Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Planigale said:
Without some definition by the judiciary of what level of proof is required for contamination, it becomes impossible for any defence to meet the standard required. The judiciary ask an impossible standard of the defence.
Click to expand...

It's even more impossible when you consider that the prosecution refused to hand over the lab's data.
 
Dan O. said:
The problem with guilters is that they keep bringing up the same old talking points. It's like they aren't capable of thinking for themselves and just read off the master list which never gets updated.
.
.
.
Click to expand...


They, the guilters, keep the knife, bra clasp, and hallway footprints in play despite Conti-Vecchiotti, Numbers' 17+ sins of Stefanoni, Professor Gill, a multitude of other highly acclaimed scientists, and TMB testing results which were negative for blood.
 
Planigale said:
I like to consider the arguments of those who disagree with me. One point the pro guilt of Sollecito group make is that skepticism about DNA tests should apply equally to Guede as to Sollecito. This is a fair comment.

Let us assume that items contaminated with Guede's DNA were collected in an equally casual fashion to that contaminated with Sollecito's DNA. One similarity is that neither Guede's nor Sollecito's DNA was associated with identifiable tissue. A difference is that there are multiple samples that were positive for Guede's DNA, another is that the positive samples were obtained by different people at different times, there was DNA from Knox's clothes, and purse found by the scientific police and a separate sample from the post mortem obtained by the forensic pathologist from within MK.* But finally there is a question as to how Guede's DNA could contaminate the crime scene, he had never (legitimately) been in the flat before the murder, the police had had no contact with Guede, so how would contamination occur? The contrast is with one low copy DNA isolate of Sollecito in a mixed sample with other people's DNA. In a sample that was collected late after people had been in and out of the murder room, and the bra hook had been moved around before collecting. Gill suggested that the plastic gloves (he described these as being sticky for DNA), could have been contaminated from the outside bedroom door handle then transferred DNA when the bra hook was picked up in a gloved hand, handed around put down and picked up again. Other options are that Knox and Kircher may have shared a wash or a dry of their smalls with solicitors DNA transferring from Knox's to Kircher's clothes. Knox may have touched or sorted laundry of Kircher, contaminating them with Sollecito's DNA. Solicit may have touched them directly if they were hanging up to dry, Kircher may have hugged or shook hands with Sollecito then directly transferred DNA to her bra hook from her own hands.

* The palm print of Guede is sufficient in itself even if DNA typing was ignored.

So I think one could argue that there are routes for Sollecito's DNA contamination of the bra hook. What I do not think is reasonable to require 'proof'. In general on can disprove something, proving is harder. If the Italian courts are going to require 'proof' they need to be clear what is the definition of 'proof'. Is it on the balance of probability? Is it sufficient to establish reasonable doubt? I think that to argue Guede's DNA arrived by contamination on multiple samples when collected at separate times and places is very unlikely. I think there is a quantitative difference of many orders of magnitude in arguing Sollecito's DNA arrived in a single mixed sample of LCN level on the bra hook by contamination. Without some definition by the judiciary of what level of proof is required for contamination, it becomes impossible for any defence to meet the standard required. The judiciary ask an impossible standard of the defence.
Click to expand...

And then there is the putative semen stain on the pillow, part of which has a Guede-type shoe sole print on it. Allegedly not tested.

Was the alleged Guede DNA from the vaginal swab LCN?

I believe that the arguments about Guede are a red-herring to distract from the truly horrendously poor DNA non-evidence relating to Knox and Sollecito.

Let the guilters show that Guede was not the murderer-rapist if they can impeach the evidence against him.

Italy does have laws that state the burden of proof is on the State. The judiciary simply have ignored many Italian laws.
 
When the samples were collected is a key point

Planigale said:
I like to consider the arguments of those who disagree with me. One point the pro guilt of Sollecito group make is that skepticism about DNA tests should apply equally to Guede as to Sollecito. This is a fair comment.
Click to expand...
Planigale,

With respect I would have worded your final sentence differently. I would have said that the comment is worthy of examination. Your next paragraphs do so very well IMO. The only thing that I would like to stress is that the bra clasp was collected after all three suspects were in custody. This puts great pressure on the forensic police to help their colleagues find them guilty. Any forensic personnel may start tilting the playing field subconsciously or even engage in noble cause corruption under such circumstances.

Pro-guilt commenters only make themselves look foolish when they claim an equivalence in the forensics against Guede versus Knox and Sollecito. If someone could make a plausible case that the police misidentified Guede's shoe prints or palm prints, then I would adjust my views accordingly.
 
Planigale said:
Without some definition by the judiciary of what level of proof is required for contamination, it becomes impossible for any defence to meet the standard required. The judiciary ask an impossible standard of the defence.
Click to expand...
Planigale,

This comment is spot on. The only hint that Cassation gave is that there must be a route of contamination. This ignores the reality of DNA forensics, in which it is commonly the situation that a route is not known.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Planigale,

With respect I would have worded your final sentence differently. I would have said that the comment is worthy of examination. Your next paragraphs do so very well IMO. The only thing that I would like to stress is that the bra clasp was collected after all three suspects were in custody. This puts great pressure on the forensic police to help their colleagues find them guilty. Any forensic personnel may start tilting the playing field subconsciously or even engage in noble cause corruption under such circumstances.

Pro-guilt commenters only make themselves look foolish when they claim an equivalence in the forensics against Guede versus Knox and Sollecito. If someone could make a plausible case that the police misidentified Guede's shoe prints or palm prints, then I would adjust my views accordingly.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the accusation always was that (cf. highlighted text) Stefanoni engaged in suspect-centred forensics.

There did not seem to be any controls, I mean, did Stefanoni even compare anything with her own DNA profile? Maybe it was hers which was one of the "amica" profiles found on the clasp, who really knows?

Suspect-centred investigations have a habit of finding what they're looking for, and ignoring everything else found. Which forced Judge Nencini to engage in rank evidenceless-speculation, while de facto conceding that Conti-Vecchiotti got it right with the extra-profiles on the clasp.
 
Here we go again: this a favorite Knoxian meme:

Desert Fox said:
This is also a issue with the restrictions on the press which we see in Italy.
There are plenty of forensic scandals in the United States but we can freely criticize the government / police / courts.
Click to expand...

As Mach correctly states:

Machiavelli said:
You can criticize what you want in Italy.
But if one has evidence of misconducts, besides criticizing he should also bring their evidence to a magistrate.
Click to expand...

Please note:

The “Reporters Without Borders” World Press Freedom Index rates Italy as “satisfactory”…exactly as it does the US, Spain, France and the UK.

On a worldwide ranking of 180 countries, the US comes in at 46. Italy ranks 3 places lower at 49.

But it’s an exceptionally close ranking separated by only 0.27 points.

http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
 
Vibio said:
Here we go again: this a favorite Knoxian meme:



As Mach correctly states:



Please note:

The “Reporters Without Borders” World Press Freedom Index rates Italy as “satisfactory”…exactly as it does the US, Spain, France and the UK.

On a worldwide ranking of 180 countries, the US comes in at 46. Italy ranks 3 places lower at 49.

But it’s an exceptionally close ranking separated by only 0.27 points.

http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
Click to expand...

However, they do seem to be highly suggestible.
 
Re: The Bruno Vespa interview.

I remarked about the framework of the show being favorable to Raff.

The segment from Raff's hometown in particular.

Mach noted the same thing:

Machiavelli said:
The setting of the program was definitely favourable to Sollecito’s defence. In fact the aired reports looked like they were written directly by his PR consultants.
Click to expand...



What the Knoxians don't seem to get is that Vespa's program is broadcast on RAI I.

"Rai" stands for: "Radio Televisione Italiana S.p.A." It is Italy's state run channel. And Channel 1 is the government's premier channel.

So.... if the AK/RS trial is so much about "saving face" and covering up abuses and so on... why is Italy producing a show like this... favorable to Raff (and AK)?

Also: I know it's hard to believe: but the tone of that show was in line with all of the TV reporting I've seen here about the case : sober and impartial (although in this instance quite favorable to the defense).
 
Last edited:
Vibio said:
Re: The Bruno Vespa interview.

I remarked about the framework of the show being favorable to Raff.

The segment from Raff's hometown in particular.

Mach noted the same thing:





What the Knoxians don't seem to get is that Vespa's program is broadcast on RAI I.

"Rai" stands for: "Radio Televisione Italiana S.p.A." It is Italy's state run channel. And Channel 1 is it's premier channel.

So.... if the AK/RS trial so much about "saving face" and covering up abuses and so on... why is Italy producing a show like this?

Also: I know it's hard to believe: but the tone of that show is in line with all of the TV reporting I've seen here about the case: sober and impartial.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why it is important to put it that way, but overall, this is good news.
 
Vibio said:
Re: The Bruno Vespa interview.

I remarked about the framework of the show being favorable to Raff.

The segment from Raff's hometown in particular.

Mach noted the same thing:





What the Knoxians don't seem to get is that Vespa's program is broadcast on RAI I.

"Rai" stands for: "Radio Televisione Italiana S.p.A." It is Italy's state run channel. And Channel 1 is the government's premier channel.

So.... if the AK/RS trial is so much about "saving face" and covering up abuses and so on... why is Italy producing a show like this... favorable to Raff (and AK)?

Also: I know it's hard to believe: but the tone of that show was in line with all of the TV reporting I've seen here about the case : sober and impartial.
Click to expand...

Because "Italy" is not the one trying to save face. It's the Italian courts that are trying to save face after a series of embarrassing blunders. However, ironically, the face-saving crusade has only resulted in additional injury to said face.
 
Planigale said:
I like to consider the arguments of those who disagree with me. One point the pro guilt of Sollecito group make is that skepticism about DNA tests should apply equally to Guede as to Sollecito. This is a fair comment.

Let us assume that items contaminated with Guede's DNA were collected in an equally casual fashion to that contaminated with Sollecito's DNA. One similarity is that neither Guede's nor Sollecito's DNA was associated with identifiable tissue. A difference is that there are multiple samples that were positive for Guede's DNA, another is that the positive samples were obtained by different people at different times, there was DNA from Knox's clothes, and purse found by the scientific police and a separate sample from the post mortem obtained by the forensic pathologist from within MK.* But finally there is a question as to how Guede's DNA could contaminate the crime scene, he had never (legitimately) been in the flat before the murder, the police had had no contact with Guede, so how would contamination occur? The contrast is with one low copy DNA isolate of Sollecito in a mixed sample with other people's DNA. In a sample that was collected late after people had been in and out of the murder room, and the bra hook had been moved around before collecting. Gill suggested that the plastic gloves (he described these as being sticky for DNA), could have been contaminated from the outside bedroom door handle then transferred DNA when the bra hook was picked up in a gloved hand, handed around put down and picked up again. Other options are that Knox and Kircher may have shared a wash or a dry of their smalls with solicitors DNA transferring from Knox's to Kircher's clothes. Knox may have touched or sorted laundry of Kircher, contaminating them with Sollecito's DNA. Solicit may have touched them directly if they were hanging up to dry, Kircher may have hugged or shook hands with Sollecito then directly transferred DNA to her bra hook from her own hands.

* The palm print of Guede is sufficient in itself even if DNA typing was ignored.

So I think one could argue that there are routes for Sollecito's DNA contamination of the bra hook. What I do not think is reasonable to require 'proof'. In general on can disprove something, proving is harder. If the Italian courts are going to require 'proof' they need to be clear what is the definition of 'proof'. Is it on the balance of probability? Is it sufficient to establish reasonable doubt? I think that to argue Guede's DNA arrived by contamination on multiple samples when collected at separate times and places is very unlikely. I think there is a quantitative difference of many orders of magnitude in arguing Sollecito's DNA arrived in a single mixed sample of LCN level on the bra hook by contamination. Without some definition by the judiciary of what level of proof is required for contamination, it becomes impossible for any defence to meet the standard required. The judiciary ask an impossible standard of the defence.
Click to expand...

In addition to comparing the validity of the DNA finding, in regards to sample size and the potential for contamination, I would add that the context is also important as to an evaluation of evidentiary worth.

Finding Amanda's DNA in Meredith's room would necessarily require Amanda to be present at the murder, although it may have. Raf had less reason to have his DNA in Meredith's room, but he was a visitor in the home, so innocent transfer must be considered as at least possible.

But Rudy hider had no reason to be in Meredith's room, unless you believe his wholly unsupported story if being on a date. Plus the fact oh his footprints and palm print in blood effectively time stamps his presence at the murder, which he also freely admits, he says he was there.

The point is, pro guilt people are arguing as though a simple finding if DNA automatically is proof of guilt, and that belief is absolutely false.

When I finally made this point to Mach up thread, he went ballistic, complaining then, that how could you ever find someobes traces of themselves in their own home where a crime has occurred ever be incriminating? To which, I can only reply, "yes", and, "duh!".
 
The case of Federico Aldrovandi and Patrizia Moretti

At some point after Federico Aldrovandi, who was unarmed, was brutally beaten to death by cops, his mother Patrizia Moretti called the cops "delinquents," IIUC. She wrote,

"I had referred to these policemen as “delinquents” because, in my view, anyone who kills is a delinquent, quite obviously, even if he/she wears a uniform, perhaps even more so, indeed, that is an aggravating circumstance!

In any event, this led to the charges laid against me by 3 of the 4 convicted policemen (in the Aldrovandi trial, Ed.) in 2008. Many complaints have been laid against me over the years. I think that I have collected around ten of them. In my case, I believe that all of these complaints laid against me over the long years were attempts to intimidate me and to prevent people talking about the case, either on the Internet, in the newspapers or using any other medium of communication."

According to Amnesty International there is no independent body for review of police misconduct. By the standards of European Policing (link previously given), the Italian system falls short. Every country has some rogue cops (not that this excuses their behavior). Yet any system that allows 10 suits to be brought against the mother of a son killed in this manner badly needs to reflect and to reform.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
However, they do seem to be highly suggestible.
Click to expand...

Also, did anybody not that something happened in the US which caused it to fall fourteen points while Italy gained eight point last year.

This is what is written about Italy
The only positive evolution in the south is to be found in Italy, which has finally emerged from a negative spiral and is preparing an encouraging law that would decriminalize defamation via the media

This is what was written about the United States
George W. Bush’s two terms as president by the way journalists were harassed and even imprisoned for refusing to reveal their sources or surrender their files to federal judicial officials.

There has been little improvement in practice under Barack Obama. Rather than pursuing journalists, the emphasis has been on going after their sources, but often using the journalist to identify them. No fewer that eight individuals have been charged under the Espionage Act since Obama became president,
compared with three during Bush’s two terms. While 2012 was in part the year of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 2013 will be remember for the National Security Agency computer specialist Edward Snowden, who exposed the mass surveillance methods developed by the US intelligence agencies.

The whistleblower is the enemy. Hence the 35-year jail term imposed on Private Chelsea/Bradley Manning for being the big WikiLeaks source, an extremely long sentence but nonetheless small in comparison with the 105-year sentence requested for freelance journalist Barrett Brown in a hacking case. Amid an all-out hunt for leaks and sources, 2013 will
also be the year of the Associated Press scandal, which came to light when the Department of Justice acknowledged that it had seized the news agency’s
phone records

So looking at the details presents a different picture. . . .US was better in the past and Italy was worse
 
In March 2013, the Italian Supreme Court reversed the Hellmann acquittals. In doing so, the Supreme Court waded into evidence-evaluation, most of which is not its job. Even so, the Chieffi court made many factual errors, as justification of its reversal:

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/critical-commentary-knox-sollecito-trial/

A sampling of the factual errors:

- in the motivations report, Chieffi cites photographs and video showing glass on top of the clothing, thus indicating a staged-break-in. The is/was no photographs or video showing glass on top of the clothing; much less any entered at the two lower courts.

- the elements which Curatolo testified to, which accompanied his claimed sighting of Knox and Sollecito in the square on Hallowe'en, the night before the murder. Yet the Supreme Court says it must have been Nov. 1 that he saw them, because Chieffi says Knox and Sollecito's whereabouts were known on Oct 31. The Supreme Court is then reversing a fact as found by Hellmann; and illogically so (even if it was their job to rule on facts).

- Chieffi's court decides that the break-in must have been staged, contrary to Hellmann's finding, because that is the logical conclusion from the "judicial fact" generated by Rudy's fast-track process. Whereas Chieffi stops short of saying that any future court MUST find, then, that Knox participated in a staging, he said: "(it) constitutes a significant segment in the reconstructive itinerary, to be assessed together with the other evidence."

- Chieffi says that Maria Dramis heard a scream unlike any she had heard before. Yet her testimony was that these sorts of screams were common to that area. On what basis does Chieffi just re-invent facts like this​

In short, Chieffi is directing future, lower courts on the facts they should be finding. Even though there are errors of fact in Chieffi's motivations report.
 
The "Federico Aldrovandi" case.

Again the Knoxians know nothing.

This case was a scandal. It got nationwide coverage. A documentary "E' Stato morto un ragazzo" was made about the case and received Italy's most important film awards "The Vittorio De Seta" award and the "David Donatello" presented by the Accademia del Cinema Italiano (Italy's "Oscar").

Here's the website of the "Federico Aldrovandi Association"

Please give it a look over:

http://www.federicoaldrovandi.it

You folks really know nothing about Italy.

--
 
Last edited:
Vibio said:
The "Federico Aldrovandi" case.

Again the Knoxians know nothing.

This case was a scandal. It got nationwide coverage. A documentary "E' Stato morto un ragazzo" was made about the case and received Italy's most important film awards "The Vittorio De Seta" award and the "David Donatello" presented by the Accademia del Cinema Italiano (Italy's "Oscar").

Here's the website of the "Federico Aldrovandi Association"

Please give it a look over:

http://www.federicoaldrovandi.it

You folks really know nothing about Italy.

--
Click to expand...

You've got me on this one. I know nothing about it.

But do you deny Chris Halkides comment, "Yet any system that allows 10 suits to be brought against the mother of a son killed in this manner badly needs to reflect and to reform"?

Were there lawsuits brought against the mother?
 
Whatever Vibio, anything to throw at Berlusconi will do right? Who cares about one or two innocents in prison if it means more ammo against him?
 
Union(s) demonstrating in favor of police brutality

"There were continued reports of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials. Concerns persisted about the independence and impartiality of investigations and about the thoroughness of the collection and preservation of evidence in cases of deaths in custody and alleged ill-treatment, which may have led to impunity. Repeated petitions to the authorities from the victims and their families remained essential to ensure thorough investigations and bring the perpetrators to justice." AI Report, 2011.

Reports of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials continued. There were no effective mechanisms established to prevent ill-treatment by police. Nor were concrete measures taken to ensure proper investigations and, where appropriate, prosecution of all law enforcement agents involved in human rights violations...In June, the Bologna Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance guilty verdict against four police officers for the unlawful killing of 18-year-old Federico Aldrovandi. Owing to the application of a law on pardon, the initial sentence of three years and six months was commuted to six months only. Federico Aldrovandi died in 2005 after being stopped by police officers in Ferrara. Appeals were filed before the Court of Cassation. In May, one of three police officers who had been sentenced in 2010 to prison terms of eight, 10 and 12 months respectively for helping to throw the inquiry off track, was also given a suspended sentence of a further three months. In January, a fourth police officer was acquitted of charges of involvement in deflecting the investigations." AI 2012 Report.

In 2013 one police union had a sit-in to demonstrate solidarity with the convicted officers:

"The sit-in has been widely condemned because it seemed clear that the place was chosen to provoke Aldrovandi’s mother, Patrizia Moretti. She left the office and took to the streets to show a large picture of her dead son. On seeing the shocking image, the demonstrators turned their backs on her. Just before that, Tiziano Tagliani, the mayor of Ferrara, had asked the demonstrators to continue their sit-in just a few meters away but he was ignored.

In a press release, Franco Maccari, the COISP general secretary said that they “didn’t know that Patrizia Moretti was a municipality employee and that her office was in Piazza Savonarola.” Maccari also said that “they’d like to kick the ass of people trying to exploit these facts.” Italian journalist Checchino Antonini points out that this particular police union is always trying to gain media attention. Antonini also reports that Maccari has already called for a demonstration in Piazza Alimonda (Genoa) on 20 July, the anniversary of the murder of Carlo Giuliani, in solidarity with police on duty during the G8 summit." (highlighting mine)

The Guardian reported, "A major police union in Italy has provoked outrage after giving a five-minute standing ovation to three officers convicted of the manslaughter of an 18-year-old.

The mother of Federico Aldrovandi, who died in the northern town of Ferrara in September 2005 on his way back from a night out, said she had felt both "fear and disgust" upon hearing of the warm reception given to the officers by the Autonomous Union of Police (SAP) on Tuesday."

Again, incidents of police brutality happen in every country. What may vary from country to country are how the incidents are dealt with and how institutionalized the problems are. It is the sorts of problems listed above that make Knox's, Sollecito's, and Lumumba's stories of how they were treated more credible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom