• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
Major portion? What? No major portion, except in your view if things. In your mind mentioning Halloween was a major portion of the prosecution arguments; in reality it had zero importance. You still believe a story of "different motives", maybe you still believe there was some major change in the motive, or that motive is an argument or that has a relevance whatsoever. The obvious fact is Micheli accepted the prosecution's charges and evidence in toto, except the charge of money theft.
Click to expand...

The reason it **ended up** having no importance is that the judge called it a fantasy!!!!!!

I love the way you argue!
 
Bill Williams said:
What you implied above was that the judiciary would change its point of view because Raffaele had said unkind things about them, not because of information about the crime therein.
Click to expand...

What I said was that defense attorneys would rather their clients would not give the prosecution any more ammo than they had. It's always possible that the client could say something that contradicts what they have already said so defense attorneys want to control the dialogue.

How this implies that Italian courts are corrupt is a connection that you made.
 
Machiavelli said:
I know that this about the DNA ratios is your argument on the knife evidence. But I disagree with it, I consider it baseless and pointless. The argument has several flaws that make it illogical; I won't mention all of them, but we may just point out some.
1. Knox's DNA and Meredith's DNA originate from different parts of the knife. There is in principle no reason to assume that the handle was cleaned by the murderer as carefully as the point.
2. Knox's DNA is an indication about who was holding the knife, but it must be understood that, from a logical point of view as a piece of evidence, Knox's DNA is far a less important finding compared to the victim's DNA on the blade, therefore any reasoning or deduction about its origin would be secondary and have no effect. You can't take something that doesn't have determinant implications as if on the same level of something that has, and you cannot use the first to disprove the second.
3. It is not true that the knife is the principal element; this is an innocentisti theory. But it is not true. There are many pieces of evidence of independent origin, equally important, and Knox would be convicted even without knife.
4. Other biological reasons, like type of cells carrying Knox's DNA and the victim's ones are different, and may be affected differently by chemical effects of a washing (epithelial cells vs. leukocytes); also, there is some lack of ground in assuming the calculation of a ratio: Sample I was extremely small, , far below the 2007 detection capabilities, whereas sample B might well have been around 200 picograms, and we don't know anything about what the other samples would yield if tested with a more sensitive technique.
Click to expand...

1) There is no reason to assume that the victims DNA would be limited to the blade. I think even you do not believe that this is a real argument. Blood would have got on to the handle and need to have been cleaned.
2) As I think you accept there is an argument that Knox's DNA is not proof BYRD that she wielded the knife. If there is a likely alternative explanation for Knox's DNA on the knife it was the responsibility of Stefanoni to present that to the court. All I argue is that a reasonable assessment of the evidence does not result in a conclusion that the most likely explanation for Knox's DNA on the knife was that it was deposited at the time of the murder but that it was deposited post cleaning (if it was the murder weapon).
3) I completely accept as said above you believe that separate from the knife there is evidence that Knox is guilty. It is clear there is no way you will deviate from this position. I have clear criteria which if met would convince me of Knox's guilt. I have no fixed issue on people, I do have strong feelings that the prosecution science in this case is pseudo-science. I would remain of this opinion even if I was an eyewitness to the crime.
4) You really do not want to get into another argument with me about the properties of cells and whether shed epithelials are more adherent than leucocytes or have higher levels of DNA. Just take my word for it that blood is far more likely to deposit DNA on a surface than epithelials from hands, by a huge order of magnitude. Most of the epithelial layer is apoptosed keratinocytes with no analysable DNA whilst macrophages are highly adherent cells with intact DNA. We know from the electropherograms the MK DNA was NOT 200 pg, but around 40 pg. In my opinion not on the blade at all but in laboratory contamination; but that is another issue. You will not believe me when I say that this assay was so incompetently performed as to be meaningless, I know that I would never accept this result if done in my lab, (actually I would be very angry if this had happened in my lab). So we just have to agree to differ on this.

In contrast I entirely accept that from a legal PoV you say the tests were signed off because the defence had a right of observation during the testing.

I am still curious and you have never explained what are the rights of the defence observers during forensic testing. Can they insist on repeating tests themselves? Can they veto tests if they object to the methodology. Could they go into the directors office and check the QC, external audit and process control charts? Or are they limited to observation?
 
tsig said:
What I said was that defense attorneys would rather their clients would not give the prosecution any more ammo than they had. It's always possible that the client could say something that contradicts what they have already said so defense attorneys want to control the dialogue.

How this implies that Italian courts are corrupt is a connection that you made.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with your first paragraph.
 
Dan Krane on DNA discovery

Planigale said:
In contrast I entirely accept that from a legal PoV you say the tests were signed off because the defence had a right of observation during the testing.

I am still curious and you have never explained what are the rights of the defence observers during forensic testing. Can they insist on repeating tests themselves? Can they veto tests if they object to the methodology. Could they go into the directors office and check the QC, external audit and process control charts? Or are they limited to observation?
Click to expand...
Planigale,

Some years ago Dan Krane said that it was the near universal norm for the defense to have the right to discover the electronic data files. You are asking some of the right questions with regard to the putative right to observe the testing.
 
Bill Williams said:
The reason it **ended up** having no importance is that the judge called it a fantasy!!!!!!

I love the way you argue!
Click to expand...

Come on, speculations about style or themes of a party between three students have no relevance. This is something you don't understand. Speculations about circumstances of the motive intrinsically have no importance in this case, they are just opinions and speculations, sometimes only shades or ways to describe things.

What is delusional is to assert that Mignini sided with Guede. This is what you should admit. Come on, admit Mignini git a 30 years sentence against Rudy, admit that he excoriated him at his trial.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
Come on, speculations about style or themes of a party between three students has no relevance. This is something you don't understand. Speculations about circumstances of the motive intrinsically have no importance in this case, they are just opinions and speculations, sometimes only shades or ways to describe things.

What is delusional is to assert that Mignini sided with Guede. This is what you should admit. Come on, admit Mignini git a 30 years sentence against Rudy, admit that he excoriated him at his trial.
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph - spoken like someone who knows they lost this point at trial, and lost big. What else can you do but minimize the whole issue!

Second paragraph - the important thing for this thread is the way Mignini manipulated both sides of the Rudy issue. In relation to AK and RS, Mignini brought out the "poor Rudy" stuff, and played the race card.

I read parts of Mignini's examination of Guede today. Mignini was trying to manipulate Guede to say that the man he saw ((Rudy's story #3) was Raffaele. Even Guede comes across as more honest than Mignini, saying it could have been Sollecito, but then surprising Mignini with a spontaneous statement that there have been so many pictures of Sollecito in the news, that he could be mistaken.

Still, I admire the way you argue. A judge calls Mignini's theories fantasy, and you turn around claiming it was not that important anyway.

Thanks for the laugh.
 
Science and pseudo-science

Machiavelli said:
2. Knox's DNA is an indication about who was holding the knife
Click to expand...
DNA does not carry a time stamp. Stefanoni's claim that one could discern how the knife was used by where Knox's DNA was is absolutely meritless. Peter Gill called it "dangerous speculation," on p. 150 of his book. On page 153 he outlines an experiment on how to test this proposition. The alternative hypothesis, that Knox used the knife for cooking is one that it was the court's duty to consider.

The main problem with the hypothesis that the ordinary kitchen knife is the murder weapon is that it would have had to have been cleaned of blood more thoroughly than it was cleaned of DNA. However, Peel and Gill's 2004 experiment with diluted blood suggest that presumptive tests for blood have a lower limit of detection than DNA tests (p. 152). Professor Gill also outlines how to test the proposition that one can clean a knife of blood but not DNA on page 152.

36I is actually a two-person mixture between Amanda Knox and one unknown individual. I' am still waiting for the PG commenters explain the existence of the second profile.
 
