Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

You might be right of course. The simplest explanation however is that he is thick.

He has the Nuremberg defence, but should have an encounter with Henry Albert Pierrepoint. I hasten to add I am opposed to capital punishment.

 

[Kauffer]

Evidence

The mass of evidence and the while weight of probabilities is against Knox and Sollecito. This is why this waffling and ranting about "science" and dancing in circles and all your circular little lies around is void and useless.

Never mind this waffle, where are the specific citations from Webb, Tobe and Barni that you rely on in support of your contention that where there is a luminol positive/TMB negative reaction and no confirmatory test, it is supportive of your position that it is at least reasonable to hold that there is blood?

I have already cited from Webb and Barni apparently in contradiction of much that you say.

Where is there support for your position from these scientists?

 

[Numbers]

The main source of Italian jurisprudence is the Supreme Court of Cassation sentences, in particular the United Sections Rulings (this is normally what is meant by jurisprudence).
As for Constitutional matters, the sources are the Constitutional Court rulings and the Ordinary Laws.

Thank you for being helpful.

Now I'm trying to understand another feature of law, especially for Italy and other civil-code law countries. I had thought the civil-code law countries such as Italy did not have precedent, meaning a judgment or ruling by a court that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind. I had thought the courts had to follow strictly the CCP and the Constitution. But in practice, they actually do have precedent? So a lower or appeal court in Italy looks up the CSC rulings and applies an appropriate ruling to the case currently before it, with a citation? I don't recall citations to case-law in the motivation reports I've seen. Could you point out some citations in the motivation reports for the AK-RS case?

ETA: Could you explain more specifically about the application of the United Sections rulings? What are they compared to the ordinary CSC rulings, and how are they used by the lower courts? Again, I thank you in advance for any help.

 

[Numbers]

1st highlight - Numbers, All of these explanations are an effort to hold onto the idea that the judges are trying to be honest and fair in their roles as judge, that is, to accept their mistakes as honest mistakes. I disagree. I think the convicting judges simply had an intent to achieve a conviction, and the motivation and reasonings are just window dressing to gussy up a pre-determined conclusion.
That all the evidence shows that Amanda and Raf are actually innocent, because they never left Raf's apartment, leads these judicial efforts into obvious and glaring contradictions in their written 'motivations'. This is because they are arguing an obvious lie.

When the methods applied at trial or developed in the judges motivations conflict with law and procedure, whether Italian or ECHR, this is simply the degree to which the formal law and rules of court, as designed to attempt to keep trials on a fair track, detect events that are out of the ordinary, flags that there may be a problem.

Indeed, we could consider violations of the defendants rights as a 'presumptive' test of the court's prejudice and bias in favor of guilt. BUt what type of "confirmatory" test is available to us, other than perhaps, "the laugh test", or "the smell test"?
2nd highlight - Not sure if you meant this, but lay judges in the first instance trial in Italy only need to have completed middle school (8th grade), presumably with success. In the appeal level trial, the lay judges require the additional and special educational attainment of having completed High School.

The HS graduation rate in the US is far 100%, but don't know what it is off hand. But on the other hand, I hear the literacy rate in Iraq under Saddam, was 98%.

Italy showed it was capable of holding a fair trial under judge Hellman. That Amanda and Raf were ever charged, and that Mignini has not been disbarred on put on trial for his mad ravings and legal adventures is an indication of a backwards society in moral collapse.

1. In other words, the convicting judges lack moral capacity to function honestly. That's what I meant. They are simply following orders or prosecution expectations to convict without regard to the presumption of innocence or reasonable doubt.

2. Yes, the appeal assize court lay jurors are required to be high-school grads. I didn't know that the first-level court lay jurors need to be graduates of any school (but they must be middle school grads, apparently); thanks for that information.

 

[Dan O.]

Hello all, I am a long time lurker first time poster.

Welcome to the JREF/IS forum.

 

[Numbers]

And the added irony is that the verbose Massei and Nencini reports contain numerous contradictions and flat-out inaccuracies (in addition to the breathtaking leaps of logic and improper reasoning that crop up with astonishing regularity in those hundreds of pages).

ECHR requires a conviction to have a statement of reasons. For jury trials, this may be the indictment (and questions to the jury with answers, which apparently is a feature of French jury trials).

One thing I'm seeking among the ECtHR cases is the Court's response to a "reasoned" conviction where the "reasons" are arbitrary; that is, inaccurate, illogical, and speculative, without objectively tying the evidence together to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So far, I've met with very limited success; the ECtHR cases with "unreasoned" or arbitrary reasonings appear to be primarily jury cases (of the French variety, not necessarily from France) where the indictment and questions together were too vague. Do you find X guilty of murder: Yes or No? as the only question is too vague; the indictment and/or questions must also specify who, what, when, and how. There needs to be evidence presented that supports the answers to these questions. But I'll keep looking for cases with arbitrary motivation reports.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sometimes it is useful to track a sub-thread, so as to see how things follow.

Kauffer wants to know why others refuse to accept that whatever it was that luminol detected, it is proven as "not blood" by a further specific-confirmatory test.

Machiavelli presumably then sneaks a point in under the radar that the confirmatory itself is not 100% accurate - therefore it could be mistaken. All true (Why this reasoning then is not applied to the luminol, that it, too, could be mistaken, is beyond me. Then again, Machiavelli's purpose here is to Bewitch, Beguile, And Bewilder like Pal Joey...)

The convicting judges, one of them himself who used the term "presumed blood" multiple times to assess the blood evidence, seems to agree with Machiavelli. It seems that just because the confirmatory test has "ruled out" what was tested as blood, the good judge nevertheless accepts the proposition that: What they say is that it is possible, not that it is "safe"; it does not contradict any scientific knowledge.

It therefore is safe to conclude that judges in Italy, acc. to both Nencini and Machiavelli, can convict on possibilities, even when the large weight of probability is against them.

(...skip childish and repeated tactics...):

The mass of evidence and the while weight of probabilities is against Knox and Sollecito. This is why this waffling and ranting about "science" and dancing in circles and all your circular little lies around is void and useless.

I see that you skipped the part where you moved the goalposts.... where non-probative "evidence" suddenly becomes, as you say, a "mass of evidence" against AK and RS.

For the record, this is what you skipped:

Machiavelli then shifts the goalposts:

- "The nature of single pieces of circumstantial evidence is to be not probative." So even if some piece of evidence does not tend to add to "proving" the case, it still can be used.

- "There is no requirement for single pieces of evidence to be proven beyond reasonable doubt." Machiavelli just chucks this in there, not realizing that his first point covers this. If an item of circumstantial evidence does not even have to be probative, it most certainly does not need to BARD.

- "Even less, there is no need for single pieces of evidence to be proven by scientific method." At least there is one claim by Machiavelli that one can sink their teeth into. You see no one has said this. What is at issue if you read this thread through is if a single piece of evidence has been disproven by scientific method.​

Reading Machiavelli and following the thread as he dances and weaves and Bewitches, Beguiles, And Bewilders like Pal Joey, is instructive.

He's the one who tried to conclude this thread with the baffling.....

It is a disingenuous spin, though, to translate this as saying that judges convict on "something that is only possible"; pieces of evidence are indicative, not just something possible.

We've moved from safe evidence, possible evidence, non-probative evidence (which in other words is non-evidence!!!) to BARD evidence, to evidence disproven by the scientific method, to .......

Bewitch, Beguile. Bother, and Bewilder:

Maybe you just missed it in the fray of the back and forth.

But the above is where you claim that non-probative evidence, simply on the basis that it is possible (no matter how unlikely) still should be used.

Good for you.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hi Mach,
Good morning.

Glad you're here so I can ask a question of you.

Remember the discussion on Italian court jurisprudence? Well, I never did quite understand what all the sources of the jurisprudence are. Could you help inform me?

To be more precise, what are the other sources of Italian jurisprudence for criminal cases in addition to the Italian Constitution, Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), and the Convention (ECHR) and ECtHR case-law? IIUC, you indicated that the Italian courts had another jurisprudence that they followed.

Thank you for being helpful.

Now I'm trying to understand another feature of law, especially for Italy and other civil-code law countries. I had thought the civil-code law countries such as Italy did not have precedent, meaning a judgment or ruling by a court that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind. I had thought the courts had to follow strictly the CCP and the Constitution. But in practice, they actually do have precedent? So a lower or appeal court in Italy looks up the CSC rulings and applies an appropriate ruling to the case currently before it, with a citation? I don't recall citations to case-law in the motivation reports I've seen. Could you point out some citations in the motivation reports for the AK-RS case?

ETA: Could you explain more specifically about the application of the United Sections rulings? What are they compared to the ordinary CSC rulings, and how are they used by the lower courts? Again, I thank you in advance for any help.

The system has precedents, but only Supreme Court precedents. The only precedents which are authoritative in practice, however, are the SU Cassazione rulings. The other Cassazione rulings are mostly considered derivatives from DU rulings or from Costitutional Court rulings, so they are used as reference too, but usually reports quote the SU rulings (Hellmann and Galati quoted the same SU ruling). Not always the quotes are explicit, sometimes you can spot the repetition of the wording without explicit citation.
The Supreme Court precedents are not exactly the equivalent of a case-law precedent system. The SC rulings are always somehow more abstract and general compare to the typical case-law style.
The Italian state also has Constitutional Court jurisprudence.
In addition to that, should be reminded that the Italian System uses the Roman-German law tradition, this means there is a corpus of scholar interpretations which belongs to the state and works in lieu of a state of precedents, albeit it is made of abstract principles and not of practice precedents. For this you can say the Roman Law systems are based on tradition instead of precedents.

 

[Numbers]

Hello all, I am a long time lurker first time poster.
I am not a highly educated scientist or lawyer, so some of the intricacies of DNA examination and rules of law pass me by. However I feel I am fairly intelligent and a fair representation of the type of person who would serve on a jury, so that is how I look at the arguments that get presented here.

Mach stated a while ago that the inconsistencies in AK and RF "stories" proved they were lying. What about prosecution inconsistencies then?
Was AK in the murder room or outside directing?
Did AK deliver the fatal blow, restrain Meredith while Rudy did it, or restrain Meredith while RS did it?
Was the murder a result of a Halloween/satanic rite, an argument over personal hygiene, a sex game, an argument over rent money or an argument over pooh?
Does any of this cause reasonable doubt?

There are 3 main pieces of evidence that I feel could help convince me of the involvement of AK and RS.
1. The bloody towels, was there anyone elses dna/blood on them? 2. The knife, any dna/blood from Meredith on there? 3. The bra clasp, was RS dna on there?All the prosecution would have to do is re-test these and prove what was on there.....oh wait. Reasonable doubt?

Vibio, like I said earlier I am not a highly educated scientist but I do know how to use a dictionary. Even I can tell what the difference is between the meaning of presumptive and confirmatory. The luminol tests even showed up spots on the investigators booties and the evidence markers. If the confirmatory tests were negative for blood, would you not agree that this is at least reasonable doubt that blood was present?

Welcome to the ISF.

Answers to your questions may not be simple. This site may have some answers for you:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/

1. Whose DNA was on the bloody towels?
For at least one towel, the police reported Meredith Kercher's DNA as detected. For others, the police report does not disclose information on the results of the DNA test, although it indicates that DNA testing was done.

Note that most of the results of the DNA tests done by the police are not reported by the police. One can only assume such results are inculpatory for Rudy Guede and exculpatory for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito; otherwise they would have been reported by the police.
See:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/batch-three-missing-negative-controls-unexplained-gaps/

2. No blood or tissue was detected on the knife blade (for the kitchen knife taken by the police from Raffaele Sollecito's kitchen drawer). The DNA quantification for the knife blade was done using a device called the Qubit Fluorometer, which is not sufficiently accurate for low levels of DNA to actually give quantification for those low levels. It simply reports "too low" which may mean that no DNA is detected. The lab tech, Stefanoni, ran a DNA profile test on a "too low" sample alleged obtained from the knife blade and reported a minute trace LCN (low copy number) DNA profile. On other "too low" samples she did not bother to conduct such tests (probably, because there really is no DNA there). The LCN DNA she measured from the blade is likely from contamination; her laboratory did not have the proper "housekeeping" controls to prevent such contamination, and she did not use a validated LCN DNA method. In fact, while she testified in court that her laboratory never experienced contamination, her records, when eventually they were turned in to the defense, showed clear signs of contamination at levels similar to LCN DNA.

The handle of the knife shows a clear profile of Amanda Knox's DNA; this is to be expected, since Amanda spent time in Raffaele's apartment and cooked with him. She recalls using the knife, in her book Waiting to be Heard, for slicing tomatoes. Vegetable starch was detected on the blade when examined by experts appointed by the Hellmann court, showing that the knife blade had not been washed any more than, let us say, many college students would attempt to wash utensils, contrary to prosecution claims of a bleach or other thorough washing. Note also, a bleach washing would destroy all DNA.

3. DNA from several males, possibly including Raffaele Sollecito, was detected on the bra clasp. This is an obvious sign of contamination. The clasp was improperly handled, as shown in police video, upon its collection by the forensic police wearing dirty gloves, after it had laid on the floor of the cottage, apparently under assorted debris, for 46 days after the discovery of the murder.

 

[Kauffer]

An interesting discovery

The Machiavelli account has cited the published work of Webb, Tobe and Barni as being supportive of his position with regard to the luminol positive/TMB negative samples found at the apartment in December 2007.

It turns out that Barni is none other than Filippo Barni and that one of his co-authors is Andrea Berti. If these names mean nothing to you, you may be surprised to discover that they are the authors of the Barni-Berti report of the trace 36I, found on the infamous kitchen knife and thus, experts from the Carabinieri.

The work to which the Machiavelli account refers is, with the names of all the co-authors:

"Forensic application of the luminol reaction as a presumptive test for latent blood detection"

Filippo Barnia, Simon W. Lewis, Andrea Bertia, Gordon M. Miskelly, Giampietro Lago

Signor Lago is also employed by the Carabinieri.

http://chem-faculty.lsu.edu/McCarle...es_SP2008/Barni_Talanta_Luminol_Forensics.pdf

As I understand it - and please correct me if I am wrong- the Barni-Berti report stands in marked contrast to the Stefanoni report in that it discloses comprehensive raw data to the defence and to the court. Assuming this is true, one wonders why this report should not be cited as evidence of how evidence should be presented by real scientists.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_DNA_Report_For_Sample_36i

 

[Numbers]

The system has precedents, but only Supreme Court precedents. The only precedents which are authoritative in practice, however, are the SU Cassazione rulings. The other Cassazione rulings are mostly considered derivatives from DU rulings or from Costitutional Court rulings, so they are used as reference too, but usually reports quote the SU rulings (Hellmann and Galati quoted the same SU ruling). Not always the quotes are explicit, sometimes you can spot the repetition of the wording without explicit citation.
The Supreme Court precedents are not exactly the equivalent of a case-law precedent system. The SC rulings are always somehow more abstract and general compare to the typical case-law style.
The Italian state also has Constitutional Court jurisprudence.
In addition to that, should be reminded that the Italian System uses the Roman-German law tradition, this means there is a corpus of scholar interpretations which belongs to the state and works in lieu of a state of precedents, albeit it is made of abstract principles and not of practice precedents. For this you csn da the Roman Law systems are based on tradition instead of precedents.

Mach,
Thanks for this information. I will follow-up with some searches on the internet, looking for even more details. As you may have noticed, I find legal systems, courts, and constitutions interesting.

 

[carbonjam72]

'The Mignini Shuffle'; a dance step around the evidence...

To those who have been arguing along the theme " Knox in the murder room" over the last days: something you should know, is that "placing Knox in the murder room" is not a task for any court under Italian law. No judge would be required to determine whether a guilty party was in the murder room.
The task of a court is to determine legal responsibility.

Mach, you seem to be evading the point here. There is no sign of Amanda in the murder room, but there is a significant amount of evidence of Rudy Guede.

You refuse to acknowledge the significance of this fact openly, but you do acknowledge its significance by your arguments, as you try to make up for the missing elements of evidence.

1. If Amanda and Raf were there WITH RUDY, then where are their footprints in Meredith's blood, WITH RUDY'S FOOTPRINTS?

(so you argue contrary to known science that a preliminary luminol reaction is sufficient to place Amanda and Raf's feet in Meredith's blood, yet are unable to show what puddle of blood they stepped in to create that effect).

2. If Amanda and Raf assaulted Meredith WITH RUDY, then where are their DNA samples in that room, where the murder occurred, on and in the Victim, WITH RUDY'S DNA?

(so you argue that Amanda's DNA outside the murder room, in the house where she lived and Raf visited, is incriminating. There is a reason Dr Peter Gill has used the Kercher case as a textbook example of how the improper use of DNA evidence can lead to a miscarriage of justice).

3. If they were WITH RUDY when he assaulted Meredith, where are their fingerprints, palm prints, etc, WITH RUDY'S?

(SO you, and Nenicini and Mignini et als, argue that THE ABSENCE of Amnda's identified fingerprints in her own home, is evidence of a clean-up. You argue this, because the absence of any trace of Amanda in the room where Meredith was killed, is inconsistent with Amanda having been present. A DNA and blood clean-up is impossible inside the murder room, so you argue for vague suggestions of a clean-up OUT SIDE THE MURDER ROOM. You know its a point of fatal weakness in your argument, so you throw in something that sounds similar, hoping what? No one will notice your argument makes no sense? Who cares that Quintavale is a liar, his testimony that Amanda was buying cleaning products is irrelevant to the obvious fact there WAS NO CLEAN-UP IN THE MURDER ROOM, AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CLEAN-UP OUTSIDE THAT ROOM.

4. The absence of evidence of Amanda and Raf IN THE ROOM WHERE MEREDITH WAS KILLED, but enormous evidence of Rudy IN THAT ROOM, MAKES IT LOOK LIKE RUDY IS GUILTY, and Amanda and Raf are innocent.

(So you/prosecution argue that the break-in was staged TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE RUDY COMMITTED A BREAK-IN. Because you are making an argument that makes up for the hole in your argument as to why the murder room LOOKS LIKE RUDY IS GUILTY, and LOOKS LIKE Amanda and Raf are inncoent.

You aren't making arguments here Mach, you are refusing to confront evidence.
The more I read these pages, the more convinced I become that the ECHR will have to, and indeed will, make a precedent setting ruling in this case. Because it is the most egregiously unfair and fabricated case any of them have ever come across.

This Mignini you have is a rare specimen. It's long past time you put him away where he could be studied by psychiatrists for the benefit of future generations.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Kauffer,
Where in that article does it state a positive Luminol with a negative TMB means blood?

 

[Kauffer]

Luminol/TMB

Kauffer,
Where in that article does it state a positive Luminol with a negative TMB means blood?

It doesn't!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Lol. Yeah I didn't see any mention of TMB in that article either. Machiavelli care to comment/disappear/obfuscate?

 

[Kauffer]

From Barni-Berti et al on Luminol

Lol. Yeah I didn't see any mention of TMB in that article either. Machiavelli care to comment/disappear/obfuscate?

Another interesting extract from page 907 of the already linked Barni paper:

"Of particular relevance in the forensic use of luminol are the interfering effects from plant peroxidases which are mostly abundant in fibrous plant material from fruits and vegetables (including the pulp and juice of fruits) but are also found with chemical variations among photosynthetic microorganisms [69,114]. In the presence of these enzymes, and to a lesser extent with other plant compounds such as the Mn2+ in Photosystem II [115] and/or the whole chloroplast [116], the luminol test can produce false positive indications often showing undetectable differences in light emission characteristics from that seen with blood [63,114]."

No support for Niccolo there either.

 

[Kauffer]

Barni-Berti on luminol

"Commonly encountered examples of the second category of interferents, namely compounds with strong oxidizing properties towards luminol, are sodium hypochlorite, potassium permanganate and iodine. These species are present in many household and industrial chemical solutions, including insecticides, cleaning agents, disinfectants or antiseptics [51,95,121–123]."

Page 907

 

[Kauffer]

Part 3 Barni-Berti on luminol

"The final category of interfering substances covers a range of compounds which can be found in materials such as domestic and commercial oils, various glues, carpets, sinks, automobile seats, paints and varnishes, and many kinds of soils [63,114,135]. These substances are often able to catalyse the chemilumines- cence almost as effectively as does the blood, but, due to their complex chemical composition, the exact mechanism underlying these interferences is not yet completely understood."

Page 908

 

[Numbers]

"The final category of interfering substances covers a range of compounds which can be found in materials such as domestic and commercial oils, various glues, carpets, sinks, automobile seats, paints and varnishes, and many kinds of soils [63,114,135]. These substances are often able to catalyse the chemilumines- cence almost as effectively as does the blood, but, due to their complex chemical composition, the exact mechanism underlying these interferences is not yet completely understood."

Page 908

And Perugia, in Umbria, the place where the pigment umber originated, has soil full of iron oxide and manganese oxide, ideal for setting off the luminol CL.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

feckless forensics

Btw, about luminol, I cited Webb et al., Tobe et al., Barni et al., and others; nobody else was able to disprove the existence of multiple studies finding out that Luminol is by far the most sensitive blood test, and more specific than TMB.

Machiavelli,

All you did was prove that lemon juice interferes with the TMB test. We cited those studies and many others, which proved that your interpretation was hogwash. Luminol reacts to bleach, Draino, and probably Comet cleanser (which produces bleach when water is added) and other cleaning agents. We also cited evidence that HemaTrace is both more sensitive than luminol is and will not react to false positives the way that luminol does. Your claims are no better than feckless.
EDT
Barni and coworkers wrote about compounds that create or enhance luminol chemiluminescence, "1. compounds showing a catalytic true peroxidase or peroxidase-like activity;
2. compounds with a high oxidizing capacity towards luminol;
3. compounds with a complex chemical composition with an undefined action mechanism towards luminol mixture.
SNIP
Commonly encountered examples of the second category of interferents, namely compounds with strong oxidizing properties towards luminol, are sodium hypochlorite, potassium permanganate and iodine. These species are present in many household and industrial chemical solutions, including insecticides, cleaning agents, disinfectants or antiseptics [51,95,121–123]."