Some but not the spaghetti string that descended at 105 minutes.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Magister
- Start date
- Status
I am concerned by a comment like this, because it reflects exactly the Nencini judgement. I emailed this person on PMF before he cited me for doing so, and that left me like Clooney in Gravity.
Again, what I object to is comparing two sadistic killers like Knox & Sollecito with Pistorius. Knox in particular is in a league with Van der Sloot and and Bundy. That's the right comparison, in my opinion: dangerous people who actually enjoy hurting other people.
Norbert
Again, what I object to is comparing two sadistic killers like Knox & Sollecito with Pistorius. Knox in particular is in a league with Van der Sloot and and Bundy. That's the right comparison, in my opinion: dangerous people who actually enjoy hurting other people.
Norbert
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
Read similar things about the Norfolk Four and West Memphis Three
DF who killed those kids in West Memphis?
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,004
reporting contamination and corrective action
The American Bar Association's standard 4.1a states in part:
“(ix) reports of laboratory contamination and other laboratory problems affecting testing procedures or results relevant to the evaluation of the procedures and test results obtained in the case and corrective actions taken in response…”
In "Tarnish on the Gold Standard" William Thompson wrote, "While there have always been bad labs, their shoddy work has been difficult to detect because the worst labs tend to be found in jurisdictions that have historically shielded crime labs from external scrutiny...An important source of evidence on the nature and frequency of these problems is “contamination logs” and “corrective action files” that are maintained by some DNA laboratories. Under a guideline issued by the FBI’s DNA Advisory Board in 1998, forensic DNA laboratories are required to “follow procedures for corrective action whenever proficiency testing discrepancies and/or casework errors are detected” and “shall maintain documentation for the corrective action.”19"
The American Bar Association's standard 4.1a states in part:
“(ix) reports of laboratory contamination and other laboratory problems affecting testing procedures or results relevant to the evaluation of the procedures and test results obtained in the case and corrective actions taken in response…”
In "Tarnish on the Gold Standard" William Thompson wrote, "While there have always been bad labs, their shoddy work has been difficult to detect because the worst labs tend to be found in jurisdictions that have historically shielded crime labs from external scrutiny...An important source of evidence on the nature and frequency of these problems is “contamination logs” and “corrective action files” that are maintained by some DNA laboratories. Under a guideline issued by the FBI’s DNA Advisory Board in 1998, forensic DNA laboratories are required to “follow procedures for corrective action whenever proficiency testing discrepancies and/or casework errors are detected” and “shall maintain documentation for the corrective action.”19"
Chris
Going forward, I find myself wondering whether there is a way to establish the probability values
1. Deliberate contamination.
2. Accidental contamination.
I approach this question from the certain knowledge by other scientific determinations that the accused could not have been present at any time when the crime was comitted.
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
Maintaining lab records is one thing, maintaining correct records is another, withholding those records is yet another and lying about what they contain one more.
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
It is not true. Raffaele Sollecito had moved to via Garibaldi 110 only recently (350meters from Quintavalle) but he had lived for years in a students' residence located about 450/500 meters west to Quintavalle's shop.
Now, Quintavalle didn't talk to any talk show, a journalist came and interviewed him at his shop. That's not particularly cautious on the part of a witness, but most people are not prepared to be witnesses nor to resist to media pressure, and it's not a reason for deducing that Quintavalle did something wrong.
Therefore no euros could have changed hands for any interview? Unequivocally impossible?
CoulsdonUK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,838
A general question, has anything new related to this case actually happened in the past couple of months or so? Any public comments from either defendants or their legal teams? I scanned a few pages and noticed various posts relating to Amanda’s slander ECHR application, any news on that front.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
No news is good news according to the cognoscenti.
Any news about the fragrant Stephanie's wedding?
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Did Quintavale ever get paid for coming forward as a witness?
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Were Quintavale and Curatolo paid for claiming to be witnesses?
Haven't heard anything, but consensus here seems to be no news is good news.
Now back to the point at hand, do you think Quintavale (and Curatolo) were paid for coming forward as witnesses?
Do you find their testimonies credible?
Haven't heard anything, but consensus here seems to be no news is good news.
Now back to the point at hand, do you think Quintavale (and Curatolo) were paid for coming forward as witnesses?
Do you find their testimonies credible?
No news: All indications regarding Amanda's application is that it is still within the ECtHR system with no public announcement to date.
As you may be aware, there is a ECtHR home web site which may provide information on cases and leads to other sites:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
An ECtHR case of interest:
Konak v. Turkey 3042/05 03/12/2013 {excerpts}
{Note: 1. The judgment is very terse, due in part, IMO, that this type of violation was common in Turkey at the time. 2. Redress is mentioned at the end (I omitted the just satisfaction and costs sections). 3. Violation is due to the lack of a lawyer during police custody.}
The applicant was suspected of being a leader of an armed illegal organization.
According to the applicant’s statements, he was questioned by police officers on an unspecified date in 1998 but exercised his right to remain silent. During the questioning, he was not provided with a lawyer.
On 29 March 1998, a certain co-accused L.L. was confronted with the applicant, in the absence of a lawyer, and identified him as the secretary of the Marmara District and the person responsible for the Istanbul branch of the organisation.
h of the organisation.
On 1 April 1998, the applicant and twenty-two other accused persons were examined by a doctor who noted that none of them showed signs of physical violence apart from three of them, including L.L. According to the medical report, L.L. had a three-centimetre ecchymosis on her back and face.
On the same day, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court where he denied the allegations, in the absence of his lawyer. In his statements, the applicant also mentioned that he had not been provided with a lawyer during his police custody despite his request to that effect. He also denied the confrontation and identification records in his statements made to the public prosecutor. After the questioning was over, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.
On 14 February 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the conviction for lack of reasoning.
On 26 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court once again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eighteen years and nine months’ imprisonment. It noted that, according to the confrontation and identification records, certain of his co-accused, namely M.Ş., L.L., T.Ö. and M.Ş., had identified the applicant as the district leader of the organisation. It further found it established that he had taken part in a number of the organisation’s activities such as hanging illegal banners, throwing Molotov cocktails and participating in illegal demonstrations. The court concluded that the applicant had acted as district leader of the organisation in Istanbul.
On 25 May 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.
The applicant alleged that his defence rights had been violated as he had been denied access to a lawyer during his police custody. In this respect, he relied on Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. He also maintained that his conviction had been based on statements made to the police by some of the co-accused persons, allegedly which had been taken under duress. Invoking Article 6 § 2, the applicant further complained that the national authorities were biased because they had failed to prove that he was guilty and that they convicted him in the absence of sufficient evidence.
In so far as the applicant argued that he had been denied legal assistance during his police custody, the Court notes that at the material time, the restriction imposed on the applicant’s right to legal assistance was systemic and applied to anyone held in custody in connection with an offence falling under the jurisdiction of the State security courts (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 56-63, ECHR 2008, and Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 30-34, 13 October 2009). The Court has examined the present case and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned Salduz judgment.
There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 in the present case.
...The Court, without taking a position on the remaining complaints raised by the applicant regarding the fairness of the proceedings, considers that it is unnecessary to examine them.
The Court further considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should he so request.
Konak v. Turkey 3042/05 03/12/2013 {excerpts}
{Note: 1. The judgment is very terse, due in part, IMO, that this type of violation was common in Turkey at the time. 2. Redress is mentioned at the end (I omitted the just satisfaction and costs sections). 3. Violation is due to the lack of a lawyer during police custody.}
The applicant was suspected of being a leader of an armed illegal organization.
According to the applicant’s statements, he was questioned by police officers on an unspecified date in 1998 but exercised his right to remain silent. During the questioning, he was not provided with a lawyer.
On 29 March 1998, a certain co-accused L.L. was confronted with the applicant, in the absence of a lawyer, and identified him as the secretary of the Marmara District and the person responsible for the Istanbul branch of the organisation.
h of the organisation.
On 1 April 1998, the applicant and twenty-two other accused persons were examined by a doctor who noted that none of them showed signs of physical violence apart from three of them, including L.L. According to the medical report, L.L. had a three-centimetre ecchymosis on her back and face.
On the same day, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court where he denied the allegations, in the absence of his lawyer. In his statements, the applicant also mentioned that he had not been provided with a lawyer during his police custody despite his request to that effect. He also denied the confrontation and identification records in his statements made to the public prosecutor. After the questioning was over, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.
On 14 February 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the conviction for lack of reasoning.
On 26 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court once again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eighteen years and nine months’ imprisonment. It noted that, according to the confrontation and identification records, certain of his co-accused, namely M.Ş., L.L., T.Ö. and M.Ş., had identified the applicant as the district leader of the organisation. It further found it established that he had taken part in a number of the organisation’s activities such as hanging illegal banners, throwing Molotov cocktails and participating in illegal demonstrations. The court concluded that the applicant had acted as district leader of the organisation in Istanbul.
On 25 May 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.
The applicant alleged that his defence rights had been violated as he had been denied access to a lawyer during his police custody. In this respect, he relied on Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention. He also maintained that his conviction had been based on statements made to the police by some of the co-accused persons, allegedly which had been taken under duress. Invoking Article 6 § 2, the applicant further complained that the national authorities were biased because they had failed to prove that he was guilty and that they convicted him in the absence of sufficient evidence.
In so far as the applicant argued that he had been denied legal assistance during his police custody, the Court notes that at the material time, the restriction imposed on the applicant’s right to legal assistance was systemic and applied to anyone held in custody in connection with an offence falling under the jurisdiction of the State security courts (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 56-63, ECHR 2008, and Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 30-34, 13 October 2009). The Court has examined the present case and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned Salduz judgment.
There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 in the present case.
...The Court, without taking a position on the remaining complaints raised by the applicant regarding the fairness of the proceedings, considers that it is unnecessary to examine them.
The Court further considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, should he so request.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,004
Douglas Preston's view of this phenomenon
If I understand correctly Douglas Preston wrote an essay referring to such people as "altruistic punishers."
Samson,
If I understand correctly Douglas Preston wrote an essay referring to such people as "altruistic punishers."
anglolawyer
Banned
Ooh! That's a good one.Numbers said:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,004
sloppy lab work that is protected
There is no way to ascertain this. My own opinion is that the knife is an example accidental contamination in the laboratory, but other possibilities are viable. However it is worth thinking about this from the point of view of a lab that is shielded from scrutiny. If they do sloppy work that tends to exonerate a defendant that ILE thinks is guilty, then they can bury the results. If they do sloppy work that inculpates the defendants, then ILE can run with it. That is why complete discovery is so important, and it is why Dr. Novelli's conduct is so ...inexplicable.
Samson,
There is no way to ascertain this. My own opinion is that the knife is an example accidental contamination in the laboratory, but other possibilities are viable. However it is worth thinking about this from the point of view of a lab that is shielded from scrutiny. If they do sloppy work that tends to exonerate a defendant that ILE thinks is guilty, then they can bury the results. If they do sloppy work that inculpates the defendants, then ILE can run with it. That is why complete discovery is so important, and it is why Dr. Novelli's conduct is so ...inexplicable.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Not that I've seen.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
I've been thinking again about Stefanoni's phone call caught on video the evening of November 3. She is demanding that the semen be tested immediately. But we have not yet figured out what semen she is asking about. Speculation that it was the stain on the pillow under Meredith doesn't fit very well because of the timing: The pillow was uncovered very early prior to 02:30 that am. And there is no indication in subsequent photos that the stain had been sampled.
Another possibility is the tissues in the yard downstairs. At the time of her call these had not been photographically documented but it seems to be her style to pick things up and examine them before they are documented. While the tissue has an issue that could be semen, it is more probable that it'snot.
An alternative that fits better is the tissues from the toilet from which Rudy's DNA was identified. The collection of this was just prior to 14:00 on the video. Stefononi's call at 18:15 leaves plenty of time for the sample to have been already rushed to the Rome lab.
Another possibility is the tissues in the yard downstairs. At the time of her call these had not been photographically documented but it seems to be her style to pick things up and examine them before they are documented. While the tissue has an issue that could be semen, it is more probable that it'snot.
An alternative that fits better is the tissues from the toilet from which Rudy's DNA was identified. The collection of this was just prior to 14:00 on the video. Stefononi's call at 18:15 leaves plenty of time for the sample to have been already rushed to the Rome lab.
- Status