Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

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

I consider this important news.

I regret that the publication labels itself as satire. Its words should stand on their own.

 

[Numbers]

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.

But the president is not the responsible executive. This was a case under the jurisdiction of the state of Texas, and not tried in the Federal courts.

One should write to the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry.

Web site:
http://governor.state.tx.us/

Mailing Address:

Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

 

[Kauffer]

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.

No offence taken and your sentiments are good ones. I am unashamedly against the death penalty; a Presidential endorsement of the fact of a wrongful execution would go a long way to ending this barbaric practice. As you point out: "battles for the living". I'd like to help keep states from killing convicts in the future, particularly if their convictions are unsafe. It provides more time to fight for exonerations, amongst other things.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

John Oliver does one of his patented editorials on the "debate" surrounding global warming, which I think applies here.

Oliver begins with...... "what is there to debate?"

But then he sets it up as if it was FoxNews or CNN with their split screen talking-heads, "debating" pro- or con of the issue of the recent human origins of global warming.

He says that the "medium is everything," in making it seem that there is a real, meaningful debate between experts.

Of course, he says, you can find some horse's ass to debate the con-side, that global warming either does not exist, or is not the result of human activity on the planet. (That would be Alan Dershowitz in terms of this thread, in that no one would have a chance to get in front of the camera if they took the logical position - that Guede alone did this unremarkable, albeit it exceptionally tragic crime. So Dershowitz argues the minority side, simply to get in front of the camera!)

Oliver set it up.... one talking head arguing pro- the other arguing con-, and the equal treatment of the sides by the media makes it look like a debate.

Then, Oliver says..... "This is the way we in the media should be treating this...."

He opens with a lone talking-head on the opposite side of the podium from him, going through the laundry list of con-arguments....

Then Oliver said, "Let's hear from the other side, those scientists who argue for global warming, but this time we'll do something different. We will show the real proportion of scientists who believe this, in comparison to the con-side."

The studio then fills with 100s of lab-coated Ph.D.'s all yelling at the lone con-arguer. After a minute of utter pandemonium, Oliver turns to the viewer to conclude.....

"This is why there is no meaningful debate about global warming and its origins."

Against the image of a lone believer (read: Pro-guilt lobbier), bring on (all at once) the real experts en masse who represent the pro-innocence side in this case.

It simply is no contest - perhaps save for where it makes the most difference: within the internecine war within Italy's judiciary.... a war that even some-time poster Machiavelli here admits is there....

Wladimiro De Nunzio is a riddle.

He did not have the power to remove Sergio Matteini Chiari, but he was able to force him to step back through a machiavellian chess move, which we can say included a practice of ostracism and blackmail; and it was totally unjustified and unexplainable (to me).

The simple problem is, I don’t have evidence on Wladimiro De Nunzio. He is not an outsider and a discredited small fish like Hellmann and Zanetti.

Moreover, Manuela Comodi had arrested - while in Spoleto - a right-wing politician, a very close friend of Hellmann. They all knew about his resentment, de Nunzio too. The fact that De Nunzio’s role remains in the dark is probably partly a consequence of a Galati’s mistake.

Comodi (and Mignini) understood the trap and wanted to impeach Hellmann and Zanetti on their first wild words at the beginning, but Galati - who as a newcomer had just arrived from Rome - was probably afraid, as he understood the gravity of the situation, about waging a total war against the head of the appeal courts as a first step.

So he did not impeach Hellmann and his court; thus De Nunzio remained in the shadow. This reluctance or caution by Galati was the mistake.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

Umber can contain different manganese compounds. See pp. 20-21 of this: http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Cohen/1999/dmc_2-97cv55_unicomp_v._elementis_doc87_feb.pdf

 

[Diocletus]

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 bet tons of innocent people have been executed: frontier judgment and lynchings and all of that.

 

[Diocletus]

An arch douche (geddit?)

Wasn't he the guy they assassinated in Sarajevo?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

more on manganese chemistry

Umber can contain different manganese compounds. See pp. 20-21 of this: http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Cohen/1999/dmc_2-97cv55_unicomp_v._elementis_doc87_feb.pdf

Thanks. One of my colleagues indicated that the high concentration of metal ions used in the 2008 study might lead to self-quenching.

 

[Kauffer]

I bet tons of innocent people have been executed: frontier judgment and lynchings and all of that.

Yes, of course, but since the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1976 - modern times, as it were, officially, there have been no mistakes. In fact, do you know what the most recent execution is where either a state or the federal government has accepted an incidence of wrongful execution?

 

[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.

I bumped all this down because it seems important.

One solution for releasing someone from prison in Italy:
The President of the Italian Republic may grant a pardon to such person, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. (Italian constitutional provision)

If the Italian judiciary were unable to find a legality to allow release of wrongfully imprisoned RS after an ECtHR judgment that he had not received a fair trial (Article 6) and was unjustly deprived of liberty (Article 5), the Italian Government could use a pardon to free him. The Committee of Ministers works through diplomatic and political measures, so it would be communicating with the Ministry of Justice, and possibly the Italian Judiciary.

 

[platonov]

Ah horseradish ....& rust

You got it! (perhaps I was too subtle?)



I'm not sure what you mean by this. I assume you mean Raffaele's PC but how would that shake my faith?


Or horseradish.



I wonder this at times, too.

There was a time I was too subtle myself but those days are long past*.

I presumed you gave credence to the various ‘white kids are innocent / greatest conspiracy ever' theories.

Was I mistaken? Perhaps you were being too subtle


ETA * Well mostly. It's hard to gauge certain audiences.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, of course, but since the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1976 - modern times, as it were, officially, there have been no mistakes. In fact, do you know what the most recent execution is where either a state or the federal government has accepted an incidence of wrongful execution?

No, what? Just for clarity, I you referring to an innocent person or a person who didn't get a fair trial? It appears that the Constitution does not prohibit the execution of an actually-innocent person following a fair trial in which he has been adjudicated guilty. Doesn't seem right, but remember the Constitution predates modern times.

 

[Desert Fox]

There was a time I was too subtle myself but those days are long past.

I presumed you gave credence to the various ‘white kids are innocent / greatest conspiracy ever' theories.

Was I mistaken? Perhaps you were being too subtle

Might I ask then why, if it was still thought to be blood, why further testing was not performed after if failed TMB? After all, one could do confirmatory testing even after it fails TMB.

 

[Diocletus]

Thanks. One of my colleagues indicated that the high concentration of metal ions used in the 2008 study might lead to self-quenching.

Hence the brown precipitate? I have no idea. All I know is that manganese screws up rubber and you don't want it on your skin.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, of course, but since the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1976 - modern times, as it were, officially, there have been no mistakes. In fact, do you know what the most recent execution is where either a state or the federal government has accepted an incidence of wrongful execution?

Neither the Federal government nor any state has claimed to have executed an innocent person since 1976, to my (limited) knowledge.

In the US, there have been individuals who were on death row awaiting execution who were found to be actually innocent by DNA testing and have been exonerated and released. And DNA testing (profiling) was not prevalent in the US until perhaps 1988? or later. DNA profiling was discovered/invented in the UK by Jeffreys in 1986 and first commercialized in 1987. (Those knowing more, please correct any inaccuracy.)

 

[Kauffer]

But the president is not the responsible executive. This was a case under the jurisdiction of the state of Texas, and not tried in the Federal courts.

One should write to the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry.

Web site:
http://governor.state.tx.us/

Mailing Address:

Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Perry would be no help. He has already intervened to stall an inquiry in 2009. In fact, amidst allegations of corruption and abuse of office, Texas has done everything it can to prevent a resolution of the case in the face of overwhelming evidence of a miscarriage of justice.

A really wonderful piece of journalism about the Willingham case is found here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the improper use of luminol

Hence the brown precipitate? I have no idea. All I know is that manganese screws up rubber and you don't want it on your skin.

I am not sure. I did find this comment however, from Robert Grispino: "It must be remembered that when used improperly, luminol can sabotage a criminal investigation just as easily as it can enhance it when used properly...Luminol is a serologically destructive reagent when used improperly."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

another thread at this forum

A really wonderful piece of journalism about the Willingham case is found here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

There has been at least one thread here on Cameron Todd Willingham, and that article was quoted a number of times.

 

[Desert Fox]

Perry would be no help. He has already intervened to stall an inquiry in 2009. In fact, amidst allegations of corruption and abuse of office, Texas has done everything it can to prevent a resolution of the case in the face of overwhelming evidence of a miscarriage of justice.

A really wonderful piece of journalism about the Willingham case is found here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

I would bet a look at any pardons that Perry might have made, they are tied to cronies of his. He only cares about himself.

 

[NancyS]

Slightly off topic, but I watched Gone Girl last night - and in the film they did a luminol sweep and found what they presumed to be blood. And then immediately stated that they had confirmed this was blood and confirmed the blood type/antibodies - and were waiting on the DNA results. It made me think that even Hollywood has a better grip on forensic science