Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[griffinmill]

If you read back over the last few weeks, you will find citations to American or Australian states that do not permit luminol evidence into the courtroom without additional information.

In other words, less than one percent of the planet's judicial systems.

The other 99.9 percent allow luminol (as they should), allow defendants to object to luminol findings (as they should), and then let juries determine, on a case by case basis, the meaning of the luminol findings.

 

[griffinmill]

(Oh boy...this is nuts...it's like they're doing a rendition of "Who's on first?")

It's ALWAYS Who's On First in here.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not trying to be difficult... I am busy and this is the last thing on my mind.

I don't know exactly what quote you are refereing to. The only exact quote I can see in English is from ace reporter Candace Dempsey. She reports that Mignini said the following:

"Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room”

And she leaves it at that.

What Mignini actually says in the British tabloid interview is this:

"…teorecamente il delitto Arnanda poteva averlo anche istigato, teoricamente, stando.. . se lei mi dice non.. . non si trova.. . il delitto uno potrebbe averlo fatto anche stando nell'altra stanza, eh.. . cioè Sollecito,. , Sollecito è Raffaele. Cioè, teoricamente, cioè, io le dico questo: secondo me lei era lì, e lo dimostra... "

In English:

"...theoretically, Amanda could have instigated the crime…theoretically… being …if you tell me there is no…the crime, one could have carried it out even while in the other room, huh ... that is Sollecito ... Sollecito is Raffaele. That is theoretically that is. I'm telling you this: in my opinion she was there and it shows."

That's what he says and the short disjointed discussion about it begins and ends there. The full interview is at least 50 pages however.

Ace reporter Candace Dempsey then goes on say this in her article:

"But there’s a “time bomb waiting to explode” in the courtroom. All of a sudden Mignini has doubts. In an interview with Bob Graham in the SUN tabloid, he admits he can’t place Amanda in the murder room. Maybe, he says, she wasn’t there. Maybe she “instigated” the brutal slashing off-screen."

All lies.

There was no "“time bomb waiting to explode in the courtroom" about this. It wasn't even mentioned.

Mignini has absolutely no doubts that Amanda was there.

He does not "admit he can’t place Amanda in the murder room."

This is incredibly silly Vibio. Whether Mignini can admit it or not HE CAN'T PLACE AMANDA IN THE MURDER ROOM DURING THE MURDER. Amanda's DNA was not found in the murder room. (not that this would prove that she was there....still, the absence is significant) Amanda's fingerprints were not found in the murder room. It's also silly to think that Amanda could have instigated the murder from the other room or from in the room. Do you really think Amanda is so persuasive and enticing that she could persuade Rudy whom she has barely met and Raffaele who she met less than two weeks earlier and could barely speak their native tongue?

The problem with this idea is that not only is this kind of crime very rare, it is unheard of. Even if you can find a couple murdering someone else, they are people that know each other. It also ignores the incredible language barrier facing Amanda. (Amanda could barely order dinner in Italian let alone ordering two Italian men to kill for her.

Don't you get it? This is silly.

 

[Desert Fox]

In other words, less than one percent of the planet's judicial systems.

The other 99.9 percent allow luminol (as they should), allow defendants to object to luminol findings (as they should), and then let juries determine, on a case by case basis, the meaning of the luminol findings.

When an introductory course book in forensics tells you that this is not the case, it makes your argument just look silly. Why don't you find a forensics text book in any other educational system that states that luminol shows blood when it has failed either other preliminary tests or conformational testing?

 

[Kauffer]

In other words, less than one percent of the planet's judicial systems.

The other 99.9 percent allow luminol (as they should), allow defendants to object to luminol findings (as they should), and then let juries determine, on a case by case basis, the meaning of the luminol findings.

You mean as in "blood or fruit juice - you decide?"

Why would you want to offer a jury a good chance to make a mistake when science can offer them much better odds of reaching much better decisions?

Why are you defending ignorance when you can have the truth?

 

[Desert Fox]

You mean as in "blood or fruit juice - you decide?"

Why would you want to offer a jury a good chance to make a mistake when science can offer them much better odds of reaching much better decisions?

Why are you defending ignorance when you can have the truth?

We have to be smarter than jurors as a legal system as well. . . .I have seen too many cases of jurors convicting what is blatantly bad evidence.

 

[griffinmill]

When an introductory course book in forensics tells you that this is not the case, it makes your argument just look silly. Why don't you find a forensics text book in any other educational system that states that luminol shows blood when it has failed either other preliminary tests or conformational testing?

Not the point. No scientist alive would conclude definitively that luminol is proof of blood. And no doubt every scientist, specific to the question of whether a substance can be proven as blood, would require confirmation.

A legal case does not require scientific certainty of blood, however. And the question isn't confirmation, but rather whether there is a substance other than blood that the luminol could have reacted to, and what the likelihood of that is.

A jury decides this, and every case is different.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

(I know I saw the images of Amanda, Patrick and Raf being taken through the city with the lights flashing and horns blaring, it was like a carnival. Pretty sure I saw it in a doc, but it might take some effort to find.)

I have uploaded "Sex, Lies and the Murder of Meredith Kercher" (in two parts) to my Google Drive.

Here are the links:

Part 1

Part 2

The program is one of several that shows clips from the dog-and-pony show surrounding the arrests on Nov. 6, 2007.

 

[carbonjam72]

No.

It's:

"Even if you are saying there is no evidence of Knox in the murder room, theoretically, she could have instigated it and been in another room while the crime happened (note he says at this point Sollecito). But I don't believe that. I'm telling you she was there and there is proof of it."

The interview is long and he gives his reasons of proof (agree with him or not) of why Knox was indeed in the room at the time of the murder. He shows absolutely no doubt that she was there in the room where Knox was murdered.

( and no, I'm not translating the rest of the interview....)


---

Assuming Vibiio's translation is accurate, I tend to agree with Vibiio's interpretation. Mignini does not appear to be conceding that Amanda was not in the murder room, only that if that were proposed theoretically, Amanda could still be have taken part in the murder, and therefore be guilty, by directing affairs from outside the room. But in Mignini's opinion, Amanda was in the room, according to the evidence as he perceives it, according to Mignini himself.

Sadly, Vibio won't share what evidence Mignini believes he's perceiving that would permit that conclusion. We could try to make guesses, but it wouldn't really be fair.

I have been looking for a transcription of this interview for some time, so this is a great find for me. Guess I'll have to resort to google translate for some help. BUt it is astonishing how much nuance can be added or lost in these types of translation exercises.

Without meaning to jump the gun, because Vibio's view I think must be taken in only very cautiously, but it seems like the 'pro-Amanda' journalists may have pushed the envelop further than Mignini's statements genuinely allow.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean, As ABCTesla pointed out, that Mignini or anyone else actually has any evidence that would permit a reasonable conclusion that Amanda or Raf were present at, or had anything to do with the murder.

Vibio, I had asked you 4 questions (last post on the previous page), just do me a favor and answer the last: Do you think it's possible, however unlikely, that Amanda and Raf never left raf's apartment on the night in question (Nov 1, 2007)?

Ok, one more: Is there any evidence that causes you to believe that Amanda was not the murderer? And does this mean you disagree with Nencini finding that Amanda struck the fatal blow?

If Amanda, contrary to Nencini, was not the murderer, is it also at least possible, she wasn't there at all?

 

[Kauffer]

Not the point. No scientist alive would conclude definitively that luminol is proof of blood. And no doubt every scientist, specific to the question of whether a substance can be proven as blood, would require confirmation.

A legal case does not require scientific certainty of blood, however. And the question isn't confirmation, but rather whether there is a substance other than blood that the luminol could have reacted to, and what the likelihood of that is.

A jury decides this, and every case is different.

If you're investigating a crime and you think it's blood then you test for blood. What you don't do is say to yourself, "I really don't think this is blood but I'm not going to test for it. I'm going to put it to a jury; maybe they'll decide it's blood after all". It's outrageous. We have the means to test. So test.

 

[Desert Fox]

Not the point. No scientist alive would conclude definitively that luminol is proof of blood. And no doubt every scientist, specific to the question of whether a substance can be proven as blood, would require confirmation.

A legal case does not require scientific certainty of blood, however. And the question isn't confirmation, but rather whether there is a substance other than blood that the luminol could have reacted to, and what the likelihood of that is.

A jury decides this, and every case is different.

A jury sentenced a person to death based on bite mark evidence while when DNA was tested years later, it was found that the DNA was from a known child rapist.

Jurors do not understand the science, that is why certain items are prejudicial.

 

[acbytesla]

In other words, less than one percent of the planet's judicial systems.

The other 99.9 percent allow luminol (as they should), allow defendants to object to luminol findings (as they should), and then let juries determine, on a case by case basis, the meaning of the luminol findings.

I doubt 99.9 percent of the judicial systems do as you say they do. This is just wild speculation on your part.

Still, I disagree. It would be one thing to show a Luminol reaction in conjunction with positive confirmatory tests. Allowing a bunch of lay people to be allowed to make that kind of judgement is incredibly dangerous. Alone, luminol stains say very little. People say that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, but the truth is most jurors tend to side with the prosecution instinctively because of the normal respect for authority.

 

[griffinmill]

A jury sentenced a person to death based on bite mark evidence while when DNA was tested years later, it was found that the DNA was from a known child rapist.

Jurors do not understand the science, that is why certain items are prejudicial.

Or...juries are informed of the science, weigh the opinions of both prosecution and defense experts, and come to their own determination. A bit like this case.

 

[griffinmill]

I doubt 99.9 percent of the judicial systems do as you say they do. This is just wild speculation on your part.

Still, I disagree. It would be one thing to show a Luminol reaction in conjunction with positive confirmatory tests. Allowing a bunch of lay people to be allowed to make that kind of judgement is incredibly dangerous. Alone, luminol stains say very little. People say that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, but the truth is most jurors tend to side with the prosecution instinctively because of the normal respect for authority.

Fortunately, most juries aren't likely deluded into thinking that the lack of a confirmatory test means the substance wasn't blood when they are presented testimonies from experts on both sides.

 

[acbytesla]

Or...juries are informed of the science, weigh the opinions of both prosecution and defense experts, and come to their own determination. A bit like this case.

So you are ok with juries being able to make those kind of decisions despite the likelihood that they don't actually understand the science and are actually persuaded by personal bias and a smooth talking lawyer?

I have to wonder if you would feel the same way if you were Amanda or Raffaele? Should we leave it up to morons?

 

[Desert Fox]

Or...juries are informed of the science, weigh the opinions of both prosecution and defense experts, and come to their own determination. A bit like this case.

Let us step back here. . . .The forensic text book is for law enforcement forensic personnel in the field. The book is not a pure academic book. In effect, it is telling the student that you do not present to a court that it is blood unless it is confirmed.

So, no, the jury does not understand the evidence. . .

 

[griffinmill]

So you are ok with juries being able to make those kind of decisions despite the likelihood that they don't actually understand the science and are actually persuaded by personal bias and a smooth talking lawyer?

I have to wonder if you would feel the same way if you were Amanda or Raffaele? Should we leave it up to morons?

Should we abolish juries? Are you suggesting a panel of scientists should preside over legal cases?

 

[griffinmill]

Let us step back here. . . .The forensic text book is for law enforcement forensic personnel in the field. The book is not a pure academic book. In effect, it is telling the student that you do not present to a court that it is blood unless it is confirmed.

So, no, the jury does not understand the evidence. . .

Geez, you'd think if it was this black and white that AK/RS attorneys would have pointed it out and it would have been case closed.

More proof that Italy is dungeon masquerading as a sovereign nation I guess.

 

[Desert Fox]

So you are ok with juries being able to make those kind of decisions despite the likelihood that they don't actually understand the science and are actually persuaded by personal bias and a smooth talking lawyer?

I have to wonder if you would feel the same way if you were Amanda or Raffaele? Should we leave it up to morons?

I don't see why jurors would understand luminol evidence any better than bite evidence.

I was trying to come up with an equivalent of luminol. There is a test I heard about for a certain form cancer with false positives. There is something like a 10% of a false positive by population. The problem is that as the population is billions of people compared to the rarity of the cancer, if you show positive, it is still far more likely that you don't have it. A person would likely thinking "I have cancer" not understanding the numbers. You have to have additional testing to determine if it actually is cancer.

 

[Bill Williams]

Geez, you'd think if it was this black and white that AK/RS attorneys would have pointed it out and it would have been case closed.

More proof that Italy is dungeon masquerading as a sovereign nation I guess.

This happens in Canada, too.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/eric-morgan-acquitted-of-2006-murder-sues-peel-police-for-25m-1.2845523