Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
Don't think I missed the point. Maybe you did. Prosecution is private and selective because it's defamation, not calunnia.
Click to expand...

You are totally wrong, because the "private" defamation suit was launched by an authority (the prosecutor, IIRC). By definition, it may not be calunnia, but the effect of quenching the rights of individuals is about the same, and will be judged as such by the ECHR.
 
This is a pro-Knoxes' straw man. Stefanoni only said they never happened to have the evidence that a contamination problem had occurred on a sample.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust a statement from any lab that has been in operation for any significant amount of time that they have not had at least one contaminated sample.

Also, QCs are in place to show evidence of LACK of contamination. You have to show evidence of non-contamination, generally, not contamination. I work in an environmental field. I am not currently an analyst. I manage the data validation side of the operation. I was previously a chemist at another environmental lab. Most of our work there had to do with hazardous waste permitting, which meant it had to be legally defensible for regulatory purposes.

At both places we have quality check samples in place that are performed with each analytical batch and a given sample frequency. If called to testify, we use these checks to "defend" our data. We also have procedures in place for the instance where these QC checks fail. And they DO fail despite that we are regarded as one of the (if not THE) best in the world at what we do.

I would take issue with any lab that produce control charts that never showed any failures and never had any blanks fail. A correct response would be something along the line of:

"We have quality control checks in place to evaluate the validity of each sample result and protocols we follow when these controls show failure. Here are the results of the quality control samples associated with these samples, and here are control charts for the period of time surrounding these analysis. You may note a few failures on the control chart. Here is documentation of those failures and the corrective action we took to address them." For regulatory purposes (and crime lab cases presumably) you would also need extensive chain of custody documentation.

So saying there was never any indication that a sample was contaminated doesn't cut it. The documentation supporting that claim is essential. This would include raw data files, by the way. In chromatography, for example, you can't always rely on the computer for evaluation. There are occasionally interference peaks that don't separate adequately under the method you are running.

The scientific aspects of this case are jut a cluster___k, in my opinion. From the luminol fiasco to the body temperature, to the digestion time...it's unreal. I actually came to this assuming guilt. But the science just...wow.

One thing that really fascinates me is the whole emphasis that has been placed in some places on how attractive Amanda Knox is. "Foxy Knoxy" and all that. She's reasonably attractive, but not that special. She wouldn't stand out on the quad of any U.S. university or attract any particular attention at the mall. I doubt there are many people defending her because they are enamored with her beauty.

The case is interesting because of the circumstances of the "evidence" and the differences in U.S. and Italian legal systems. I'm pretty critical of the U.S. courts, but this case makes me appreciate our system a lot more.
 
Machiavelli said:
Don't think I missed the point. Maybe you did. Prosecution is private and selective because it's defamation, not calunnia.
Click to expand...

Please don't say things like that just as I'm taking a sip of coffee. "Prosecution is private and selective."

That was my point. A predatory, selective prosecution aimed at Knox's parents. Follain, friend to your criminal mentor, Mr . Mignini, escaped. How do you explain that... in a way that does not cause fits of laughter!?
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
I wouldn't trust a statement from any lab that has been in operation for any significant amount of time that they have not had at least one contaminated sample.

Also, QCs are in place to show evidence of LACK of contamination. You have to show evidence of non-contamination, generally, not contamination. I work in an environmental field. I am not currently an analyst. I manage the data validation side of the operation. I was previously a chemist at another environmental lab. Most of our work there had to do with hazardous waste permitting, which meant it had to be legally defensible for regulatory purposes.

At both places we have quality check samples in place that are performed with each analytical batch and a given sample frequency. If called to testify, we use these checks to "defend" our data. We also have procedures in place for the instance where these QC checks fail. And they DO fail despite that we are regarded as one of the (if not THE) best in the world at what we do.

I would take issue with any lab that produce control charts that never showed any failures and never had any blanks fail. A correct response would be something along the line of:

"We have quality control checks in place to evaluate the validity of each sample result and protocols we follow when these controls show failure. Here are the results of the quality control samples associated with these samples, and here are control charts for the period of time surrounding these analysis. You may note a few failures on the control chart. Here is documentation of those failures and the corrective action we took to address them." For regulatory purposes (and crime lab cases presumably) you would also need extensive chain of custody documentation.

So saying there was never any indication that a sample was contaminated doesn't cut it. The documentation supporting that claim is essential. This would include raw data files, by the way. In chromatography, for example, you can't always rely on the computer for evaluation. There are occasionally interference peaks that don't separate adequately under the method you are running.

The scientific aspects of this case are jut a cluster___k, in my opinion. From the luminol fiasco to the body temperature, to the digestion time...it's unreal. I actually came to this assuming guilt. But the science just...wow.

One thing that really fascinates me is the whole emphasis that has been placed in some places on how attractive Amanda Knox is. "Foxy Knoxy" and all that. She's reasonably attractive, but not that special. She wouldn't stand out on the quad of any U.S. university or attract any particular attention at the mall. I doubt there are many people defending her because they are enamored with her beauty.

The case is interesting because of the circumstances of the "evidence" and the differences in U.S. and Italian legal systems. I'm pretty critical of the U.S. courts, but this case makes me appreciate our system a lot more.
Click to expand...

As you are probably aware, the raw data - electronic data files - from the DNA testing were withheld from the defense. Furthermore, contamination of some controls - positive and negative - was observed in the quantification data provided by the police forensic lab. Possibly they had not noticed it.

In addition, results from a large number of DNA samples has been withheld from the defense. These include many of the results of key importance, such as most of the rape kit findings, and finding from a purported semen stain on a pillow that had been under the victim's body. Presumably these results have been withheld because they are exculpatory.

The so-called inculpatory DNA evidence is clearly contamination. But the Italian courts demand that the defendants show how the contamination happened.

ETA: It's doubtful that the Italian police forensic lab is familiar with the concepts of QC or control charts. The "doctor" in practical charge would probably be under investigation for perjury and official misconduct if she were in the US and carried out the same type of "forensic investigation".
 
Last edited:
RWVBWL,

It should work now. Let me know if it doesn't.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Testimony-of-Jovana-Popovic.pdf

Mignini and Massei ask the same questions repeatedly throughout.

PROSECUTOR – Dr Mignini
QUESTION - Excuse me, do you know Raffaele Sollecito?
ANSWER - Yes.

[....]

QUESTION - So, you know Raffaele Sollecito?
ANSWER - Yes.
Click to expand...

This last part is a lot like Raffaele's interrogation and what he wrote in his book. The Amanda made me lie line was suggested to him just like "cold tone" was suggested to Popovic.

QUESTION - The words ‘cold tone’ which correctly are stated on record, words spoken by you on the 12th of November, were they suggested to you?
ANSWER - The expression ‘cold tone’ yes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Some jurisprudence about art. 104 § 4 (denial of counsel) can be found in the discussion dossier at the Chamber of Deputees archives:


http://documenti.camera.it/leg16/dossier/testi/gi0840_0.htm


A relevant quote:



References are to: Cass., Sez. II, 21.3.1990 (Ghidini) , saying exceptional requirements must be understood as special requirements about the ongoing of investigations, when "investigation are at risk of suffering a misleading or a prejudice as an effect of the counsel".
And to: Cass., Sez. VI, 10.6.2003 (Vinci); Cass., Sez. VI, 27.6.2001, (D'Ambrogio); Cass., Sez. VI, 20.4.2001 (P.M. in proc. Pignalosa), stating that the exceptional precaution consists in the need "to avoid the possibility of setting pre-planned and shared specious defensive versions".

The legal dossier contains a commentary about the law. It points out (below) that the specific topic of delay of the right to counsel has not been an object of a judgement by the ECHR. But there is an orientation of the European Court that acknowledges that a suspect's right to access an attorney may be limited or delayed for "compelling" cautionary reasons, which are acknowledged to be of three kind: a) security, b) public order, and c) to protect the effectiveness of criminal investigations.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this.

"Il richiamo al comma precedente, contenuto nel comma 4, induce a ritenere che anche il provvedimento del p.m. debba presentare una motivazione (in questo senso Cass., Sez. I, 26.3.1992, Morreale)."

I think this means that the p.m. (Mignini in this case?) must make a motivation in the event that right to counsel is restricted. This would be to document the specific and exceptional (necessità fuori dal comune) circumstances, and the reason to believe that preplanned arrangements will be put in place (l'esigenza di evitare la possibilità dell'impostazione di preordinate e comuni tesi difensive di comodo), by the counsels if they are allowed contact with their clients. The latter will be difficult as they had no counsel, particularly in the case of Knox. The ECHR will expect to see this motivation.

The jurisprudence recognises the right to access to counsel early, to prevent the suspect from making incriminating statements. (Nella sentenza Salduz c. Turchia del 2008, la Corte ha escluso che l’art. 6 conferisca al detenuto, in via assoluta, il diritto di conferire con il difensore fin dal momento del fermo o dell’arresto. Essa ha – sì – riconosciuto l’importanza del diritto a poter preparare la propria difesa sin da tale momento, specie in ragione della necessità di evitare che in una fase precoce del procedimento penale l’incolpato renda dichiarazioni a proprio carico, senza l’assistenza di un avvocato. ) Any limitation has to be for definite reasons (limitazioni per motivate ragioni). The ECHR will wish to see these.

I note that it references Simons v Belgium 2012 as grounds for limitation. I am sure correspondents with their fingers on the pulse of ECHR rulings will clarify this case.

I think that this is exactly the sort of case ECHR will wish to rule on as it will clarify the grounds to restrict access to counsel in Italy.
 
I seem to remember allusions were made that Sollecito's family had Mafia connections. Knox was accused of talking to her mother in Mafia code. Presumably Mach will have us believe Mignini thought that he had stumbled on a Mafia 'hit'. That the family consigliere (is that the correct term?) would be summoned who would arrange for police to be bribed, evidence to disappear, and the frighteners to be put on Stephanoni.

I am not sure this will be believable at the ECHR.
 
Planigale said:
Thank you for this.

"Il richiamo al comma precedente, contenuto nel comma 4, induce a ritenere che anche il provvedimento del p.m. debba presentare una motivazione (in questo senso Cass., Sez. I, 26.3.1992, Morreale)."

I think this means that the p.m. (Mignini in this case?) must make a motivation in the event that right to counsel is restricted. This would be to document the specific and exceptional (necessità fuori dal comune) circumstances, and the reason to believe that preplanned arrangements will be put in place (l'esigenza di evitare la possibilità dell'impostazione di preordinate e comuni tesi difensive di comodo), by the counsels if they are allowed contact with their clients. The latter will be difficult as they had no counsel, particularly in the case of Knox. The ECHR will expect to see this motivation.

The jurisprudence recognises the right to access to counsel early, to prevent the suspect from making incriminating statements. (Nella sentenza Salduz c. Turchia del 2008, la Corte ha escluso che l’art. 6 conferisca al detenuto, in via assoluta, il diritto di conferire con il difensore fin dal momento del fermo o dell’arresto. Essa ha – sì – riconosciuto l’importanza del diritto a poter preparare la propria difesa sin da tale momento, specie in ragione della necessità di evitare che in una fase precoce del procedimento penale l’incolpato renda dichiarazioni a proprio carico, senza l’assistenza di un avvocato. ) Any limitation has to be for definite reasons (limitazioni per motivate ragioni). The ECHR will wish to see these.

I note that it references Simons v Belgium 2012 as grounds for limitation. I am sure correspondents with their fingers on the pulse of ECHR rulings will clarify this case.
I think that this is exactly the sort of case ECHR will wish to rule on as it will clarify the grounds to restrict access to counsel in Italy.
Click to expand...

My reading on this is that it says that the detention was legal, the case was on-going so there was no ruling on whether the restriction of access to counsel was a breach of right to a fair trial.
 
Dougm said:
You see a conspiracy in everything don't you? Why did I post in response to your post? Bored with other things I was doing, I guess, so I opted to read ISF for a few mins.
Click to expand...

No, not a conspiracy – just the standard groupthink response.


Seems like it might be a better idea for you to explain how and when that actually happened. Because it didn't.
Click to expand...

OK – denial of reality it is then. Very little more to be said on this issue. If you are unaware of these basic case facts any meaningful discussion
Is obviously not possible.



For sake of argument, everyone agrees (imagine that!) that RS said that AK went out that night, and came back around 1 a.m. Mostly because he told us he did. I just find it interesting that we have less record of his actual statement than we do for AK's, yet we treat it like we know the exact words.
Click to expand...

No everyone doesn’t – Less than 1 day ago Kauffer was claiming that It never happened :mad: & that if it had RS would have used it to his advantage in the trial.
Recently Dan O IIRC was still claiming that all RS said was that ‘he couldn’t be sure that she hadn’t gone out after he fell asleep’ – the standard groupie mantra.
Your denial of the fact that RS blamed AK for his earlier lies is on a par with these arguments – if perhaps not so spectacularly ‘special’ it is certainly spectacularly dishonest or ill-informed.
And this, 4 (or 7) years down the line.




So, you are assuming, because some people (a very few, in my opinion) have seen the crime scene photos, even some that have not been made public, that those same people have access to the entire case file, and have permission (and would further choose) to release whatever they want to the public? REALLY??
Click to expand...

No I’m not assuming anything. A poster here Charlie Wilkes claims Knox’s family gave him the case file.

What is your position? That Knox’s family gave certain of Amanda’s fans images of the naked corpse of the woman she murdered for further distribution but withheld or forbid publication of RS’s Nov 5th statement.

Is that it ? It might make some sense given the nature of the campaign and support base.
 
platonov said:
No, not a conspiracy – just the standard groupthink response.




OK – denial of reality it is then. Very little more to be said on this issue. If you are unaware of these basic case facts any meaningful discussion
Is obviously not possible.





No everyone doesn’t – Less than 1 day ago Kauffer was claiming that It never happened :mad: & that if it had RS would have used it to his advantage in the trial.
Recently Dan O IIRC was still claiming that all RS said was that ‘he couldn’t be sure that she hadn’t gone out after he fell asleep’ – the standard groupie mantra.
Your denial of the fact that RS blamed AK for his earlier lies is on a par with these arguments – if perhaps not so spectacularly ‘special’ it is certainly spectacularly dishonest or ill-informed.
And this, 4 (or 7) years down the line.






No I’m not assuming anything. A poster here Charlie Wilkes claims Knox’s family gave him the case file.

What is your position? That Knox’s family gave certain of Amanda’s fans images of the naked corpse of the woman she murdered for further distribution but withheld or forbid publication of RS’s Nov 5th statement.

Is that it ? It might make some sense given the nature of the campaign and support base.
Click to expand...

What's the nature of the campaign and support base? Can you expand on that? Is there a conspiracy?
 
platonov said:
No, not a conspiracy – just the standard groupthink response.




OK – denial of reality it is then. Very little more to be said on this issue. If you are unaware of these basic case facts any meaningful discussion
Is obviously not possible.





No everyone doesn’t – Less than 1 day ago Kauffer was claiming that It never happened :mad: & that if it had RS would have used it to his advantage in the trial.
Recently Dan O IIRC was still claiming that all RS said was that ‘he couldn’t be sure that she hadn’t gone out after he fell asleep’ – the standard groupie mantra.
Your denial of the fact that RS blamed AK for his earlier lies is on a par with these arguments – if perhaps not so spectacularly ‘special’ it is certainly spectacularly dishonest or ill-informed.
And this, 4 (or 7) years down the line.






No I’m not assuming anything. A poster here Charlie Wilkes claims Knox’s family gave him the case file.

What is your position? That Knox’s family gave certain of Amanda’s fans images of the naked corpse of the woman she murdered for further distribution but withheld or forbid publication of RS’s Nov 5th statement.

Is that it ? It might make some sense given the nature of the campaign and support base.
Click to expand...

'Forbade'. Platonov, why are we going over all this again when it has all been explained about 8 threads ago? Do try to keep up at the back.
 
Bill Williams said:
Please don't say things like that just as I'm taking a sip of coffee. "Prosecution is private and selective."

That was my point. A predatory, selective prosecution aimed at Knox's parents. Follain, friend to your criminal mentor, Mr . Mignini, escaped. How do you explain that... in a way that does not cause fits of laughter!?
Click to expand...

I don't know why after all these years you decide to pretend such dumbness. The prosecution on defamation is launched by private parties. The public prosecutor acts only on request of private parties on this charge.
 
Machiavelli said:
I don't know why after all these years you decide to pretend such dumbness. The prosecution on defamation is launched by private parties. The public prosecutor acts only on request of private parties on this charge.
Click to expand...

Um, excuse me, but isn't the private party you're referring to the public prosecutor?
 
Planigale said:
Thank you for this.

"Il richiamo al comma precedente, contenuto nel comma 4, induce a ritenere che anche il provvedimento del p.m. debba presentare una motivazione (in questo senso Cass., Sez. I, 26.3.1992, Morreale)."

I think this means that the p.m. (Mignini in this case?) must make a motivation in the event that right to counsel is restricted. This would be to document the specific and exceptional (necessità fuori dal comune) circumstances, and the reason to believe that preplanned arrangements will be put in place (l'esigenza di evitare la possibilità dell'impostazione di preordinate e comuni tesi difensive di comodo), by the counsels if they are allowed contact with their clients. The latter will be difficult as they had no counsel, particularly in the case of Knox. The ECHR will expect to see this motivation.

The jurisprudence recognises the right to access to counsel early, to prevent the suspect from making incriminating statements. (Nella sentenza Salduz c. Turchia del 2008, la Corte ha escluso che l’art. 6 conferisca al detenuto, in via assoluta, il diritto di conferire con il difensore fin dal momento del fermo o dell’arresto. Essa ha – sì – riconosciuto l’importanza del diritto a poter preparare la propria difesa sin da tale momento, specie in ragione della necessità di evitare che in una fase precoce del procedimento penale l’incolpato renda dichiarazioni a proprio carico, senza l’assistenza di un avvocato. ) Any limitation has to be for definite reasons (limitazioni per motivate ragioni). The ECHR will wish to see these.

I note that it references Simons v Belgium 2012 as grounds for limitation. I am sure correspondents with their fingers on the pulse of ECHR rulings will clarify this case.

I think that this is exactly the sort of case ECHR will wish to rule on as it will clarify the grounds to restrict access to counsel in Italy.
Click to expand...

Actually there is no reasonable ground to believe the ECHR would look into the issue at all. There is no reasonable ground to believe that defence submission to the ECHR will be significantly different from the reasons for recourse they had submitted to the SC, which were only about the usability of Knox statements (the delay of counsel was raised before the investigating judge and declared manifestly inadmissible).
There can't be an ECHR ruling that "clarifies the ground to restrict access to counsel in Italy"; the ECHR can't rule on "grounds that work in Italy", the Convention is valid everywhere and general; the ECHR also cannot establish the specific regulations; moreover it also has already an orientation acknowledging "good reasons" among which there's "effectiveness of criminal investigation".
The argument about motivations is pointless: motivations are made for judges, not for the ECHR, and the purpose of written motivation would be to request an investigating judge. But Mignini did not present a request to prolong the delay.
 
Diocletus said:
Um, excuse me, but isn't the private party you're referring to the public prosecutor?
Click to expand...

The public prosecutor is now a Florence magistrate.
At the beginning, the investigation was launched only on a defamation lawsuit from police officers.
Then, a judge later decided that Mignini was also an offended party, albeit Mignini didn't think so.
 
Machiavelli said:
This is your other fallacy. You say this, because you fail to acknowledge that Knox's calunnia is a crime on its own, it cannot be considered as a statement "derived" from some external circumstance, and it is not an "incriminating" statement elicited from a suspect since Knox was not a suspect of the crime of calunnia; she was suspected only of crimes that, at the time, were not connected to the crime of calunnia (since the latter didn't exist yet).
Click to expand...

I repeat: a statement derived from an art 3 violation cannot ever be used.
 
Machiavelli said:
The public prosecutor is now a Florence magistrate.
At the beginning, the investigation was launched only on a defamation lawsuit from police officers.
Then, a judge later decided that Mignini was also an offended party, albeit Mignini didn't think so.
Click to expand...

What is the circumstance of Mignini's case against Raffaele and Gumbel?

Is it defamation or calunnia? Or something else? I know its related to Raf's book 'Honor Bound', but that's all I know.

What is this hearing coming up on January 22 supposed to accomplish?

Will the defendants Raf and Gumbel have an opportunity for discovery, and in general to defend their claims? Or is it a fait accompli that they lose?

How long will this case take to play out?

What's at stake? Prison or just money and pride?
 
Machiavelli said:
The public prosecutor is now a Florence magistrate.
At the beginning, the investigation was launched only on a defamation lawsuit from police officers.
Then, a judge later decided that Mignini was also an offended party, albeit Mignini didn't think so.
Click to expand...

You are avoiding the issue. Why was Follain not also charged?
 
What's amazing about your narrative about Mignini's participation in this, is how impotent you make Mignini, Machiavelli.

All that happens, according to you, is that he's passively carried along by others. For instance it was others who went after Curt & Edda Knox, and left out Follain.

It was the all powerful Amanda Knox who de facto directed and manipulated her own interrogation - leaving Mignini with egg on his face after through no fault of his own.

I now believe this is why you do not put the details of this case onto a timeline. Mignini really comes across as impotent as implied in you defence of him.

It's always someone else to blame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom