Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
There you go again with the strawman.

The fact of it is, entering evidence of how unreliable witness testimony is, IS and argument to be made at trial.

Out of all the types of evidence which can be entered, witness testimony is the most fleeting and perhaps the least reliable. This is not an issue of absolutes (which you pull out of thin air as an issue), but an issue of prioritizing the kinds of evidence and their veracity.
For instance, even DNA evidence would have to take second place to proof that the accused was in another country at the time of the murder.
Click to expand...

Or is a real life case, the person was in medical care at the time of the murder.
 
Diocletus said:
Obama's father might very well have had strong thoughts about this.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that Obama's mother's family originated from Ireland and/or Britain, which suggests the possibility of considerable internal conflict, evidence of which dates back to the War of the Roses and beyond.

I am confident that the right kind of analysis, carried out with attention to all the details and connections that may be imagined, will link these considerations of former events and ancestry to more recent events.
 
carbonjam72 said:
You don't think Obamas presidency has faced an especially intransigent opposition? I can remember back to Reagan and even carter, but I've never seen anything remotely like this. Seems like there's pre and post newt Gingric. I don't think the parties behave identically when roles are reversed.

You ever read the "borrow it's report"? One headline was that the GOP had agreed to compromise, and would allow Obama to create one part-time job.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone their political views. But if you don't believe in climate change, want creationism taught in science classes, and oppose federal studies into gun related injuries, isn't there really only one place to go?
Click to expand...

I don't know about all of that, but at the end of the day, if the government is not sufficiently functional, the President, whoever he is, is going to get a big part of the blame because he's the guy that people remember.
 
carbonjam72 said:
I don't think this is workable. I think the issue is that scientific standards must be respected, since the bar is always moving. Anything said to address a specific short-coming on a specific procedure is already obsolete before the ink is dry. But by affirming a duty to scientific standards, logic, and reason, in other words avoiding arbitrary and unfair maneuvers, is what keeps the body of law up to date as the opinions gracefully age.
Click to expand...

Well, this itself would be a statement. The facts would appear to be that different member states' approaches to forensic science have very variable qualities. Moreover, new innovations are made all the time; unfortunately some seem to find themselves in courtrooms before they have been properly evaluated. Isn't there some big investigation going on right now into wrongful convictions in the US as a result of dodgy interpretations of hair evidence accepted by courts over many years, including in DP cases? Isn't LT/CN DNA in that very dangerous category of "evidence" where some scientists like Balding are more trusting of it than others like Jamieson? Does anyone have any knowledge of what's been happening with low template work in Italy since the Kercher case? How many more "Kercher cases" are there over there?
 
carbonjam72 said:
You don't think Obamas presidency has faced an especially intransigent opposition? I can remember back to Reagan and even carter, but I've never seen anything remotely like this. Seems like there's pre and post newt Gingric. I don't think the parties behave identically when roles are reversed.

You ever read the "borrow it's report"? One headline was that the GOP had agreed to compromise, and would allow Obama to create one part-time job.

I wouldn't begrudge anyone their political views. But if you don't believe in climate change, want creationism taught in science classes, and oppose federal studies into gun related injuries, isn't there really only one place to go?
Click to expand...

Let's not go too OT.

We may be running into a cultural issue: Brits value understated humor, Yanks tend to use overstatement in humor (and I've been told by foreigners (Danes) that the Americans they've observed don't have much of a sense of humor). (Perhaps the Danes were just kidding?) {And these are all stereotypes, I know.}
 
Last edited:
Kauffer said:
How many more "Kercher cases" are there over there?
Click to expand...

Given Stefanoni's apparent lab protocol, which was basically to try to amplify every sample she extracted no matter how small, and the obvious problems with her lab in terms of cleanliness and upkeep, I have to believe that there are other people out there who have been wrongly convicted on the basis of this lab's forensics.
 
Diocletus said:
I don't know about all of that, but at the end of the day, if the government is not sufficiently functional, the President, whoever he is, is going to get a big part of the blame because he's the guy that people remember.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that it's important for a government to be properly dysfunctional, or it would overreach. The whole concept of setting up three branches of government with overlapping powers is to allow and encourage a level of conflict.
 
Bill Williams said:
There you go again with the strawman.

The fact of it is, entering evidence of how unreliable witness testimony is, IS and argument to be made at trial.

Out of all the types of evidence which can be entered, witness testimony is the most fleeting and perhaps the least reliable. This is not an issue of absolutes (which you pull out of thin air as an issue), but an issue of prioritizing the kinds of evidence and their veracity.

For instance, even DNA evidence would have to take second place to proof that the accused was in another country at the time of the murder.
Click to expand...

Desert Fox said:
Or is a real life case, the person was in medical care at the time of the murder.
Click to expand...

Yet both Machiavelli and the Italian Supreme Court would still keep the DNA as evidence of guilt.... and if there were other "indicators" then they still wish to reserve judgement that the hospital-bound, or the out-of-country was guilty.

The defence would be: the presence of incriminating DNA can, in this case, only be explained by something like contamination or faulty collection. (Or the fact the person lived there and had spend 8 weeks depositing their DNA!)

Machiavelli and the Italian Supreme Court counter with: unless the defence can prove the route of claimed-contamination, or unless the defence is willing to pursue criminal charges against the forensic collector, then, "We reserve the right to keep the DNA evidence in play."

It is as bizarre as that.

Add to this, that "all the other evidence" which the court says adds up to something are mainly simple assertions of police or judges - assertions without proof, like it being surmised to be Meredith's boyfriend's DNA-material on the clasp as one of the three "innocent" profiles.

If the prosecution or the judge can assert it, it must be true. It is therefore up to the defence to prove otherwise.

And getting back to this mini-thread: just because eye-witness testimony is not perfect (acc. to Machiavelli) is no reason to discount it. This: even though eye-witness testimony is the most fleeting of all - esp. when coming from an addict who has his days wrong. And, further, who was recruited as a witness six months later!
 
carbonjam72 said:
I doubt Giobbi will be held accountable. I think there's a much higher probability that Ficcarra, Napoleone, and Zugarini will be held accountable for the interrogation.

In short, the lower level people will take the fall if a scape goat must be found. That's what I think the convictions of Napoleone, zugarini and ficarra were all about in Napoleone's custody battle.

Mignini? Maybe. Because its such a high profile disaster that has cause international embarrassment to Italy as a whole. But first he'll be eased into retirement, so he's no linger active. Then the net will tighten over time with successive ECHR opinions, and further review.

But the is no justice here. Lives have already been pushed off track, wrongful imprisonment suffered, reputations sullied deliberately and falsely in the press. MIgnini can't make right what he's done, only be punished for his crimes after the fact.

As for future acts of framing. I guess its like environmental contamination of DNA in Amanda's bathroom. The prosecution wants to say its evidence of her presence at the murder, which is obviously just silly.

But it may be just as silly to think the framing that occurred in this case is substantially different from what happens more regularly in Italy. ''Framing' may just be how they play the game, it certainly seems evident in many other cases.

Mach would probably know best. Doesn't mean he'll tell us, not after a gallon of chianti.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling Mach drinks finer wine than chianti! :p
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Yet both Machiavelli and the Italian Supreme Court would still keep the DNA as evidence of guilt.... and if there were other "indicators" then they still wish to reserve judgement that the hospital-bound, or the out-of-country was guilty.

The defence would be: the presence of incriminating DNA can, in this case, only be explained by something like contamination or faulty collection. (Or the fact the person lived there and had spend 8 weeks depositing their DNA!)

Machiavelli and the Italian Supreme Court counter with: unless the defence can prove the route of claimed-contamination, or unless the defence is willing to pursue criminal charges against the forensic collector, then, "We reserve the right to keep the DNA evidence in play."

It is as bizarre as that.

Add to this, that "all the other evidence" which the court says adds up to something are mainly simple assertions of police or judges - assertions without proof, like it being surmised to be Meredith's boyfriend's DNA-material on the clasp as one of the three "innocent" profiles.

If the prosecution or the judge can assert it, it must be true. It is therefore up to the defence to prove otherwise.

And getting back to this mini-thread: just because eye-witness testimony is not perfect (acc. to Machiavelli) is no reason to discount it. This: even though eye-witness testimony is the most fleeting of all - esp. when coming from an addict who has his days wrong. And, further, who was recruited as a witness six months later!
Click to expand...

Machiavelli wrote
Not to speak about the impossibility to fit ("equally well") a one assailant scenario with the autopsy report and the blood splatter analysis. Or the contradiction with Capezzali and Monacchia's testimony of a scream and (Capezzali) steps on the gravel path immediately after.

My understanding is that he/she is not using the drug addict although never know if that witness is being completely discarded by Machiavelli.

Capezzali was the old lady and Monacchia was a young school teacher. I actually was not familiar with Monacchia

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=7189205
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/14/ear-witness-against-amanda-knox-mixed-up-nights/

They are apparently neighbors. . . .Too easy for them to have spoken to each others.
 
Diocletus said:
I don't know about all of that, but at the end of the day, if the government is not sufficiently functional, the President, whoever he is, is going to get a big part of the blame because he's the guy that people remember.
Click to expand...

Well I agree that has always been true. But with trillions of dollars in spending, I think its hard to believe one person can micromanage everything. But I agree, thats what people do.

I'm not sure if we've ever had a government that was 'sufficiently functional'. But I do believe Obama is a president of rare intellect, ability and integrity. I'm a fan of Clinton too, but I think you won't see Obama doing some of the dopey private things Clinton was up to.

And Bush Jr's decisions to go into Iraq and Afghanistan were hard to swallow.

I don't know DC, I think Obama's presidency has been different from those before it, both in his own capabilities, and the manner and degree to which his agenda has been undermined and thwarted. It really doesn't look like business as usual, if there even is such a thing anymore. But its always fine to disagree.
 
Desert Fox said:
Machiavelli wrote
Not to speak about the impossibility to fit ("equally well") a one assailant scenario with the autopsy report and the blood splatter analysis. Or the contradiction with Capezzali and Monacchia's testimony of a scream and (Capezzali) steps on the gravel path immediately after.

My understanding is that he/she is not using the drug addict although never know if that witness is being completely discarded by Machiavelli.

Capezzali was the old lady and Monacchia was a young school teacher. I actually was not familiar with Monacchia

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=7189205
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/14/ear-witness-against-amanda-knox-mixed-up-nights/

They are apparently neighbors. . . .Too easy for them to have spoken to each others.
Click to expand...

Seriously, aural witnesses? It's junk evidence like all the rest.
 
Kauffer said:
Well, this itself would be a statement. The facts would appear to be that different member states' approaches to forensic science have very variable qualities. Moreover, new innovations are made all the time; unfortunately some seem to find themselves in courtrooms before they have been properly evaluated. Isn't there some big investigation going on right now into wrongful convictions in the US as a result of dodgy interpretations of hair evidence accepted by courts over many years, including in DP cases? Isn't LT/CN DNA in that very dangerous category of "evidence" where some scientists like Balding are more trusting of it than others like Jamieson? Does anyone have any knowledge of what's been happening with low template work in Italy since the Kercher case? How many more "Kercher cases" are there over there?
Click to expand...

Here's a snippet of translation from an article link that MAch posted about Stfanoni supporting a complaint against Pascali in another court case -

MACH: I don't know. What I know is in 2010 (and then in a subsequent testimony) she gave her contribution to send Pascali under trial for false expert report (this news from Jan 15. 2014):

http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno....arra-no685643/

A piece of news from 2011:

http://www.tg1.rai.it/dl/tg1/2010/ar...2d638bf5a.html
Click to expand...

From the article of 2014 - Stef seems to be suggesting that Pascali's being careful about proceeding to test LCN DNA is no longer warranted, given advances in LCN DNA testing. Again, Stef doesn't seem to grasp the importance of protocols, and the dangers of contamination, but maybe I'm misreading here -

Yet Pascali has analyzed 150 samples. "Only a few - said in a document - have returned a positive test evidenziaria to be a human tissue." Pascali claims that "all samples taken were still subjected to the extraction of DNA, without regard to the positivity or negativity performed the examination of human tissue."
Defends his work. He says: "Let me be clear the content of the highly precautionary approach taken to continue with the amplifying." Two-thirds of the samples excluded them. Here's why: "They were silent," says Pascali. Did not give "any results, even partial." And again: "Only a small number of samples between those undergoing profiling returned genetic profiles or human male." They were about ten. "Many of these profiles - says geneticist - were of such poor quality analytic can not be consistently interpreted."
The figure 'surprising' expertise Pascali - argue the prosecutors of Salerno - is "the lack of extraction from certain findings of the genetic profile useful for identification purposes" for the low amount of DNA detected. It is also highlighted "the high number of finds not considered useful for the purpose of sampling of alleged biological traces and, therefore, excluded from any verification." Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, consultant of the Prosecutor of Salerno, also expressed "strong reservations" - the judges write - on "method (now obsolete) used 'by Professor Pascali.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
I'm not British, but here are my thoughts:

1. Jar is not smart, sorry, but he's just not

2. Obama hates Britain (although he probably won't be Pres by the time this comes to a head)
3. If extradition is delayed or denied, it's going to be for some political/legal reason internal to the US, and neither itsly not the UK are going to change that.

4. Italy should have thought of this before it established a course of dealing under this treaty, by which national courts can override the terms of the treaty based on their identification of important legal policy.
Click to expand...

{Highlighting added to quote.}

I am revisiting this to provide for some context for those not familiar with some of the peculiar themes of American politics over the last few years. A recent news article has some relevant quotes, showing how Obama is portrayed by some of his political opponents.

http://abcnews.go.com/News/rudy-giuliani-draws-ire-top-dem-obama-doesnt/story?id=29078522

The quote is from Rudy Giuliani, a former mayor of New York City, and a Republican (Obama is a Democrat), at a private dinner which included one or more potential Republican candidates for the office of president.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said at the dinner in New York City, Politico reported. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”
Click to expand...
____
My own, idealistic, view is that issues of extradition will not be dealt with on the basis of domestic politics.
 
Numbers said:
My own, idealistic, view is that issues of extradition will not be dealt with on the basis of domestic politics.
Click to expand...

It would be good if the Italians or ECHR ended up getting this right, but if there is to be an extradition proceeding, why shouldn't domestic politics be involved? That's why the Secretary of State has discretion.

Anyway, I'll bet the State Department has a very long memory concerning the Pietro Venezia matter.
 
Interesting videos at 19 Feb 2015, 18:51 on PMF org with good subtitling. Raffaele defends himself in interviews. The first one ends with a (blonde bombshell) female professor declaring guilt because of what happened after the murders, that's as far as I got.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
It would be good if the Italians or ECHR ended up getting this right, but if there is to be an extradition proceeding, why shouldn't domestic politics be involved? That's why the Secretary of State has discretion.

Anyway, I'll bet the State Department has a very long memory concerning the Pietro Venezia matter.
Click to expand...

You're right about both points.

In fact, almost everyone in America remembers this failure of Italy to extradite Pietro Venezia, despite the terms of the extradition treaty.

And domestic politics may be a lawful consideration of the Secretary of State; he or she has absolute discretion NOT to extradite.
 
Samson said:
Interesting videos at 19 Feb 2015, 18:51 on PMF org with good subtitling. Raffaele defends himself in interviews. The first one ends with a (blonde bombshell) female professor declaring guilt because of what happened after the murders, that's as far as I got.
Click to expand...

Got a link?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom