Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

You perfectly know that no evidence of Rudy Guede was found in Fulonena's room, even if Stefanoni performed all tests on items and spots indicated by defence requests. This happened on Dec. 17th And 18th, when Stefanoni's team was in Perugia again for the second session.

These are the same police who cannot count rings on shoes, right?

 

[Machiavelli]

According to Machiavelli, he's now denying that Knox was ever just "strongly suspected". He arguing a new theory, that there is no one moment when someone moves from being not suspected to being suspected.

Technically there isn't a moment that can be established in real time.
Sometimes there is a clear moment, but often not and magistrates have their own interpretations. The police cannot decide themselves and don't have that task.

All this despite Mignini telling Drew Griffin that as soon as Knox implicated Lumumba because she imagined she was at the cottage, that they had to stop the interrogation. ....

This was where you used to tell that falsehood about Mignini reporting to be there during the interrogation.
You used to say Mignini "told Graham that he ordered to stop the interrogation". That was false. You never admitted that you were reporting false information, and that Mignini reportedly arrived only much later.

You also did not concede that your claim about the "police in the control room" was also false.

 

[Machiavelli]

These are the same police who cannot count rings on shoes, right?

Wrong.

The police who counted the rings are from another department and another city, they are two officers from a police office in Foligno.

 

[Bill Williams]

Technically there isn't a moment that can be established in real time.
Sometimes there is a clear moment, but often not and magistrates have their own interpretations. The police cannot decide themselves and don't have that task.



This was where you used to tell that falsehood about Mignini reporting to be there during the interrogation.
You used to say Mignini "told Graham that he ordered to stop the interrogation". That was false. You never admitted that you were reporting false information, and that Mignini reportedly arrived only much later.

You also did not concede that your claim about the "police in the control room" was also false.

Who stopped the interrogation then? Why did Mignini continue as if only a notary?

Also, I have never commented on the control room.

 

[Desert Fox]

Wrong.

The police who counted the rings are from another department and another city, they are two officers from a police office in Foligno.

Let us be honest here. . .I think the Keystone cops are more competent that the Italian investigators. You can see that they don't know what they are doing from the videos of their investigation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach, you seem to allow that the rock could have been thrown from outside by the two, Raf presumably, before fleeing the scene. I would agree this is good common ground from which to progress, as the inside job is completely impossible, and I sense you concede on this point.

I think the throwing from the inside may be perfectly possible, albeit I can't tell for sure because neve made a practical experiment. I never considered the glass as a problem because if there is room for the rock trajectory - and there must be, since nobody throws a rock at himself - then there is also free room for glasses trajectory. But I never saw a problem with a throwing the rock from the outside (I used to imagine it myself as a throwing from the outside).

 

[Numbers]

How the ECHR works:

http://time.com/3686665/amal-clooney-human-rights-trial-armenia/

Amal Clooney Begins Next Big Human Rights Case

Her latest mission: representing Armenia’s interests in a landmark trial before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France, beginning Wednesday.

The case is an appeal of a 2013 ruling by the ECHR – described as the Supreme Court of Europe – in which the court decided that a Swiss law prohibiting the public denial of the alleged Armenian genocide is a violation of freedom of speech.
_____
This may be PERİNÇEK v. SWITZERLAND 27510/08 17 December 2013

Referral to the Grand Chamber 02/06/2014

The case at present illustrates the process of referral to the Grand Chamber on appeal from the State.

ETA: The wording of the Time article is somewhat inaccurate. The conviction was a judged a violation of Convention Article 10; it is not clear from the judgment if the law itself is a violation (it might not be if there was no criminal penalty attached). Here's the Court (Chamber) bottom line:

129. In view of the foregoing, and especially in the light of the comparative-law material, the Court considers that the reasons given by the domestic authorities to justify the applicant’s conviction were not all relevant and, taken as a whole, were insufficient. The domestic authorities did not show, in particular, that the applicant’s conviction met a “pressing social need” or that it was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the honour and feelings of the descendants of the victims of the atrocities dating back to 1915 and subsequent years. The domestic authorities thus overstepped the limited margin of appreciation afforded to them in the present case, which relates to a debate of undeniable public interest.

130. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

 

[platonov]

I know I shouldnt

If you were familiar with the evidence you would know that empirical simulations showed that no glass would be deposited in the garden if the glass was broken from the outside but would be if it was broken from the inside as suggested by the prosecution. therefore the lack of glass in the garden proves that the window was broken by a stone from outside.

OK before too much more confusion is generated let’s address this post.
We will ignore for a moment the ‘backsplash’ issue – let’s pretend* that reality is on holiday.

Given that the prosecution argument has the window broken from within the room while the outer shutters are closed
And the defence that it was broken from outside with the outer shutters obviously open........
How does more glass end up in the garden when the shutters are closed?
In your own time

Or is it time to come clean and admit your understanding of the prosecution argument was that the rock was thrown out through the window into the garden?

Or would you prefer to talk about glass distribution inside the room

*Not much of a stretch in this thread.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let us be honest here. . .I think the Keystone cops are more competent that the Italian investigators. You can see that they don't know what they are doing from the videos of their investigation.

I think you have changed topic. You made a factually false allegation and now you are skimming on that.

Now, you throw your opinion in about who is good or bad at doing things, based on your feeling of the screenplay.
Now, actually, while I do think there is something kind of funny sometimes in the style of some officers and forensics, I also know that you cannot tell about their competence from that. I have seen most brilliant professionals looking awkward and or like idiots, and I learned how to have an attitude of respect. But anyway, all this has little relevance to the guilt or innocence of the accused: the accused are those under trial.

 

[platonov]

I'm saying I don't know (for certain). I have reason to believe it was the prosecution, but nothing definitive and must admit it would explain some things if in fact it was Massei who concocted that theory. At the same time it would likely make the prosecution look all sorts of stupid, because one thing I do know is they tried to present 'evidence' that there wasn't any glass outside beneath the window and that the outer shutters were closed at the time the window was broken. That would mean they still had the rock being thrown from the inside, but it would almost certainly be a less probable scenario than Massei's easily disproven one (glass shards on the blue rug) and might even be that Raffaele and or Amanda threw the rock the other way through the window....

Oh Make your mind up Kaosium.

What Obviously google wasn't working and they weren't familiar with [Numbers interpretation of] the Momentum Conservation Principle!

 

[Desert Fox]

I think you have changed topic. You made a factually false allegation and now you are skimming on that.

Now, you throw your opinion in about who is good or bad at doing things, based on your feeling of the screenplay.
Now, actually, while I do think there is something kind of funny sometimes in the style of some officers and forensics, I also know that you cannot tell about their competence from that. I have seen most brilliant professionals looking awkward and or like idiots, and I learned how to have an attitude of respect. But anyway, all this has little relevance to the guilt or innocence of the accused: the accused are those under trial.

You made the claim that the police found no evidence of Guede in Fulonena's room. There is a lot we do not know and it is very possible that he left no evidence in the room which even a good forensic team would find. The problem is that they were not a good forensic team by watching their procedures so it is less likely for them to find any evidence of him.

Edit: I should add that the police should be on trial. . .If they screw up, they should be called on it and their evidence is considered suspect.

 

[Machiavelli]

OK before too much more confusion is generated let’s address this post.
We will ignore for a moment the ‘backsplash’ issue – let’s pretend* that reality is on holiday.

Given that the prosecution argument has the window broken from within the room while the outer shutters are closed
And the defence that it was broken from outside with the outer shutters obviously open........
How does more glass end up in the garden when the shutters are closed?
In your own time

Or is it time to come clean and admit your understanding of the prosecution argument was that the rock was thrown out through the window into the garden?

Or would you prefer to talk about glass distribution inside the room

*Not much of a stretch in this thread.

Every other day they seem to forget that at least one shutter would need to be completely open in order to throw a rock from the outside.
It is possible that they pulled the shutter ajar again in the morning, in order to conceal the broken window from sight, though, just like they did with Filomena's and Meredith's rooms (albeit Sollecito said he remembers well Filomena's room was "wide open" when they came in).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

some thoughts on hemoglobin and denaturation

Chris, can you explain this a bit.

Does blood lose its testing validity over time? Or, is a TMB positive still not enough to say a sample is blood without a further confirmatory test?

If that's not the case, then why would you say it still might have been blood, after stef's negative test? What's going on here?

carbonjam72,

A protein such as hemoglobin has a three-dimensional shape (its conformation) that can change with time--the protein is said to denature (to lose its native function). Extremes of temperature and pH are two conditions that can denature proteins. Denaturetion could easily cause a confirmatory test to fail: the antibody may bind only to the native conformation but not to the denatured one

Suppose that both tests were long after the crime. The TMB test may not be as dependent on whether or not denaturation has occurred. I did some reading once that suggested that the heme group of hemoglobin (iron plus an organic molecule) was all that was needed for at least some and maybe all of the presumptive tests to work. My hypothesis is that old blood will remain positive by presumptive tests longer than it will remain positive by confirmatory tests, because proteins can denature by more mechanisms than there are mechanisms that can destroy heme. However, one would have to test my hypothesis empirically to see whether or not it was correct. BTW, one of the reasons that Joy Kuhl's antibody-based tests for hemoglobin F were so hard to believe is that her tests were done 13 months after Azaria Chamberlain's death.

However, my recollection is that the date of the TMB test was much earlier than the date of the confirmatory test, but someone would have to check this to be certain. If the TMB test had been performed much earlier (perhaps months) than the confirmatory test, then there could be a different explanation for why the confirmatory test was negative but the TMB test was positive. Bottom line: I am not saying that Rep. 199 was blood. I am saying that if they failed to perform all tests in a timely manner, then it is poor quality work.

 

[Machiavelli]

You made the claim that the police found no evidence of Guede in Fulonena's room. There is a lot we do not know and it is very possible that he left no evidence in the room which even a good forensic team would find. The problem is that they were not a good forensic team by watching their procedures so it is less likely for them to find any evidence of him.

Yet they did find Knox+Meredith mixed DNA traces, so they did find something in Filomena's room after all. They were also assisted by the defence experts who asked them to pick up and test this and that.
The bottom line anyway is that there is no evidence of Guede in that room, neither DNA or physical, while there is DNA evidence of Knox+Meredith on luminol positive traces.

 

[platonov]

Every other day they seem to forget that at least one shutter would need to be completely open in order to throw a rock from the outside.
It is possible that they pulled the shutter ajar again in the morning, in order to conceal the broken window from sight, though, just like they did with Filomena's and Meredith's rooms (albeit Sollecito said he remembers well Filomena's room was "wide open" when they came in).

Nope Mach. Its not even that advanced.
I think the problem is that they believed the prosecution argument was that the rock was thrown out through the window into the garden.
One of the summaries on some FOA site had that version IIRC and they never read or couldn't understand the treatment of this issue in Massei so went with the FOA nonsense.

Go figure.

Once the issue is explained they retreat into the realms of 'glass distribution' within the room.

ps Actually if I'm wrong and you are right that's even worse - maybe its both.

 

[Bill Williams]

Technically there isn't a moment that can be established in real time.
Sometimes there is a clear moment, but often not and magistrates have their own interpretations. The police cannot decide themselves and don't have that task.



This was where you used to tell that falsehood about Mignini reporting to be there during the interrogation.
You used to say Mignini "told Graham that he ordered to stop the interrogation". That was false. You never admitted that you were reporting false information, and that Mignini reportedly arrived only much later.

You also did not concede that your claim about the "police in the control room" was also false.

You are correct here (highlighted part). Did I not admit this months ago? If not, I do now.

Who, then, issued the abrupt order to stop? Why did Mignini continue as if only a notary?

 

[Desert Fox]

Yet they did find Knox+Meredith mixed DNA traces, so they did find something in Filomena's room after all. They were also assisted by the defence experts who asked them to pick up and test this and that.
The bottom line anyway is that there is no evidence of Guede in that room, neither DNA or physical, while there is DNA evidence of Knox+Meredith on luminol positive traces.

It is no surprise to find DNA of residents of a household in a room (in the house) and because they are found in the same sample do not demonstrate that they were laid down at the same time (see “DNA profiling of trace DNA recovered from bedding,” Forensic Science International, Volume 159, Issue 1, 25 May 2006, Pages 21-26)

 

[Bill Williams]

Yet they did find Knox+Meredith mixed DNA traces, so they did find something in Filomena's room after all. They were also assisted by the defence experts who asked them to pick up and test this and that.
The bottom line anyway is that there is no evidence of Guede in that room, neither DNA or physical, while there is DNA evidence of Knox+Meredith on luminol positive traces.

It is no surprise to find DNA of residents of a household in a room (in the house) and because they are found in the same sample do not demonstrate that they were laid down at the same time (see “DNA profiling of trace DNA recovered from bedding,” Forensic Science International, Volume 159, Issue 1, 25 May 2006, Pages 21-26)

The convictions are plagued with double standards. Judge Massei wrote that one of the reasons for not testing the putative semen stain found under the victim, was that she had a normal sex life and that DNA could not be time-stamped.

 

[Numbers]

In regard to the rock, the broken window, and the glass.

The authorities must establish that a staging occurred, if an impartial court is to find that to be a "fact" in a fair adversarial trial. The establishment of this prosecution theory must be based on clear and credible evidence, for example, the distribution of glass, fracture patterns in the glass, an explanation of the trajectory of the rock, accounting for glass partially embedded in the wooded frame around the window, and so on.

The ECHR will view this theory, whether originating in detail from the prosecution or the domestic court, as one element of the arbitrary reasoning of the Italian courts if this case reaches them. And arbitrary reasoning is an indication of an unfair trial, a violation of Convention Article 6.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

too late to be meaningful

The bottom line anyway is that there is no evidence of Guede in that room, neither DNA or physical, while there is DNA evidence of Knox+Meredith on luminol positive traces.

I told a former policeman (whose job it had been to secure crime scenes) about the long delay and the moving-around of things prior to the collection on 18 December. He said, "Contaminated, contaminated."