Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

This may bring Gumbel under Italian jurisdiction. But there is no need for that in order to have Sollecito under trial: he is an Italian citizen and, as such, he is always under Italian jurisdiction, weherever he commits a deed that is punishable by Italian law or brings civil responsabilites under Italian law.

I think something was published in Oggi.

What about Diocletus's point about Oggi? Was something from Raf's book published in Oggi, and would that suffice for jurisdiction in Italian courts for Gumbel?

It is weird though, that Italy feels it can "own" their citizen's behavior anywhere in the world.

Thoughts and expressions are outlawed, because the state owns your mind. Very strange notion for us here, Mach.

I think Italy's laws are too restrictive, as per the info Numbers has posted regarding suggested corrections to Italy's defamation laws from the echr, if you remember the post not too far above.

btw, is it possible there could be 'discovery' in this defamation case, to allow the defense to obtain any materials they believe might help prove their statements are true?

You mentioned previously the defendants had a "theoretical possibility" of proving their innocence. When does that part come in the process?

And will Mignini be obliged to take the stand? Can the defense ask questions to Mignini, or is that already another offense?

 

[MDDVS]

By the law, no. This is not premeditation.
A "little party" may be organized in advance, or last minute, or improvised, but not "premeditated".
But also, please note that Mignini does not say that they all three planned that days in advance together with Rudy.



It is a matter of fact that Mignini did not postulate premeditation. It is just obvious. It shouldn't be a matter of "fight" or dispute.

It's amazing how everything seems to be obvious to you. It certainly makes it much easier for you to hold your beliefs about this case.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think that's why the guilters on-line are so wedded to premeditation, where Machiavelli himself is now fighting tooth or nail to deny that Mignini had EVER postulated it.

It is a matter of fact that Mignini did not postulate premeditation. It is just obvious. It shouldn't be a matter of "fight" or dispute.

It's probably fruitless to ask, but why is it that you never correct people on the hate sites when they talk about premeditation?

 

[christianahannah]

What about Diocletus's point about Oggi? Was something from Raf's book published in Oggi, and would that suffice for jurisdiction in Italian courts for Gumbel?

It is weird though, that Italy feels it can "own" their citizen's behavior anywhere in the world.

Thoughts and expressions are outlawed, because the state owns your mind. Very strange notion for us here, Mach.

I think Italy's laws are too restrictive, as per the info Numbers has posted regarding suggested corrections to Italy's defamation laws from the echr, if you remember the post not too far above.

btw, is it possible there could be 'discovery' in this defamation case, to allow the defense to obtain any materials they believe might help prove their statements are true?

You mentioned previously the defendants had a "theoretical possibility" of proving their innocence. When does that part come in the process?

And will Mignini be obliged to take the stand? Can the defense ask questions to Mignini, or is that already another offense?

I don't think it was Raffaele's thoughts and expressions which Mignini objected to (and is taking him to court for). It was an accusation against Mignini which Mignini says is false (at least I think this is correct in part - there may be more to this than what i have written).

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli's fantasy is extraordinary. According to him Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito managed to leave no evidence in Ms Kercher's bedroom because they ran out of the room and out of the cottage before Ms Kercher (and presumably Ms Knox), really started bleeding properly. This accounts for the lack of evidence in the room from them and the absence of transfer.

(...)

I remember cases where murderers killed people with a hundred stab wounds, and they walked away without bringing blood around in the hime. There is just absolutely nothing unrealistic in this.
Often the stabbing murderers get dirty with blood if they stab multiple times and they remain close to the victim. But they often do not leave any secondary blood traces (handprints, footprints etc.). Often they take away the murder weapon without even leaving droplets from it.
In this case, the main weapon was not even taken, it was left on the bed sheet.

The typical innocentisti belief that some asserting deduction can drawn from the absence of something, is exactly what I consider utterly censurable.
In fact, as a general rule, conclusions can't be drawn from an absence of findings or from an absence of confirmation. I am not saying that this can never happen, but in general, when a deduction of something from the absence of evidence is posisible, this is due to the concurrence of peculiar and stringent conditions, and it is rare. Deduction of something from absence of evidence is an extremely problematic process, that would be possible only in rare events and would depend on some other set of peculiar and precisely defined conditions, which may consist in other actual findings (classic example: an "interruption" of trail of tracks in the snow "shows" some event; while the absence of a trail doesn't show much). As a rule, only findings are to be considered evidence of something, while the absence of them is not.

 

[Desert Fox]

Actually there is no interpretation at all in Stefanoni's report. However, Stefanoni at the preliminary hearing was testifying as a technical consultant for the prosecution.

The Berti-Barni perizia refers to "fluidi biologici" (p. 15) as those fluids from the human body that can be recognized specifically through testing their own specific monoclonal antibodies each of which recognizes its own epitope protein antigen.
At p. 82, the report says "Amanda Marie Knox contributed with her own biological fluids to trace I".
It clearly say, not only "fluidi biologici", but "propri fluidi biologici", where propri is an aggettivo possessivo that puts in relation the fluids with Amanda Marie Knox, and means "her own".
So the biological fluids are liquids that come from the system of Amanda Marie Knox, certainly not from the testing tube.

There are now some tests that allow one to tell exactly what the origin of biological materials are through RNA but these tests are still highly experimental. Maybe in a few years they will become regular.

If you read the l literature on DNA, one cannot tell the origins of DNA - if it is blood, skin, hair, etc. What you wrote is nonsense. You are making Italian forensics to be the laughing stock of the world.

Generally, when the experts of the world in a specific field tell you that you are wrong, it might be best if you examine your own beliefs. If you examine your beliefs and argued that you are still right and give reasons, at least you are bringing a case. You are not even examining the counter arguments and just declaring yourself right.

 

[Bill Williams]

I remember cases where murderers killed people with a hundred stab wounds, and they walked away without bringing blood around in the hime. There is just absolutely nothing unrealistic in this.
Often the stabbing murderers get dirty with blood if they stab multiple times and they remain close to the victim. But they often do not leave any secondary blood traces (handprints, footprints etc.). Often they take away the murder weapon without even leaving droplets from it.
In this case, the main weapon was not even taken, it was left on the bed sheet.

The typical innocentisti belief that some asserting deduction can drawn from the absence of something, is exactly what I consider utterly censurable.
In fact, as a general rule, conclusions can't be drawn from an absence of findings or from an absence of confirmation. I am not saying that this can never happen, but in general, when a deduction of something from the absence of evidence is posisible, this is due to the concurrence of peculiar and stringent conditions, and it is rare. Deduction of something from absence of evidence is an extremely problematic process, that would be possible only in rare events and would depend on some other set of peculiar and precisely defined conditions, which may consist in other actual findings (classic example: an "interruption" of trail of tracks in the snow "shows" some event; while the absence of a trail doesn't show much). As a rule, only findings are to be considered evidence of something, while the absence of them is not.

Utter tripe.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's amazing how everything seems to be obvious to you. It certainly makes it much easier for you to hold your beliefs about this case.

Requesting a charge of premeditated murder would mean, that in the request of rinvio a giudizio of july 2008, and the also in the indroductive part of the Micheli report, mention would have be made of art. 577 § 3.

But in fact, the aggravating circumstances requested by the prosecution were §1. and §5. of art. 61 (futile motive and victim's state of diminished defense).
The aggravating circumstance 61 § 1. requested by Mignini, "futile motives", itself means there is basically no motive, and if it exists, it's irrational, irrelevant or disproportionate to the action. So any speculation about circumstances and reasons from which a "motive" may have originated, itself would be a speculation about something that was preliminary defined by the prosecution as futile and irrelevant.

There is a fact, that there is no mention of 577 §.3 in the request as far as I know, therefore there is no premeditation scenario.

 

[Dougm]

I remember cases where murderers killed people with a hundred stab wounds, and they walked away without bringing blood around in the hime. There is just absolutely nothing unrealistic in this.
Often the stabbing murderers get dirty with blood if they stab multiple times and they remain close to the victim. But they often do not leave any secondary blood traces (handprints, footprints etc.). Often they take away the murder weapon without even leaving droplets from it.
In this case, the main weapon was not even taken, it was left on the bed sheet.

Care to provide any examples? Especially even one example where the victim's windpipe was severed, causing him/her to aspirate blood in a spray?

The typical innocentisti belief that some asserting deduction can drawn from the absence of something, is exactly what I consider utterly censurable.
In fact, as a general rule, conclusions can't be drawn from an absence of findings or from an absence of confirmation. I am not saying that this can never happen, but in general, when a deduction of something from the absence of evidence is posisible, this is due to the concurrence of peculiar and stringent conditions, and it is rare. Deduction of something from absence of evidence is an extremely problematic process, that would be possible only in rare events and would depend on some other set of peculiar and precisely defined conditions, which may consist in other actual findings (classic example: an "interruption" of trail of tracks in the snow "shows" some event; while the absence of a trail doesn't show much). As a rule, only findings are to be considered evidence of something, while the absence of them is not.

What you don't seem to understand is that, if evidence is absent, there is no proof the defendants committed the crime! It's really rather simple.

1) The prosecution is required to prove the defendants are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
2) If there is no evidence that the defendants were present at the crime scene when the crime was being committed, that burden has not been met

 

[Desert Fox]

I remember cases where murderers killed people with a hundred stab wounds, and they walked away without bringing blood around in the hime. There is just absolutely nothing unrealistic in this.
Often the stabbing murderers get dirty with blood if they stab multiple times and they remain close to the victim. But they often do not leave any secondary blood traces (handprints, footprints etc.). Often they take away the murder weapon without even leaving droplets from it.
In this case, the main weapon was not even taken, it was left on the bed sheet.

The typical innocentisti belief that some asserting deduction can drawn from the absence of something, is exactly what I consider utterly censurable.
In fact, as a general rule, conclusions can't be drawn from an absence of findings or from an absence of confirmation. I am not saying that this can never happen, but in general, when a deduction of something from the absence of evidence is posisible, this is due to the concurrence of peculiar and stringent conditions, and it is rare. Deduction of something from absence of evidence is an extremely problematic process, that would be possible only in rare events and would depend on some other set of peculiar and precisely defined conditions, which may consist in other actual findings (classic example: an "interruption" of trail of tracks in the snow "shows" some event; while the absence of a trail doesn't show much). As a rule, only findings are to be considered evidence of something, while the absence of them is not.

Utter tripe.

He kind of has a point that there are crime scenes with no evidence left by the attacker. The problem is that you then better have some other line of evidence as far as showing guilt - a concrete motive, eye witness evidence of the defendant at the crime scene, etc. These are circumstantial cases and I don't like them but they are what they are. You don't even have that with this case however.

I would also argue that because of the nature of the crime scene, a small bedroom, it is far more likely that anybody involved in the attack would have left signs of themselves.

 

[Bill Williams]

He kind of has a point that there are crime scenes with no evidence left by the attacker. The problem is that you then better have some other line of evidence as far as showing guilt - a concrete motive, eye witness evidence of the defendant at the crime scene, etc. These are circumstantial cases and I don't like them but they are what they are. You don't even have that with this case however.

I would also argue that because of the nature of the crime scene, a small bedroom, it is far more likely that anybody involved in the attack would have left signs of themselves.

He's arguing that Italy had better convict the two just in case they might be guilty.

 

[Desert Fox]

He's arguing that Italy had better convict the two just in case they might be guilty.

If that is what he means, that is crap and something out of Stalin Russia

 

[Dougm]

He kind of has a point that there are crime scenes with no evidence left by the attacker. The problem is that you then better have some other line of evidence as far as showing guilt - a concrete motive, eye witness evidence of the defendant at the crime scene, etc. These are circumstantial cases and I don't like them but they are what they are. You don't even have that with this case however.

I would also argue that because of the nature of the crime scene, a small bedroom, it is far more likely that anybody involved in the attack would have left signs of themselves.

I don't know of any stabbing cases where the blood was as messy as this one, where the perpetrator left no evidence at all, didn't get blood on them, or drip any, like Mach says. Maybe someone can find one? Of course, there IS evidence Amanda and Raff were at the cottage, at some time or other. There is just no evidence they were involved in the murder.

This is why I don't like to get in to endless debates about the DNA in the sink, etc. It is perfectly normal for Amanda Knox's DNA to be in her own bathroom. It is normal for a drop of her blood to be there. It is not evidence of anything at all.

 

[Bill Williams]

He kind of has a point that there are crime scenes with no evidence left by the attacker. The problem is that you then better have some other line of evidence as far as showing guilt - a concrete motive, eye witness evidence of the defendant at the crime scene, etc. These are circumstantial cases and I don't like them but they are what they are. You don't even have that with this case however.

I would also argue that because of the nature of the crime scene, a small bedroom, it is far more likely that anybody involved in the attack would have left signs of themselves.

I don't know of any stabbing cases where the blood was as messy as this one, where the perpetrator left no evidence at all, didn't get blood on them, or drip any, like Mach says. Maybe someone can find one? Of course, there IS evidence Amanda and Raff were at the cottage, at some time or other. There is just no evidence they were involved in the murder.

This is why I don't like to get in to endless debates about the DNA in the sink, etc. It is perfectly normal for Amanda Knox's DNA to be in her own bathroom. It is normal for a drop of her blood to be there. It is not evidence of anything at all.

But the attacker DID leave a forensic presence! What is missing from Machiavelli's Nobel-winning analysis is that the killer DID leave the expected forensic trace - Rudy Guede. (And that's before considering that the genius police did not test everything: witness the presumed semen stain.)

The issue is not as advertised in Machiavelli's Pulitzer-winning true crime post: how did one of three perps leave the kind of trace which one can reasonably expect, and two did not?

I can just hear Harry Rag - there was an abundance of DNA from Knox and Sollecito.... trace on a knife for Knox, a knife that never left Raffaele's apartment, and a single Y-Haplotype from a pool of men from which Raffaele cannot be eliminated on the bra-hook.

That's what is meant by, Machiavelli is arguing for convicting them, on the slim chance they might be guilty.

 

[Numbers]

If that is what he means, that is crap and something out of Stalin Russia

Mach and other guilters are not adherents of conviction based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

IIRC, Mignini argued in closing that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for conviction was merely a formalism.

 

[Machiavelli]

There are now some tests that allow one to tell exactly what the origin of biological materials are through RNA but these tests are still highly experimental. Maybe in a few years they will become regular.

If you read the l literature on DNA, one cannot tell the origins of DNA - if it is blood, skin, hair, etc. What you wrote is nonsense. You are making Italian forensics to be the laughing stock of the world.

Generally, when the experts of the world in a specific field tell you that you are wrong, it might be best if you examine your own beliefs. If you examine your beliefs and argued that you are still right and give reasons, at least you are bringing a case. You are not even examining the counter arguments and just declaring yourself right.

Listen, there is nothing where I can be wrong in the post you quoted above, since what I am doing is just to explain English-speaking readers what a text in another language says.

Let's not start building strawmen about being wrong and right again, because you can see I am translating a text, not expressing an opinion on the matter.

It is a known fact that no one cannot tell the origin of DNA from simple DNA analysis.
And in fact, this is not what I am talking about.
I am showing: 1. how Berti and Barni apparently draw an inference about DNA originating from "biological fluids of Amanda Marie Knox";
2. how not just Stefanoni but all experts they do draw interpretations of findings, not just based on their discipline of expertise or applying Cartesian doubt, but also considering other external elements (the location of the finding for instance may be one of them);
3. how arguments like assessing the "likeliness" of the presence of Knox's blood, in fact may be developed upon reasons that just belong to the wider scope of the case file, and do not derive from the scientific discipline; they may well originate from some other unrelated evidence (such as suspect's lies for example); evidence and arguments not necessarily have to come from the subject of expertise of the witness: a case is to be judged by judges, not by expert witnesses.
4. the (some) "experts of a field" are not supposed to "tell me I am wrong", they are supposed to convince me they are wrong, with argumentations, and this is a different task; in fact, they should convince a judge by undergoing cross-questionings. But you know something? The best, definitive contribute to my conviction that the knife and bra clasp evidence was sound, was provided by Conti and Vecchiotti; reading their flawed and fraudulent arguments, how they had absolutely nothing but that, it was like them putting an imprimatur seal as a further confirmation to my certainty. If they resorted to those arguments, it means that there is no other argument.

If you think you are about to make Italian forensic a "laughing stock", well, you are welcome to think that; meanwhile you may be interested in some critical reading about, let's say, defence expert "consultant" Bruce Budowle? Us Forensics methodologies? About for example, how Bruce Budowle's laboratory and FBI dept used to refuse to turn over the raw data about the tests they carred on?

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kelly-evidence.html

(...) This was not an isolated example. In several instances, when ordered to release the data underpinning its methodology the FBI refused. When it did release such data, particularly in the DNA sphere from 1989 onward, it was frequently found to be unscientific, flawed, and even downright false by a number of critical geneticists and microbiologists

In hearings beginning in 1989, Congress was being alerted to all this by a series of witnesses. One letter to Congressman Edwards cited the Arizona case and another in San Diego Superior Court, where the FBI had refused to turn over the raw data that formed the basis of the testimony of its testifying research chemist, Bruce Budowle

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach and other guilters are not adherents of conviction based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

IIRC, Mignini argued in closing that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for conviction was merely a formalism.

It's not true.

I am indeed and adherent of the beyond reasonable doubt standard.

Mignini did not argue that reasonable doubt was a formalism; and he is much an adherent to the beyond reasonable doubt standard as far as I know. He argued that the adding of the words "reasonable doubt" to the procedure code in 2006 was a mere a formalism, since reasonable doubt standard had already been existing for many decades by established jurisprudence (in fact, Italy was a typical "three option" verdicts system, there was a whole Italian jurisprudence about "insufficient proof" which was defined by jurisprudence as the existence of reasonable alternative).
On the other hand, Mignini openly argued that the Kercher murder was not a case of reasonable doubt.

But, one thing I believe, is the concept of reasonable doubt does not apply to single pieces of evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't know of any stabbing cases where the blood was as messy as this one, where the perpetrator left no evidence at all, didn't get blood on them, or drip any, like Mach says. Maybe someone can find one? Of course, there IS evidence Amanda and Raff were at the cottage, at some time or other. There is just no evidence they were involved in the murder.

This is why I don't like to get in to endless debates about the DNA in the sink, etc. It is perfectly normal for Amanda Knox's DNA to be in her own bathroom. It is normal for a drop of her blood to be there. It is not evidence of anything at all.

I know of a few cases but they are older cases before some of the breakthroughs with modern forensics. As such, I don't know if they can be projected to today. n Relatively modern is the murder of Charles and Kathy Hayes in 1987 however.

 

[Desert Fox]

If you think you are about to make Italian forensic a "laughing stock", well, you are welcome to think that; meanwhile you may be interested in some critical reading about, let's say, defence expert "consultant" Bruce Budowle? Us Forensics methodologies? About for example, how Bruce Budowle's laboratory and FBI dept used to refuse to turn over the raw data about the tests they carred on?

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kelly-evidence.html

The point is that the FBI has a problem which they were forced to fix. . . .Italy however just wants to stick their head in the sand and argue that they don't have any problem.

Edit: Should also add that this was a full 10 years before the AK/RS trial as well. Now, I am sure there are problems with the FBI labs still. In addition, I rather the FBI comes a laughing stock and actually fixes their problems.

 

[Diocletus]

If you think you are about to make Italian forensic a "laughing stock", well, you are welcome to think that; meanwhile you may be interested in some critical reading about, let's say, defence expert "consultant" Bruce Budowle? Us Forensics methodologies? About for example, how Bruce Budowle's laboratory and FBI dept used to refuse to turn over the raw data about the tests they carred on?

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kelly-evidence.html

Interesting. Do you have anything that post-dates the Reagan administration?