Planigale said:
1) There is no reason to assume that the victims DNA would be limited to the blade. I think even you do not believe that this is a real argument. Blood would have got on to the handle and need to have been cleaned.
2) As I think you accept there is an argument that Knox's DNA is not proof BYRD that she wielded the knife. If there is a likely alternative explanation for Knox's DNA on the knife it was the responsibility of Stefanoni to present that to the court. All I argue is that a reasonable assessment of the evidence does not result in a conclusion that the most likely explanation for Knox's DNA on the knife was that it was deposited at the time of the murder but that it was deposited post cleaning (if it was the murder weapon).
3) I completely accept as said above you believe that separate from the knife there is evidence that Knox is guilty. It is clear there is no way you will deviate from this position. I have clear criteria which if met would convince me of Knox's guilt. I have no fixed issue on people, I do have strong feelings that the prosecution science in this case is pseudo-science. I would remain of this opinion even if I was an eyewitness to the crime.
4) You really do not want to get into another argument with me about the properties of cells and whether shed epithelials are more adherent than leucocytes or have higher levels of DNA. Just take my word for it that blood is far more likely to deposit DNA on a surface than epithelials from hands, by a huge order of magnitude. Most of the epithelial layer is apoptosed keratinocytes with no analysable DNA whilst macrophages are highly adherent cells with intact DNA. We know from the electropherograms the MK DNA was NOT 200 pg, but around 40 pg. In my opinion not on the blade at all but in laboratory contamination; but that is another issue. You will not believe me when I say that this assay was so incompetently performed as to be meaningless, I know that I would never accept this result if done in my lab, (actually I would be very angry if this had happened in my lab). So we just have to agree to differ on this.

(...)
Click to expand...

I'll leave aside other arguments for a moment and focus now only on one of the topics in your post.

The first thing I notice is you completely shun point 2. What you answer to point 2. looks like a mess made of arguments of physical kind disconnected from the point and arguments of law mashed together, really cobbled together avoiding the point. You also mention Stefanoni so maybe you meant to use the argument in a particularly indirect way, trying to transform it from a matter of evidence into a legal argument against Stefanoni and this is really a dreadful meshing and patching together. It seems to me you haven’t really understood the point, so I’ll try to explain again more clearly: Knox’s DNA is a non-relevant finding, in comparison to the finding of Meredith’s DNA on the blade. It means the probative implications of the two findings are not of the same magnitude, they have different magnitudes.

The finding of Meredith’s DNA is hugely stronger, as probative implications, on all logical levels, compared to the finding of Knox’s DNA. I mean at all levels, including the drawing of scenarios, deductions and conclusions from them. You shall always derive scenarios, speculations, deductions and explanations from the first findings to the second (explain the second on the basis of the first) and never the other way around.

You may not make deductions about the origin of Meredith’s DNA based on the presence of Knox’s DNA, because you can’t dismiss something intrinsically more relevant on the basis of something logically less relevant: this would be legally unacceptable.

Meredith’s DNA would be an extremely significant finding even without any Knox’s DNA, because there is no plausible justification for Kercher’s DNA on an object in a drawer inside Sollecito’s apartment, whereas Knox’s DNA on the handle itself would have rather poor relevance (except for trace "I" which has some more relevance because it shows to be likely from Knox’s blood rather than from epithelial cells – Knox’s blood being another topic which you fail to consider; note that it was not known at the time).

Setting aside for a moment the point about Knox’s blood, I repeat the logical concept: the DNA from Meredith is certainly of high relevance, whereas the finding of Knox’s DNA may be non-relevant. This must be taken together with another point: it’s a point that you miss when you say “Stefanoni should have said” that “Knox was not BRD wielding the knife”. Not only the point is legally wrong because you must always explain an irrelevant finding based on a relevant one and never the other way around, but it is wrong also because, under a legal point of view, it is intrinsically irrelevant whether Knox was wielding the knife or not.

Not only the assumption that you would like to use is the non-relevant one, but also the circumstance that you apparently wish to demonstrate is a non-relevant factual circumstance in legal terms.

Put it simply, the fact that Knox was wielding the knife is not what needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is only a circumstance, a detail which adds specificity to the scenario, and won’t change Knox’s responsibility, while the relevant piece of circumstantial evidence is Meredith’s DNA found on a weapon in Sollecito’s apartment. Who was wielding the knife is an object of conjecture, after the evidence is found; the probative value doesn’t come from there and it is not the circumstance that needs to be proven.

That said, additionally, we should mention again the fact that Knox’s blood was found on the scene, and her DNA was found in the insertion of the blade in the handle, where epithelial cells hardly get. Thus, any reasoning based on the assumption that Knox’s DNA are epithelial cells has intrinsically just a value of speculation, there is actually no need to assume they are epithelial cells bearing in mind that Knox’s blood could be an equally valid explanation. This is merely an additional point, unnecessary from a logical viewpoint, but if you like it, it also exists.

Let’s come to the last aspect of your answer to #2: you mention Stefanoni rather than just considering the probative aspect of the findings.

It seems you want to use the argument not just to make a point about DNA, but rather in an indirect way, apparently you try to use it to attack Stefanoni, using it together with some statement she said, rather than to discuss the evidence directly. In other words you try not to make an argument of science but to build a legal argument against Stefanoni, and this is a part where you mess up with legal arguments. Your argument doesn’t stand because you have no ground to attack Stefanoni’s “ethics” or reliability as a witness on this; Stefanoni didn’t say anything wrong, she expressed an opinion – considerations about Knox’s DNA on the blade having a legal value of conjectures – only making valid points and fully respecting the principles of law.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
No.

Rudy got generic mitigation on his appeal, tho happened basically on ground of consistency as a consequence of the fact that the other two suspects, meanwhile, had managed to obtain generic mitigation circumstance too.

But Mignini had nothing to do with the appeal trial where Guede git the mitigation. There was another prosecution by that time. Mignini won his case with the 30 years sentencing and with that his job on that case was closed.



On first instance there wasn't a life sentence, only a life request, but it was unrealistic given that it was a fast track trial; obviously Mignini made a hyperbolic request in order to obtain the possible maximum, that was a 30 years (would have been life without the fast track reduction) sentence. He obtained that.
On appeal, with another prosecution, Guede obtained generic mitigation (from life down to 24 years) which becomes 16 years because of the fast track reduction.
Mignini had nothing to do neither with the mitigation, nor with the reduction. He was not even working at the case any longer.



I understand that that is your source and your bible. Yet Vinci is a honest and innocent person, while Spezi is a convicted man, and Preston a proven liar.



Your problem is precisely the absence of any other source on which you may check whether the information from Spezi and Preston is true. You seem to have no contact with newspaper sources, trial papers, investigation and legal context, probably not even with the language.
Yet you buy Spezi's propaganda story about Carlizzi, and you failed to draw elementary conclusions from facts like that Mignini arrested Carlizzi calking her a false witness who talked while having no clue about facts, or the fact that Carluzzi's theory about Narducci was fundamentally different from Mignini's. When you were faced by the evidence that Mignini arrested her, you refused to draw the obvious consequence and you climbed on a contradictory and absurd idea that he Mignini may have followed Carlizzi's theories until them.



Obviously you don't have a clue about anything like testimonies and evidence



Mignini prosecuted Guede and got hm sentenced to 30 years. This is not "siding with Guede" to any reasonable person. Btw Mignini was also extremely harsh against Guede in his closing arguments. Obviously Mignini never sided with Guede, it's delusional to say so.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification of Guede's sentencing. And yes, I am at a disadvantage of language, and access to court and other materials.

The fact that Rudy originally got 30 years, gradually changed his story from Amanda wasn't there, to what? He heard her outside the cottage, or did he claim to see her? Five months after he was in jail?

Rudy's sentence got cut to 16 years from 30 years. The idea that he didn't get some benefit for changing his story from Amanda is innocent and I don't know who Raf is, to, they are both guilty seems implausible to me, given how much other dishonest crooked behavior we have seen in this case from Mignini and his accomplices. Fair point though, hard to specifically prove without someone talking.

Mignini saying 'poor Rudy', and don't let the black boy pay alone, these are efforts to lessen Guede's role as the sole killer of Meredith Kercher, a claim I believe Mignini knew was false. I absolutely believe Mignini knows Amanda and Raf are innocent, and always has known, he just doesn't care. Let me guess, my beliefs are my own?

To some degree it depends really whom you find more credible, Mignini, or Amanda and Raf. For me, that's no contest at all. I understand you take the same bet on the opposite side.

Lastly, I did try to read the links you provided on Carlizzi last time we discussed this. It was hard to discern what Mignini's case against Carlizzi in 2005 was all about. More info, or legitimate links or docs would probably help, but I appreciate your pointing those out to me.

On the other hand, Preston and Spezi's book was very specific about the use of Carlizzi in the development of first Giuttari's satanic sect theory, and then Mignini's continuation with Carlizzi in the Narducci trail cases.

If your argument that Carlizzi's satanic sect theory is different Mignini's satanic sect theory, it seems like we're pretty much in the satanic sect ball park here. But if you think their views are different, then how do they differ?

So how am I supposed to choose who's more accurate here?

Yes, Mignini seems to have had Carlizzi arrested and subject to house arrest for 1 month is what I recall reading from your links (but I might be wrong about that). Exactly what she was arrested for, the charge and so forth I can't identify. I also recall a reference that Mignini had sued her for claiming she had advised him. Again, I'm not sure about this version either.

Curatolo had also been arrested, and he was Mignini's "super-witness".

But I do believe Preston / Spezi are reliable journalists, to at least a large degree. Not perfect, but pretty good.

Whereas you won't acknowledge that no footprints in blood of anyone but Guede in the room where Meredith was killed, doesn't preclude the possibility that anyone was with Rudy when he killed Meredtih. And you refuse to admit that a negative TMB test on luminol spots means they are not blood. Experts like Dr Peter Gill, and all the others tell you Stefanoni's science results are junk, and you don't accept it.

I'm sorry Mach, I'm not always able to believe that you're a credible voice. But you have provided an enormous amount of info on an astonishing array of subjects. I just hope you won't be too terribly disappointed when Amanda and Raffaele are fully exonerated of this horrible crime.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
Excerpt From the Council of Europe, the UN, and OSCE article on Defamation Law in Italy:
(...) .
Click to expand...

Sollecito will not receive a disproportionate punishment for his defamation. But anyway making a claim of disproportionate punishment implies the admission that the defamation was committed.

The charge of defamation in Sollecito's case is the reporting of false facts about people, not expresing criticism and opinions. Either the defamatory allegations he reports are true, or they are false. If they are false (they are) he deserves to be convicted. Independently on the punishment, he would be convicted in almost any European country.
 
Machiavelli said:
Actually:
1. I only said that Knox's DNA (in particular, only one of Knox's DNA instances, trace A - but not so trace I) can be the consequence of its cleaning; not that it must be. It might be directly from wielding the knife, and not have been well cleaned like the blade.


From Strozzi:
Machiavelli, could Knox's DNA (Trace A) be on the knife as a result of her using it to prepare dinner?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
DNA does not carry a time stamp. Stefanoni's claim that one could discern how the knife was used by where Knox's DNA was is absolutely meritless. Peter Gill called it "dangerous speculation," on p. 150 of his book. On page 153 he outlines an experiment on how to test this proposition. The alternative hypothesis, that Knox used the knife for cooking is one that it was the court's duty to consider.

The main problem with the hypothesis that the ordinary kitchen knife is the murder weapon is that it would have had to have been cleaned of blood more thoroughly than it was cleaned of DNA. However, Peel and Gill's 2004 experiment with diluted blood suggest that presumptive tests for blood have a lower limit of detection than DNA tests (p. 152). Professor Gill also outlines how to test the proposition that one can clean a knife of blood but not DNA on page 152.

36I is actually a two-person mixture between Amanda Knox and one unknown individual. I' am still waiting for the PG commenters explain the existence of the second profile.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's a Y-haplotype of one of Meredith's girlfriends!
 
Dr. Kekule on the possibility of secondary transfer

Desert Fox said:
Even Meredeth's DNA could theoretically have an innocent explanation
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26055401/san-jose-case-casts-doubts-dna-evidence
Click to expand...
Desert Fox,

There are many innocent explanations, such as the one put forth by Dr. Kekule. "The DNA traces on the knife blade could have been transmitted through the hands of Amanda Knox, who lived together with the victim and used her boyfriend’s knife for cooking. The evidence would have more weight if in addition blood stains were found."

In addition, Stefanoni concentrated the sample, and if she did so under vacuum then released the vacuum, this could have introduced aerosol DNA. Airborne contamination is a serious problem for small amounts of DNA.
 
Bill Williams said:
Your first paragraph - spoken like someone who knows they lost this point at trial, and lost big. What else can you do but minimize the whole issue!

(...)
Click to expand...

Your life as a poster is in a world populated by straw men. The thoughts expressed as conjectures to descrbe possible details of a motive - on a crime where, btw, there is obviously no rational motive - are, to any reasonable person, irrelevant. But if you can't see that, what can we do? The reversal of logical value of things, as a pervasive practice, seems to me one among the distinguished features of your modus operandi as a poster, seems very deeply rooted and maybe it's part of your charachter, who knows. I'm not saying this as a snarky comment but as a consideration, for why I believe the reasonable impossiblity for me to explain something to you. It's not the only remarkable aspect of your method, but one of them, in my opinion, and may be a cognitive method rather than a calculated strategy. You think the case was based on Halloween and Manga and on a Satanic ritual theory, and based on this kind of assumption you think the prosecution "lost". You think that Nencini attributes Y-haplotypes to women and that Massei found that the suspects where psychologically normal. It's your world that works like that. You love this freedom to pick bits and crooked fragments and draw new pictures of the world rom them. I will not attempt to change your perception of the world. I note: evidently Judge Micheli must have seen things very differently from you, as. as you did remark, he accepted Mignini's case entirely, convicted and sent to trial all three as charged, as you well know.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Desert Fox,

There are many innocent explanations, such as the one put forth by Dr. Kekule. "The DNA traces on the knife blade could have been transmitted through the hands of Amanda Knox, who lived together with the victim and used her boyfriend’s knife for cooking. The evidence would have more weight if in addition blood stains were found."

In addition, Stefanoni concentrated the sample, and if she did so under vacuum then released the vacuum, this could have introduced aerosol DNA. Airborne contamination is a serious problem for small amounts of DNA.
Click to expand...

I agree. . . . If the knife had been taken apart and blood was found in the handle crack, that would be some pretty serious evidence. If done by a neutral party, I think I would switch my stance as far as guilt although likely would still believe the trial was a travesty.
 
Samson said:
The writing of the books is an extremely powerful demonstration of innocence for the following reasons.
1. They had the ability to correlate details to avoid accusations of inconsistent stories but chose not to.
2. They were either guilty or innocent.
a) If guilty they are fully aware there is a third trial to negotiate and will stay silent. This is a given. Talk of book deals to fund this third trial is an appalling risk/reward stategy, given full knowledege that their innocence status has been misjudged by Hellmann, and may well be overturned.
b) If innocent they will have listened with great care to Hellmann's judgement, recognising and knowing at every step that he is correct. They will have full belief that this logical truth will be accepted and embraced by the majority, and have no existential conception of a truth being replaced once more by a pack of lies. This does not accord in any way with people's real world experience.

The books are by this argument de facto strongly exculpatory.
Click to expand...

:)

So let me understand: you make an argument that the books are a "powerful demonstration of innocence".

And the argument is based on... intention! It is not based on the content of the books (!!!).
The books thus are a powerful demonstration of innocence independently of what they say.

Correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom