Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

Frankly, I don't think Italy needs to be concerned at all.
The US might be concerned about the extradition treaty, that has some practical consequence.
I also think that Knox will have some time to be concerned, and that likely it will be from the inside of a prison. But it's just my personal anticipation. It doesn't really matter to me that much now how events evolve. One thing I can say rather confidently is that Italy is not going to say "Knox is innocent" at any time soon.

Is it possible that Italy (cassation in March) may say that Amanda is "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? Is that at least a theoretically possible outcome of the upcoming march hearing?

Could cassation in theory, reinstate Hellman?

Or are the only options, affirm, reject and retrial, or refer to united sections?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I’m not reahashing 4 yr old stuff with you because you just found it now and refuse to read the thread even when given links. Start with the 25% correction and work back - or don’t. Truthers and noobs to this thread might have been indulged in that manner on this board but not by me.

Why are you just copying and pasting previous posts you made? Are you that lost? I already responded to this.

Indeed it is – the penny finally drops

Why would you? - it was merely the point of Rolfe's post and my response

So you DIDN'T EVEN READ the abstract of the paper I linked to and you're talking about a completely different topic regarding digestion for some inexplicable reason? Read the paper from wiley.com, I urge you. Its experimental results prove that Amanda could not have been at the cottage at Meredith's time of death. Why the hell did you refer to the scientific journal article anyway if your entire point was a response to Rolfe? I find it far more likely you didn't understand anything and now you're pretending like you were talking about something else.

If you want to talk about the state of digestion within the stomach, I suggest you take it up with Rolfe since that wasn't even what I was talking about. Take a vacation from "cartwheel world", platanov, and we can get on the same page hopefully.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Here is the plot showing the data in that paper. I'd like Platonov to explain how to fit a Tlag greater than 3 hours. Note in particular:

a) These Tlag times are greater than the actual time is takes for the stomach emptying to start because they correpsond to the time until the emptying speed reaches a maximum (i.e. some time after the emptying starts).

b) The Tlag value and its spread are lower for people with Meredith's age.

Thank you for the figure MDDVS. Unfortunately, after attempting to communicate with platonov, it's become unbearably clear he doesn't understand any of this, so there's no way we'll get anything useful out of him. Except for some incomprehensible remarks about cartwheel world or something.

 

[Bill Williams]

I note with interest that Andrea Vogt - the author of a recent tweet that was shockingly racist, ill-informed, partisan and inflammatory in its nature - has had the chutzpah to pretend she's cut from the same journalistic cloth as Woodward and Bernstein in her latest self-published online piece (good luck with that getting picked up as paid copy, Andrea!) which contains a small number of totally anodyne FOI communications from the US stations in Rome. She has the gall to have a prod at the news outlets reporting Knox's apparent engagement. I'm guessing she might just be a teeny bit bitter at not being able to get paid for anything she says or writes on the Knox case any longer.

But anyway, well done Arn-dray-ahh, you ignoble, mendacious, partisan hypocrite, you.......

In the race to monetize this tragedy, Barbie Latza Nadeau won and An-DRAY-ah lost. What really held Andrea Vogt back was supporting Mignini at all costs.

Not so Nadeau. Machiavelli calls Nadeau "an approximate reporter" and guilters these days are not terribly happy with her (cf. Winterbottom's "The Face of an Angel").

But man oh man did Nadeau get her payday.

 

[Dougm]

In the race to monetize this tragedy, Barbie Latza Nadeau won and An-DRAY-ah lost. What really held Andrea Vogt back was supporting Mignini at all costs.

Not so Nadeau. Machiavelli calls Nadeau "an approximate reporter" and guilters these days are not terribly happy with her (cf. Winterbottom's "The Face of an Angel").

But man oh man did Nadeau get her payday.

She shoulda written a book. Before it was too late, and there were already so many out. You snooze, you lose, Andrea. Now she is reduced to writing bizarre tweets about Greg Hampikian and playing the race card.

 

[Dan O.]

The uppermost finger on the hand to the left of the picture.

I can see doubtful areas on a couple of other fingers, which I looked at carefully, but these are just colour changes caused by the slightly-too-large gloves being in uneven contact with the fingers. I do feel sure about the glove being split over the fingernail of the upper left finger though, unless you can explain to me how I am mistaken.

First of all, though this makes no difference, that is not one of Stefanoni's fingers. That is the flashlight man pointing at and even touching the clasp.

There is a crease on the upper part of that finger. And on the lower front what looks like a dark split is actually the shadow of the loose thread above the clasp.

ETA: I see Rolfe already ninja'd me on the explanation. I guess this never really dawned on me that it could be a split because I already knew the thread was there from studying the clasp.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think it's the shadow, I think it's the fingernail itself, in a properly-fitting glove. But I agree (as I said) that it's an illusion caused by the loose thread. I had to blow it up before I saw it.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is a strawman argument. The point is that when people criticize Mignini, 20 (or more) have ended up with charges against them.

I'd say Mignini is a fellow not very confident in his own reputation, that what his friends and colleagues know about him will be the only defence he needs.

This argument is as hypocrite as the one suggesting that the guilters should stick to the judicial truth of motivations reports.

The folks who "criticized" Mignini actually committed unlawful actions of defamation as part of a PR campaign aimed at interfering with justice.
Reporting false allegations is no criticism.
The number of false reports against Mignini was actually huge. Even Wikipedia reports false information against him. The number of people he sued is incredibly small, it boils down basically only to the case of Sollecito - Gumbel's book, and the activity of a couple of scribblers who distinguished themselves for their sleazy agenda (Sfarzo, Sulas). Preston and another writer were also sued in an early case, but still this is just because of the lies of Preston. We are only talking about people who attempted to take profit from smearing a decent person.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

T(lag) and food particles

Here is the plot showing the data in that paper. I'd like Platonov to explain how to fit a Tlag greater than 3 hours. Note in particular:

a) These Tlag times are greater than the actual time is takes for the stomach emptying to start because they correpsond to the time until the emptying speed reaches a maximum (i.e. some time after the emptying starts).

b) The Tlag value and its spread are lower for people with Meredith's age.

MDDVS,

Good point. T(lag) is used in two different ways in the gastrointestinal literature. One is the way you describe above. The other is that it refers to the time it takes to reach 10% emptying of the stomach. I posted on this once, possibly in Continuation Thread 8. Then I posted again (in Continuation Thread 11?), which expanded a bit on this point. In one study I went through the math to show that the two times were not identical.

NotEvenWrong,

I agree that the issue of the lack of material in the duodenum is a separate issue from the question of the stomach contents themselves. However, both point to an early TOD, not the TOD of the Massei-Mignini fantasy. A 2013 paper by Patel and coworkers last year noted, "In present study among gastric contents of 100 deceased persons (70 males and 30 females) examined: semi-digested identifiable food particles were found more commonly in those persons who died 0-2 hours after last meal..."

They concluded, "If the medical examiner can find out through witness statements when the last meal was consumed, he can use this to determine the time of death...So from this study we can calculate approximate time of death indirectly by examine gastric content but due to various factors affecting gastric emptying in different individuals we can’t define exact time of death. This may use as support to other procedure to estimate time since death."

 

[Machiavelli]

Is it possible that Italy (cassation in March) may say that Amanda is "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? Is that at least a theoretically possible outcome of the upcoming march hearing?

Could cassation in theory, reinstate Hellman?

Or are the only options, affirm, reject and retrial, or refer to united sections?

Absolutely not. Hellmann cannot be reinstated. Under no condition. Hellmann judgement and trial is null, it doesn't exist as a valid document from the justice system, and can't be saved.

At this stage the Cassazione could only order a further Appeal on particular points (such as for example the position of Sollecito alone) but this will not happen in my opinion.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is a strawman argument. The point is that when people criticize Mignini, 20 (or more) have ended up with charges against them.

I'd say Mignini is a fellow not very confident in his own reputation, that what his friends and colleagues know about him will be the only defence he needs.

This argument is as hypocrite as the one suggesting that the guilters should stick to the judicial truth of motivations reports.

The folks who "criticized" Mignini actually committed unlawful actions of defamation as part of a PR campaign aimed at interfering with justice. Reporting false allegations is no criticism. The number of false reports against Mignini was actually huge. Even Wikipedia reports false information against him. The number of people he sued is incredibly small, it boils down basically only to the case of Sollecito - Gumbel's book, and the activity of a couple of scribblers who distinguished themselves for their sleazy agenda (Sfarzo, Sulas). Preston and another writer were also sued in an early case, but still this is just because of the lies of Preston. We are only talking about people who attempted to take profit from smearing a decent person.

Yes, I understand that this is your position which you will take to trial. I duly note that not all 20 have yet had their guilt finalized by Cassazione - but nonetheless you thumb your nose at the Italian judiciary (in Mignini's favour) by declaring them (as if a judge yourself) guilty anyways.

My view of this differs. But then I've said that.

What I want to know is unanswered by you. If Mignini's reputation was a sound one among his peers, why does he need to charge so many to "prove" anything at all? Why would his peer listen to a fictional PR campaign if they knew him so well?

 

[Dan O.]

I don't think it's the shadow, I think it's the fingernail itself, in a properly-fitting glove. But I agree (as I said) that it's an illusion caused by the loose thread. I had to blow it up before I saw it.

Here is a closer view:

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, that's a lot better. I'm happy to agree with you entirely now. I see now the elements that combined to give the illusion of a split glove in the smaller picture.

 

[Machiavelli]

In other words, you must never question the evidence. If they produce any evidence whatsoever, it is iron clad. period.

ETA: because of course their experts are going to say it is iron clad. They are not going to produce an expert who says the evidence might not be any good FFS. Ergo, if you cannot question the experts, you cannot question the evidence, therefore - guilty as charged. Why does Italy even bother with trials?

This is superficial. Indeed evidence has been dealt with directly in many cases. Any kind of evidence, from witnesses to scientific evidence, including DNA. For example in the Peruzzi case Vecchiotti and Dalla Piccola disputed over the attribution of a DNA profile. In the Cesaroni murder case, experts disputed over the attribution of a bite mark.
Here it seems the defence wants to argue that there was contamination of the bra clasp from Sollecito's DNA originating from another source, and contamination of the kitchen knife with Meredith's DNA via unspecified path.
There is nothing supported nor specific in these claims. Simply there is no element of evidence in reality that the defence can bring for their claim.

So what the defence does instead, and what the pro-Knoxes do here, is to change target and dispute over procedure and about Stefanoni rather than about the DNA profiles, how they got there. But you can't substitute a direct dispute about the evidence findings by a talk about procedures. Discussion about procedures and quality is indirect argumentation and does nor replace an argument about evidence.

 

[carbonjam72]

Absolutely not. Hellmann cannot be reinstated. Under no condition. Hellmann judgement and trial is null, it doesn't exist as a valid document from the justice system, and can't be saved.

At this stage the Cassazione could only order a further Appeal on particular points (such as for example the position of Sollecito alone) but this will not happen in my opinion.

If cassation orders an appeal on further points, or in whole, does that mean the jail sentences/convictions from Nencini are annulled?

And united sections referral is also still a possibility , no?

 

[Machiavelli]

When the contaminated clasp issue was recently brought up, Machiavelli claimed by his authority alone without backing evidence that it was the clasp that contaminated Stefanoni's glove.

That photo in the preeceeding post is from 054.jpg which was taken only seconds after the clasp was photographed on the floor.

00:34:26.64|053.jpg|15.52.32.80|clasp on floor
00.34.48.48|054.jpg|15.52.54.70|stef holding clasp, flashlight man pointing to it
00.34.51.08| | |stef holding clasp, pointing with pinkie
00.34.53.24|055.jpg|15.52.59.40|stef holding clasp
00.35.02.32| | |stef holding clasp in other hand
00.35.04.92| | |stef holding clasp
00.35.28.64|056.jpg|15.53.34.90|flashlight man holding clasp
00.35.34.68| | |flashlight man holding clasp
00.35.49 | | |<no flash> clasp illuminated by flashlight only?
00.36.27.88|057.jpg|15.54.34.10|Clasp on floor by Y
00.36.35.00| | |Clasp on floor by Y
00.37.20.44|058.jpg|03.55.26.70|Clasp in bag

00:34:42 Stef reaches down to pick up clasp with right hand
00:34:43 Stef holding clasp by hook between thumb and index finger of right hand
00:34:45 Clasp transferred to thumb and index of left hand holding fabric
00:34:46 Clasp turned over and transferred back to right hand
00:34:47 Clasp turned again, transferred back to left hand holding other hook
00:34:48.48 Flash from camera over Stef's sholder

Up to this point, the clasp was only touched by the lower surface of the index finger and thumb. The top surface of Stef's index finger where the debris on the glove is seen in the photo has not contacted the clasp.

So where dose Machiavelli's claim that the clasp contaminated the glove come from? Did Machiavelli make this up himself as a delibrate lie. Or, was this something Machiavelli was told and if so, who told him and why didn't he verify this before posting it as his own statement?

It is a logical inference based on the fact that the clasp fabric was described as "dirty", " blackened" or "tarnished" and the floor was "very dirty" too. It is unavoidable and logical that the glove that picked up the bra fabric would get dirty in the very moment it touches it, or even when they lifted the carpet that covered the item. And since it has already touched it, since it is already holding it, the glove fingers must have got dirty with it.
A further information we have, is that the gloves were new, that one was the first item they were picking up.
The whole sequence is actually visible in a video, if you have doubts about timings.

The item and glove were dirty, but not "contaminated with Sollecito's DNA", since contamination would mean secondary transfer of specifically Sollecito's DNA. And you don't see Sollecito's DNA on the glove.

 

[Bill Williams]

In other words, you must never question the evidence. If they produce any evidence whatsoever, it is iron clad. period.

ETA: because of course their experts are going to say it is iron clad. They are not going to produce an expert who says the evidence might not be any good FFS. Ergo, if you cannot question the experts, you cannot question the evidence, therefore - guilty as charged. Why does Italy even bother with trials?

This is superficial. Indeed evidence has been dealt with directly in many cases. Any kind of evidence, from witnesses to scientific evidence, including DNA. For example in the Peruzzi case Vecchiotti and Dalla Piccola disputed over the attribution of a DNA profile. In the Cesaroni murder case, experts disputed over the attribution of a bite mark.
Here it seems the defence wants to argue that there was contamination of the bra clasp from Sollecito's DNA originating from another source, and contamination of the kitchen knife with Meredith's DNA via unspecified path.
There is nothing supported nor specific in these claims. Simply there is no element of evidence in reality that the defence can bring for their claim.

So what the defence does instead, and what the pro-Knoxes do here, is to change target and dispute over procedure and about Stefanoni rather than about the DNA profiles, how they got there. But you can't substitute a direct dispute about the evidence findings by a talk about procedures. Discussion about procedures and quality is indirect argumentation and does nor replace an argument about evidence.

For mercy's sake, Machiavelli, even you admit the clasp was dirty - you said it was dirty enough to make Stefanoni's glove conspicuously dirty!



For mercy's sake, even Stefanoni herself can neither confirm nor deny that she touched the hook on the clasp. Your position is that to accuse Stefanoni of being incompetent, is the same as accusing her of being a liar, therefore your, "Stefanoni is not on trial here," meme is born.

These have not been good days for your arguments. Do you really believe that the 46-day old clasp was dirty enough to soil the glove? Was the clasp that dirty on Nov 2?

It is as Judge Massei said, he believed Stefanoni and rejected explanations of contamination solely on her say-so. Otherwise, (as you say) saying the evidence is fawlty is tantamount to calling Stefanoni a liar.

And at that point the evidence is forgotten while the defamation suit heats up! That is precisely how Mignini attempted to control this wrongful conviction, through predatory prosecutions.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is a logical inference based on the fact that the clasp fabric was described as "dirty", " blackened" or "tarnished" and the floor was "very dirty" too. It is unavoidable and logical that the glove that picked up the bra fabric would get dirty in the very moment it touches it. And since it has already touched it, since it is already holding it, the glove fingers must have got dirty with it.
A further information we have, is that the gloves were new, that one was the first item they were picking up.
The whole sequence is actually visible in a video, if you have doubts about timings.

It is, quite frankly, unbelievable you would argue like this. What innocenters worldwide will say about your argument is: "Go for it Machiavelli: you just proved that the clasp was contaminated before Stefanoni picked it up!"

I cannot believe you are doing this.

 

[Machiavelli]

If cassation orders an appeal on further points, or in whole, does that mean the jail sentences/convictions from Nencini are annulled?

And united sections referral is also still a possibility , no?

It depends. Theoretically it is possible that parts of Nencini judgement are annulled. But the annulment of Nencini would re-instate Massei and the points of appeal, that is still an unfavorable status for the defence.

 

[Machiavelli]

It is, quite frankly, unbelievable you would argue like this. What innocenters worldwide will say about your argument is: "Go for it Machiavelli: you just proved that the clasp was contaminated before Stefanoni picked it up!"

I cannot believe you are doing this.

But... contaminated by what contaminating agent?
This is old discussion points.