Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

Look, the name translators is for those working with texts or speeches (one way only, and from a language into another). Thos working with communication between individuals are called interpreters (they work in two directions, their main focus and care is communication and information exchange, not text, and not necessarily languages are separate). It's to different tasks. Maybe often the same people can do both tasks, depening on situation and context, an interpreter can also work as translator in the moment when it's needed, but it's two tasks, two jobs.

Now, the issue of the "moment" is really pointless; in fact I addressed it many many times to show how void it is, and you would always reboot.

Police can't decide whether the person is a suspect or not. They dont have that power. They may stop interrogation on cautionary grounds. But the moment is never precise.
Moreover, they don't have that task.

In fact Sollecito signed his statement only after 3am, when Knox's interrogation had been already stopped since more than an hour. It's impossible to tell "the minute" because collecting and reading statements, print them and bring them to other offices to discuss with other detective teams, is not a matter of a minute.

You're not very good on timelines and you're hopeless on process. In proper jurisdictions, where lawyers are provided, where notes are kept and recordings made and everything is transparent, then everything about it is known. In Italy, the police shut everything down and obfuscate in order to fit people up. Then, they make up their own version of events. Because the prosecutor is running the show and is in the same club as the investigating judge, the investigating judge is inclined to believe whatever nonsense is put in front of her.

 

[Samson]

This is naiive. If Maresca had let it be known that the Kerchers were no longer supporting the prosecution after Hellmann, that would have been the end of it. Can you imagine these people being prepared to listen to the family publicly critiquing the investigation, the lack of discovery and the leniency handed to Guede? Can you imagine the effect of their saying that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito had been victims of a wrongful conviction? In Italy, if you haven't saved face, you haven't got anything.

Before the Nencini verdict, Maresca said they would accept that verdict "serenely". I wonder why.

Later, in court, as the verdict was read, the staff member from the British Consulate despatched at the cost of the British taxpayer (me, amongst others), to hold the Kercher children's hands and lord it over their press conference, was seen to be grinning like a Cheshire Cat.

Trawling the back catalogues in search of answers to important questions, I found this.

Stephanie Kercher added:"How can the DNA of the knife be considered a small amount when the same experts themselves cannot give an exact response to how much should be taken into consideration?

"It should also be remembered that both the prosecution and the defence had experts present when the original tests were carried out for the first trial at the forensic science lab in Rome.

"The defence seem to be focusing on these DNA aspects but we want, for a moment to remember who this case is about: my sister, a daughter brutally taken away four years ago and a day does not pass when we do not think about her and can bring this to an end.

"All those who are reading and writing about this case, please remember our beautiful Meredith."

link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...led-irrelevant-in-Meredith-murder-appeal.html

Stephanie has happily married meantime, and is still dedicated to spouting cloying aphorisms ahead of studying some science. Science is a pursuit demanding rigour, the above passage shows what an unfocussed and brainless entity she is.
Let us all imagine having this woman determine our fate for the next 25 years, as the hapless Raffaele Sollecito must.

Another passage from this article of 4 9 11
Stephanie Kercher wrote:"In these last few week we have been left seriously anxious and greatly troubled by the news regarding the original DNA findings.

Parsing this in a manner that could be considered objectionable, but I invite all to consider which they might be least devastated by if their loved one met this fate:

It appears that my sister may have been murdered by one man, but we would rather her last moments are confirmed to have been spent experiencing the sadistic treachery of her room mate and new psychopathic boyfriend as well as a scary stranger, so we need not amend our well founded truth. And this has nothing to do with the legal bills accruing to our attorney Maresca.

 

[Desert Fox]

It appears that my sister may have been murdered by one man, but we would rather her last moments are confirmed to have been spent experiencing the sadistic treachery of her room mate and new psychopathic boyfriend as well as a scary stranger, so we need not amend our well founded truth. And this has nothing to do with the legal bills accruing to our attorney Maresca.

I was thinking on these, would you rather some comparative stranger kills your daughter, sister, brother, etc or a friend in some weird sex crime. I would rather it be the stranger.

With the Norfolk Four, Omar Ballard was almost a friend so I can understand issues being a bit different.

 

[codyjuneau]

It appears that my sister may have been murdered by one man, but we would rather her last moments are confirmed to have been spent experiencing the sadistic treachery of her room mate and new psychopathic boyfriend as well as a scary stranger, so we need not amend our well founded truth. And this has nothing to do with the legal bills accruing to our attorney Maresca.

I was thinking on these, would you rather some comparative stranger kills your daughter, sister, brother, etc or a friend in some weird sex crime. I would rather it be the stranger.

With the Norfolk Four, Omar Ballard was almost a friend so I can understand issues being a bit different.

.
Well I don't know, but I suspect it is more palatable to the conscience if one believes it was a treachery so improbable that it could not have been foreseen, such as a roommate going crazy, rather than an obvious danger that could have been foreseen and forewarned, such as returning alone after dark to an uninhabited and isolated cottage in a drug dealing area of town.

Cody
.

 

[Desert Fox]

.
Well I don't know, but I suspect it is more palatable to the conscience if one believes it was a treachery so improbable that it could not have been foreseen, such as a roommate going crazy, rather than an obvious danger that could have been foreseen and forewarned, such as returning alone after dark to an uninhabited and isolated cottage in a drug dealing area of town.

You certainly can be murdered by a roommate but it is far more likely in anger or revenge for some slight (even if something minor) than something so strange and twisted as the prosecution is suggesting.

 

[codyjuneau]

I have no idea how this case will play out in the CSC this March. My "prediction" slightly favors CSC going to a third 2nd-level trial, because that allows the judges to not make any final decision that may come back too soon to haunt them with the ECHR consequences (which may not amount to much to them, anyway, if the Italian parliament is reluctant to make the judicial system more democratic).

For the eventual ECHR judgment in Amanda Knox's calunnia conviction, there is no doubt in my mind that Italy will be found in violation, based on the case-law. Similarly, Italy would be found in violation for the overall murder/rape case, if that comes before the ECHR.

The issues that the guilters keep on, such as "spontaneity" or whatever, just are not relevant at the ECHR level. The guilters seem not to have any depth of understanding of the ECHR and the Committee of Ministers and the Council of Europe process.

.
Numbers, your posts here and your article have been very illuminating to me, and I suspect a lot of others, including guilters.

I think your research has changed the nature of the debate.

Cody
.

 

[Planigale]

Trawling the back catalogues in search of answers to important questions, I found this.

Stephanie Kercher added:"How can the DNA of the knife be considered a small amount when the same experts themselves cannot give an exact response to how much should be taken into consideration?

"It should also be remembered that both the prosecution and the defence had experts present when the original tests were carried out for the first trial at the forensic science lab in Rome. "The defence seem to be focusing on these DNA aspects but we want, for a moment to remember who this case is about: my sister, a daughter brutally taken away four years ago and a day does not pass when we do not think about her and can bring this to an end.

"All those who are reading and writing about this case, please remember our beautiful Meredith."

link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...led-irrelevant-in-Meredith-murder-appeal.html

Stephanie has happily married meantime, and is still dedicated to spouting cloying aphorisms ahead of studying some science. Science is a pursuit demanding rigour, the above passage shows what an unfocussed and brainless entity she is.
Let us all imagine having this woman determine our fate for the next 25 years, as the hapless Raffaele Sollecito must.

Another passage from this article of 4 9 11
Stephanie Kercher wrote:"In these last few week we have been left seriously anxious and greatly troubled by the news regarding the original DNA findings.

Parsing this in a manner that could be considered objectionable, but I invite all to consider which they might be least devastated by if their loved one met this fate:

It appears that my sister may have been murdered by one man, but we would rather her last moments are confirmed to have been spent experiencing the sadistic treachery of her room mate and new psychopathic boyfriend as well as a scary stranger, so we need not amend our well founded truth. And this has nothing to do with the legal bills accruing to our attorney Maresca.

Mach keeps making this (highlighted) point. The evidence is now settled. Any irregularities and errors are now unchallengeable because the findings are a legal fact. I have previously asked what exactly are the rights of the observers? Can they challenge the test? Can they redo the test themselves? Can they access the laboratory SOPs, external audit and internal QC records? Could they have insisted on having a down load of the electronic files? Clearly they were not even given copies of the paper printouts?

This observer status may have been acceptable in the old days when the science was simpler, but modern forensic science depends on a long chain of procedures. Preparing standards, calibrating equipment, cleaning the lab. It is hugely impractical to observe all this. It may involve multiple areas of expertise.

Certainly if I am arrested in Italy I will insist I personally will be present to observe my own tests, and I'll cough and splutter all over the lab and invalidate any testing.

I do not know the law of Italy, but if it is true once the evidence is settled because the test was observed it becomes unchallengeable, it is concerning. It is potentially unjust. It may be legal but that does not make it right. Much of the argument around access to the details of testing, 'discovery', is I think because the view is that once the test is done and observed the facts are fixed. This may even result in poor record keeping. I wonder if the electronic records still exist?

 

[Bill Williams]

.
Numbers, your posts here and your article have been very illuminating to me, and I suspect a lot of others, including guilters.

I think your research has changed the nature of the debate.

Cody
.

This is true.

Yet i fear that Numbers has done 30x the work that the ECHR will eventually do.

I mean, three Italian courts refused to test a putative semen stain beneath the hips of a murdered victim. We're still scratching our heads over the judicial gymnastics required to justify that!

Ten years from now we'll be debating obvious flaws in how the ECHR eventually ruled.

 

[Samson]

This is true.

Yet i fear that Numbers has done 30x the work that the ECHR will eventually do.

I mean, three Italian courts refused to test a putative semen stain beneath the hips of a murdered victim. We're still scratching our heads over the judicial gymnastics required to justify that!

Ten years from now we'll be debating obvious flaws in how the ECHR eventually ruled.

The internet warriors will win hands down, and have discounted their fees from $800 an hour to $0 an hour.
That is how 1/0 works for the pursuit of justice in substance, rather than justice in legal form, with infinite hours on offer.
All miscarriages of justice are perpetrated by people who have no scientific qualifications, and until this is writ large, nothing will change.

By the way, fragrant Stephanie, did those planes take off and land safely on your innumerable trips to Italy?
If they did, was that because they were designed by Matteini, Massei, Nencini, or was it because you trusted safe travel to be delivered by scientists and engineers.
Let's promote safe justice by the same rigorous pathways.
No osmosis.
No mistakes

 

[Samson]

A Japanese father speaks

In a city outside Tokyo, Shoichi Yukawa told of the horror he had felt when he learnt that threats to kill his son had been carried out.

"I thought 'Ah, this finally happened' and was filled with regret," he said.

"I went totally blank, I was only sorry... I had no words," he said. "In my mind I wish very much that this wasn't true."

Francesco Sollecito will feel this way if these Italian nazis incarcerate his son on march 25.

 

[Kauffer]

Mach keeps making this (highlighted) point. The evidence is now settled. Any irregularities and errors are now unchallengeable because the findings are a legal fact. I have previously asked what exactly are the rights of the observers? Can they challenge the test? Can they redo the test themselves? Can they access the laboratory SOPs, external audit and internal QC records? Could they have insisted on having a down load of the electronic files? Clearly they were not even given copies of the paper printouts?

This observer status may have been acceptable in the old days when the science was simpler, but modern forensic science depends on a long chain of procedures. Preparing standards, calibrating equipment, cleaning the lab. It is hugely impractical to observe all this. It may involve multiple areas of expertise.

Certainly if I am arrested in Italy I will insist I personally will be present to observe my own tests, and I'll cough and splutter all over the lab and invalidate any testing.

I do not know the law of Italy, but if it is true once the evidence is settled because the test was observed it becomes unchallengeable, it is concerning. It is potentially unjust. It may be legal but that does not make it right. Much of the argument around access to the details of testing, 'discovery', is I think because the view is that once the test is done and observed the facts are fixed. This may even result in poor record keeping. I wonder if the electronic records still exist?

It's such dreadful nonsense to suggest that mere observation of tests in labs is enough. Where are the records?

And the knife they say was bleach cleaned has non blood DNA? And it has starch too? Yes, well! So perhaps it wasn't bleach cleaned after all, in which case it could not possibly be the murder weapon because it doesn't have any blood on it. Duh! What was that we read? "Too low"!

But what was that knife doing at the cottage? And why on earth would would the "murderers" put it back in the drawer?

 

[carbonjam72]

This is naiive. If Maresca had let it be known that the Kerchers were no longer supporting the prosecution after Hellmann, that would have been the end of it. Can you imagine these people being prepared to listen to the family publicly critiquing the investigation, the lack of discovery and the leniency handed to Guede? Can you imagine the effect of their saying that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito had been victims of a wrongful conviction? In Italy, if you haven't saved face, you haven't got anything.

Before the Nencini verdict, Maresca said they would accept that verdict "serenely". I wonder why.

Later, in court, as the verdict was read, the staff member from the British Consulate despatched at the cost of the British taxpayer (me, amongst others), to hold the Kercher children's hands and lord it over their press conference, was seen to be grinning like a Cheshire Cat.

Are there any photos/video of this? Do you know their name and staff rank?

 

[Kauffer]

Are there any photos/video of this? Do you know their name and staff rank?

He is:

Pierluigi Puglia: Head of Press and Communications at the British Embassy in Rome.

It wasn't the first time he was on scene during the case either.

The grinning came immediately after Nencini and his "lays" left the courtroom after delivering the verdict and the courtroom camera focused on him explaining what he had said to the Kercher children.

If you go to YouTube for the post verdict press conference, Puglia is handling the journalists asking questions. I am unable to connect to it presently or I would give you the link. There was no grinning at the press conference however, as far as I remember.

Edit: Here's a pic from the PC with Maresca, Puglia and bambini Kerchers

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/46...gumhNuXtFQJEBTzQtg8zHLoX7ICFswf5rMSRKcJUrTw==

 

[Diocletus]

It's such dreadful nonsense to suggest that mere observation of tests in labs is enough. Where are the records?

And the knife they say was bleach cleaned has non blood DNA? And it has starch too? Yes, well! So perhaps it wasn't bleach cleaned after all, in which case it could not possibly be the murder weapon because it doesn't have any blood on it. Duh! What was that we read? "Too low"!

But what was that knife doing at the cottage? And why on earth would would the "murderers" put it back in the drawer?

Another thing to keep in mind is that, contrary to what Machiavelli says and a couple if Italian courts who never bothered to check the records parroted, it is by no means a given that the defendants were notified and given the opportunity to be present to the testing. For example, the 36b profile appears to have been generated during a "rerun" that was unknown to the defendants, and the coding for 165 suggests that that profile was generated as a secret one-off maybe a week after the "main" testing for that batch. Also, the defendants were obviously not present for the early "cats blood" testing that was performed prior to the arrests, and all records of the early profiling of Guede items was unknown to the defendants.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's such dreadful nonsense to suggest that mere observation of tests in labs is enough. Where are the records?

And the knife they say was bleach cleaned has non blood DNA? And it has starch too? Yes, well! So perhaps it wasn't bleach cleaned after all, in which case it could not possibly be the murder weapon because it doesn't have any blood on it. Duh! What was that we read? "Too low"!

But what was that knife doing at the cottage? And why on earth would would the "murderers" put it back in the drawer?

If the defence experts were present during testing why would they have been unaware of what the SAL records disgorged (disclosed only after defence application and in the teeth of fierce resistance from Comodi)? Surely, if they had seen her use the Qubit fluorometer to quantify and seen her write down 'too low' and seen her conduct negative blood and species tests and seen her omit cytology entirely they would have piped up earlier, perhaps during the prelim before Micheli at which she lied about or omitted mention of all those things and more.

 

[Diocletus]

Before the Nencini verdict, Maresca said they would accept that verdict "serenely". I wonder why.

Later, in court, as the verdict was read, the staff member from the British Consulate despatched at the cost of the British taxpayer (me, amongst others), to hold the Kercher children's hands and lord it over their press conference, was seen to be grinning like a Cheshire Cat.

That doesn't seem very British. What happened to stiff upper lip and all of that?

 

[Diocletus]

If the defence experts were present during testing why would they have been unaware of what the SAL records disgorged (disclosed only after defence application and in the teeth of fierce resistance from Comodi)? Surely, if they had seen her use the Qubit fluorometer to quantify and seen her write down 'too low' and seen her conduct negative blood and species tests and seen her omit cytology entirely they would have piped up earlier, perhaps during the prelim before Micheli at which she lied about or omitted mention of all those things and more.

And that's another thing. The quantification processes appear to have been unknown to the defense, at least based on potenza's report and the subsequent events that you describe. Note also that the raw quantification records show contamination.

 

[Machiavelli]

Another thing to keep in mind is that, contrary to what Machiavelli says and a couple if Italian courts who never bothered to check the records parroted, it is by no means a given that the defendants were notified and given the opportunity to be present to the testing. For example, the 36b profile appears to have been generated during a "rerun" that was unknown to the defendants, and the coding for 165 suggests that that profile was generated as a secret one-off maybe a week after the "main" testing for that batch. Also, the defendants were obviously not present for the early "cats blood" testing that was performed prior to the arrests, and all records of the early profiling of Guede items was unknown to the defendants.

This is absolutely false. Prof. Potenza was there, he drew a report about the tests he witnessed and he was recorded at the incidents probatorio papers. He could have shot a video if he wanted, or have submitted any kind of observation. A Magistrate was present during the tests.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is absolutely false. Prof. Potenza was there, he drew a report about the tests he witnessed and he was recorded at the incidents probatorio papers. He could have shot a video if he wanted, or have submitted any kind of observation. A Magistrate was present during the tests.

............ and if Potenza had uttered anything contrary to Stefanoni, he'd have been charged with defamation.

Judge Massei gave the game away in his report; despite Stefanoni admitting to touching evidence with an obviously dirty glove, and dsspite being asked at trial about touching the bra-hook with that glove (where she said she could neithe confirm nor deny touching the hook)...

Despite Stefanoni admitting that another one of her Scientific Police people had also touched the bra-clasp, and despite Napoleoni admitting that the medical staff had attended to Meredith's body in her room, without the medical staff donning protective anti-contamination gear.....

Judge Massei ruled straight down the line in Stefanoni's favour. Why? Because Stefanoni assured the court that she'd never had a case of contamination. Ever.

So, faced with that uneven playing field, what good would it have done Prof. Potenza to risk defamation?

Mignini sues everybody who offends him as well. Well, all except John Follain....

 

[carbonjam72]

Originally Posted by Numbers
Some other European countries also have criminal defamation laws. There may be an interaction between the dysfunctions of the judicial system and the laws against "calunnia" and defamation that negatively affects freedom of expression in Italy.

CJ72 - The UK also has very strong libel/slander laws, I think the UK standard is you have to be able to prove that what you say is actually true. Whereas in the US, a simple "I'm stupid and didn't know" is actually a defense (although I think the standard is different for libeling/slandering "public" as opposed to "private" citizens.

But the courts in the UK are also outrageously expensive, and the custom is that the "loser pays" the cost of the case. SO a wealthy person can afford to sue, and lose, while scaring the daylights out of a non-wealthy person. Or alternatively, trounce a non-wealthy person in court because they can only afford a crappo lawyer, in which case the wealthy person can be both abusive before hand, and ruinous after the fact, at least against the wee folk who dare to speak the truth and lack the resources to defend themselves.

I think in the UK, its a residual 'class thing', and in Italy it's a residual 'fascism thing'.

But what's fascinating is that Italy and The UK seem to have the strongest libel/slander laws. and yet they also have the most irresponsible and reckless tabloids that have so deformed their society using mass produced ridicule as a weapon of mass social destruction.

SO the fact that Italian courts are horrendous, doesn't seem to track in the UK. I think the common denominator is an utterly vicious and unmerciful press and media, based on credulous populations that adore the sleazy tripe in their gutter tabloids.

BUt in Italy the problem is compounded by a systemically broken justice system, a relatively poorly educated and gullible populace, and unscrupulous prosecutors like Mignini who know how to exploit the process from soup to nuts.

Yes the law and courts in Italy must change. But the fault lies not in their 'stars', but in themselves.

Actually, this is incorrect. UK and German tabloids are far worse than the Italian ones. Italy actualy doesn't have a true tabloid press. You really seem to know little about Italy.

Then where did all those crazy Italian articles come from? If you want to suggest that all the newspapers in Italy are susceptible to the tabloid mentality, you won't get an argument from me.

The idea that inflammatory articles can be printed in the press while a trial is going on, that these leaks are facilitated by prosecutors deliberately creating these leaks often with false information speciofically to influence public opinion and tilt the outcome of the trial, and that jurors aren't sequestered - much less that an eight grade education suffices to sit on a jury - is all just sad, and less than anyone should hope or expect from a modern country.

The Italians I've met while traveling abroad, or in the US, have all been lovely people.

The characters I've seen on TV from this trial on TV, and their comments in press reports, just broke my heart.

Nothing prepared me for seeing the deranged lunatic Mignini, puffing his chest and spewing paranoid idiotic nonsense at a diminutive American girl, obviously scared and completely innocent of the crazy allegations being hurled at her.

And nothing prepared me for a so-called justice system, where the judges reject the scientific opinions of their own independent experts, in favor of non-scientific standards issued by a cassation judge who spends his spare time as a prominent '9-11 truther'.

I do admire Mach, if that's the right word, your 'chutzbah' and facility for counter-arguing almost any point on almost any subject, regardless of how far you are forced to stretch the bonds of credulity.

Your thesis that Amanda and Raf helped Rudy stab Meredith, and then 'immediately ran out of the room', is just a classic. You know the fact that only one set of footprints in Meredith's blood in the murder room means only one person could have been standing there. So you invent a scenario where Amanda and Raf can do their part of the murder quickly, without getting any blood on them, or stepping in any blood. Why Amanda and Raf, or anyone for that matter, would commit a murder (again for some unknown reason), and then "immediately run out of the room", you simply never address.

Mach, neither Amanda nor Raf were in the room when Meredith was killed by Rudy. They weren't in the cottage. They never left Raf's apartment that night. There is ZERO legitimate evidence they did.

I don't envy you your task of defending the police and Mignini. Other people have speculated you are more than one person, because of the range, speed and dexterity of your comments. I can only say, I'm impressed.

Most kids want the world to be fair. It's naive, but rather normal. Learning that not everyone is put together the same way, that there are people who are deliberately dishonest and lie, I suppose its a rite of passage into adulthood. Some people don't care about the truth. Which kind are you? Without meaning any offense, I just can't tell.