scenario: Cassation uphold convictions. Mr Sollecito is immediately arrested and imprisoned. His defence file an Article 6 application with the ECHR. Some time later, it is upheld. Mr Sollecito wins. What happens next under Italian law?

First this: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=964583&Site=COE

Then, other things: see the Palomar cases.

I am not sure if the term "annul" is necessarily the proper legal language. I am a total beginner on Italian law.

And as a technical type, when I state "believe" it means I'm not actually 100% sure - but it seems likely based on current knowledge.

But as Diocletus points out, the E Convention HR requires "restitution in integrum" - trying to restore the person harmed by violation of rights back to the situation before that violation, as closely as possible. The Court itself does not direct or enforce this effort; it is the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe that does.

Here are quotes from Diocletus' cite:

The Committee insisted on the obligation for Italy under the Convention to ensure as far as possible restitution in integrum for the applicant who is still serving a sentence given in violation of his right to a fair trial.

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court’s judgments require respondent states - under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers - to adopt, all necessary measures to grant the applicants appropriate redress and to prevent further similar violations in the future.

ETA: The redress after an ECtHR judgment is discussed in ECHR Articles 41 (just satisfaction) and 46 (binding force and execution of judgments). The discussion in the articles is, of course, somewhat vague.

 

[Desert Fox]

The Cameron Todd Willingham case is the best bet we have of proving that an innocent man was executed in the United States. Doesn't the President have a posthumous pardon amongst his various gifts? Perhaps we should all be writing to President Obama on this issue as he approaches the end of his final term. It was a dreadful case.

I mean no offense but we need to save such battles for the living. Three or the four of the Norfolk Four are still considered convicted murders and rapists because they only got a partial pardon from the governor. I would prefer to give them back their lives.

 

[Welshman]

Supercalifragilistic brings out the tired old cliche that Amanda is only supported because she is an attractive woman. Can Supercalifragilstic provide a single example where any of Amanda's supporters have said they only support her because she is an attractive woman regardless of the evidence. If people only support Amanda because she is an attractive woman, how does Supercalifragilistic explain the support for Raffaele? There is a reason why the Amanda is only supported because she is pretty line is used. PGP such as Supercalifragilistic can not address the arguments presented by Amanda and Raffaele's supporters which explains why Supercalifragilistic has to resort to using the Amanda is only supported because she is pretty line.

Supercalifragilistic claims that Amanda and Raffaele's supporters never speak out against other miscarriages of justice. In Bruce Fisher's book Injustice in Perugia he had a chapter devoted to other miscarriages of justice. After the Hellman aquittal, the people behind the Injustice in Perugia website decided that other miscarriages of justice would be featured and this is now in place. The forum on IIP has discussions on other cases. Members of this board who believe Amanda and Raffaele are innocent have mentioned other cases.

 

[anglolawyer]

He seems undignified and vindictive. Rather troubling, especially for a judge who is making a ruling as to people who he technically can't even convict (because only the ISC can do the actual convicting). I think he's a douche.

An arch douche (geddit?)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Manganese and luminol or Bluestar

From a review (Barni et al., Talanta 72 (2007) 896–913) on luminol: "Similarly several other metallic ions such as cobalt, chromium, nickel, copper, and manganese, which are also found in soils or metal objects and some chemical products, have been reported, in various experimental studies, as capable of producing visible chemiluminescence when exposed to the luminol solution [42,83,97–99]."

A 2008 examination of false positives for luminol versus Bluestar (which is a variation of luminol) suggested that MnSO₄ at 0.1 M in concentration was false positive for Bluestar but not luminol: "no reaction but build-up of a brown precipitate. => This result is difficult to explain." The brown precipitate may indicate the presence of Mn ions at a higher oxidation state than in manganese sulfate (where it is +2). It might be worth tracking down differences in experimental conditions between this study and those reported in Talanta.