Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Look, I am as sure as I can humanly be that they are innocent but it is not in my makeup to state anything 100%. Maybe the West Memphis Three and Norfolk Four are guilty as well but I am certain as I can be that they are innocent.

That said, I don't expect their timelines to line up. Human memory is to mercurial a thing for that.

That is not quite what I am getting at. What I say is that if they are innocent they serve their sentences, and if guilty they go free in that thought experiment.

 

[carbonjam72]

Thats whats sickening about Marescas recent tv appearance claiming "the dna of meredith was found on the tip of the knife".
Hes spewing the lies, or only gets his info from the Daily Mail or National Enquirer. I dont believe he is stupid, but that he is a snake-bellied lawyer.
Hes either a swine for saying false statements, or he is the most ignorant person in this whole case.

Maresca is one of the few leaders of the Guiltard party, he wasnt neutral, nor independent, from the start.

Only someone who is ignorant of the entire case would continue on with this large kitchen knife crap evidence. Its been found not to have been cleaned, and no blood on it = not the murder weapon.

...or I suppose someone like Maresca, who is a Guiltard, lying publicly and politically motivated to lie about the knife.

But if Meredith's DNA isn't on Raf's kitchen knife, and Raf's DNA isn't on the bra strap or is there through contamination, then how will Maresca get his hands on raf's inheritance?

 

[carbonjam72]

Michael Winterbottom interviewed about his film.

http://www.channel4.com/news/michael-winterbottom-amanda-knox-face-angel-film-video

Bill, maybe you can weave this into your theory, he does a superb bit of fence sitting, saying after so long of course the truth can never be known. Of course he is selling a mystery....

Winternottom is officially a bottom feeder who should be sued for slander, imo, for suggesting "we'll never know". Irresponsible, reckless money grubbing, low talent scumbag. (imo).

 

[Kauffer]

Oh, I’m not worried about it – I find it interesting in a certain sense.
Let me explain. Recently here you claimed that RS’s Nov5/6th statement was IRRELEVANT.
That was a very special, even by the standards of cartwheel world, argument - reminiscent of LJ’s UTTERLY IRRELEVANT argument on the same subject,
Now you claim that the whole ‘alibi’ issue is ‘not germane’. This is also a very special argument.
I am merely trying to ascertain exactly how special your latest argument is.

Do you see?

As to the rest – I think I have it. You mentioned RS giving AK an alibi. Let me assure you he isn’t.
But as it’s ‘not germane’ I am surprised you even mention the matter further

Platonov, Platonov - the interrogation was illegal! You still don't understand this either??!

Have the buses gone for good, Platonov, along with the illeisms?

Now, go and work on the Sollecito strategy - try to figure it out. Everything else will fall into place when you've done it. All things relevant, irrelevant and germane on the subject of alibis flow from it - apart from Curatolo's, which only applies if the judge thinks he was telling the truth.

 

[Bill Williams]

Michael Winterbottom interviewed about his film.

http://www.channel4.com/news/michael-winterbottom-amanda-knox-face-angel-film-video

Bill, maybe you can weave this into your theory, he does a superb bit of fence sitting, saying after so long of course the truth can never be known. Of course he is selling a mystery....

I still may be the only person in the universe who liked the film. The general release, apparently, is March 27, two days after the Cassazione decision. I have seen no trailers in the theatres for it, so doubt that the release is where I am.

He is not fence sitting at all. He is saying that because of the coverage, it is impossible for him, as a film maker, to make a film which gets to the bottom of the murder itself. The tabloids managed two things in their race to "seeL' Foxy Knoxy, as Kate Beckinsale says in the brief trailer you saw in the clip (Beckinsale playing Barbie Nadeau): "(Knox) is the story."

As long as Knox is the story, then the murder cannot be solved because the narrative goes in the direction the Barbie Latza Nadeau's of the world take it - the way the Andrea Vogts of the world take it.

Is that not enough for you?

 

[Bill Williams]

OK Bill
It’s merely a figure of speech but have a go. Prove me wrong, there’s a first time for everything.
Show where I found the evidence.
A link + quote will do.

Now you are ...........................

 

[Samson]

I still may be the only person in the universe who liked the film. The general release, apparently, is March 27, two days after the Cassazione decision. I have seen no trailers in the theatres for it, so doubt that the release is where I am.

He is not fence sitting at all. He is saying that because of the coverage, it is impossible for him, as a film maker, to make a film which gets to the bottom of the murder itself. The tabloids managed two things in their race to "seeL' Foxy Knoxy, as Kate Beckinsale says in the brief trailer you saw in the clip (Beckinsale playing Barbie Nadeau): "(Knox) is the story."

As long as Knox is the story, then the murder cannot be solved because the narrative goes in the direction the Barbie Latza Nadeau's of the world take it - the way the Andrea Vogts of the world take it.

Is that not enough for you?

I am not sure I was clear then, and in no way wished to challenge your excellent review on IIP, and the way you have followed this film, far from it.

I am rather suggesting that Winterbottom has determined they are innocent by elevating Sfarzo and finishing the film with the acquittal, but as a salesman he must get people to the cinema first before he can delver the message to the most people.

And maybe CJ72 will cut some slack for now, though I know exactly where he is coming from.
Ergon thinks the film is good, so there is another layer, for the true obsessionists...

 

[Desert Fox]

Winternottom is officially a bottom feeder who should be sued for slander, imo, for suggesting "we'll never know". Irresponsible, reckless money grubbing, low talent scumbag. (imo).

Not so different than many media types already.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not sure I was clear then, and in no way wished to challenge your excellent review on IIP, and the way you have followed this film, far from it.

I am rather suggesting that Winterbottom has determined they are innocent by elevating Sfarzo and finishing the film with the acquittal, but as a salesman he must get people to the cinema first before he can delver the message to the most people.

And maybe CJ72 will cut some slack for now, though I know exactly where he is coming from.
Ergon thinks the film is good, so there is another layer, for the true obsessionists...

I don't know if my "review" was excellent, but I'll take compliments where I can get them.

Who knows - maybe W. is in this little clip trying to remain coy. But the message of the film is clear, leading some to ask at the TIFF Q&A if he would be in trouble in Italy because of the message the film sends, that the convictions were bogus....

I thought Ergon hated the film?

 

[Dan O.]

DF if you think there is a chance they are guilty, they could be isolated, and asked to give concordant accounts of what parts they played in the murder, including time lines, the staging and everything else. In return for giving the Kercher family the truth they always sought, they get amnesty and are free.
If the stories don't line up, they are still lying and serve their full sentences.

How do you think they would go?

And how does this work for the innocent?

 

[carbonjam72]

I am not sure I was clear then, and in no way wished to challenge your excellent review on IIP, and the way you have followed this film, far from it.

I am rather suggesting that Winterbottom has determined they are innocent by elevating Sfarzo and finishing the film with the acquittal, but as a salesman he must get people to the cinema first before he can delver the message to the most people.

And maybe CJ72 will cut some slack for now, though I know exactly where he is coming from.
Ergon thinks the film is good, so there is another layer, for the true obsessionists...

I confess, I have passionately hated films based solely on their trailers.

I object to this film, existentially.

It exists solely to mine the media lie that there is any mystery to this case. For this reason alone, it is without merit, and a blasphemy under the sun.

It sickens me to watch an otherwise intelligent person, playing dumb, for a shiny nickel.

I'll just leave it at that.

Still, I'm glad Bill W. enjoyed the film. One should never feel bad for an honest moment of pleasure.

 

[Samson]

And how does this work for the innocent?

I replied to Desert Fox already

That is not quite what I am getting at. What I say is that if they are innocent they serve their sentences, and if guilty they go free in that thought experiment.

It is probably a version of the prisoner's dilemma, and more for guilters to reflect on.

 

[Bill Williams]

I confess, I have passionately hated films based solely on their trailers.

I object to this film, existentially.

It exists solely to mine the media lie that there is any mystery to this case. For this reason alone, it is without merit, and a blasphemy under the sun.

It sickens me to watch an otherwise intelligent person, playing dumb, for a shiny nickel.

I'll just leave it at that.

Still, I'm glad Bill W. enjoyed the film. One should never feel bad for an honest moment of pleasure.

It treated the Kerchers with sensitivity, as any such commercial enterprise should treat victims of crime. Showing the victim's father giving an extended eulogy to the loss of a daughter was one of the most touching. Truly, Meredith HAS been lost in all of this - Winterbottom puts that dynamic straight on to the tabloids, as that little clip showed - the Psa's and Nadeau's of the world simply said, "Knox is the story," and THAT'S why Meredith is forgotten.

The thing which is of the utmost importance to those wrongfully convicted of crime is their innocence. This is something Michael Chamberlain said when he and Lindy were cleared of the death of their daughter. Suddenly, one's innocence becomes all important (and a legitimate focus).

As to the alleged "mystery of the case" this film projects, there is no mystery. If you want to know the facts of the murder, ask Frank Sfarzo. For Winterbottom to say anymore, puts him in the crosshairs of someone he knows is litigious in the extreme....

..... Mignini.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I still may be the only person in the universe who liked the film. The general release, apparently, is March 27, two days after the Cassazione decision. I have seen no trailers in the theatres for it, so doubt that the release is where I am.

He is not fence sitting at all. He is saying that because of the coverage, it is impossible for him, as a film maker, to make a film which gets to the bottom of the murder itself. The tabloids managed two things in their race to "seeL' Foxy Knoxy, as Kate Beckinsale says in the brief trailer you saw in the clip (Beckinsale playing Barbie Nadeau): "(Knox) is the story."

As long as Knox is the story, then the murder cannot be solved because the narrative goes in the direction the Barbie Latza Nadeau's of the world take it - the way the Andrea Vogts of the world take it.

Is that not enough for you?

-

I'm sure it'll be shown here in Seattle, somewhere... maybe, but just in case they don't, I have it in my Netflix Saved Queue.

ADDED OT:

I don't go to theaters any more, well almost never, I'm almost sure I'm going to see the new Star Wars film this December, especially if they show it at the Cinerama,

d

-

 

[platonov]

'Trolls' immune to memory disorder, new study shows

Now you are ...........................

Now Bill? Now what? I am a bunch of dots

Anyway - I asked a Q. How are we doing on the answer?
Would you like me to provide the answer? I must warn you it is quite shocking

 

[Bill Williams]

-


-

I'm sure it'll be shown here in Seattle, somewhere... maybe, but just in case they don't, I have it in my Netflix Saved Queue.

ADDED OT:

I don't go to theaters any more, well almost never, I'm almost sure I'm going to see the new Star Wars film this December, especially if they show it at the Cinerama,

d

-

It's got 60% on RottenTomatoes, which puts it slightly north of Hot Tub Time Machine. However, other than the 900 in the theatre at TIFF, it was panned last September there.

I'd be surprised if it did not get release in Seattle.

 

[platonov]

dp

 

[platonov]

Results of new study slightly ‘higgeldy piggeldy’ say analysts.

That is not quite what I am getting at. What I say is that if they are innocent they serve their sentences, and if guilty they go free in that thought experiment.

You guys are doing 'thought experiments'
How is that working out?

BTW Welcome back.

 

[Samson]

You guys are doing 'thought experiments'
How is that working out?

BTW Welcome back.

Try this for your looking glass world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

and I didn't know you cared, though I made one little post late at night, then realised your education needed completing,

 

[Bill Williams]

The following is an English transcript of Dr. Peter Gill's presentation, March 12, 2015 on Italian TV - Porta a Porta:

Q. So, Professor Gill, according to you it is impossible to obtain sure evidence from the examination of the DNA on this bra clasp?

A. Maybe I can take a step back and just explain that when DNA profiling evidence was first introduced, it was only used on visible crime stains and these crime stains were blood stains which one could visualize or semen stains, things like that. Over the last ten years the technique has become much more sensitive, to the extent that we can detect just an handful of cells. Now, the issue with that is that if I touch this surface here, my DNA is now on that surface, and if nobody cleans that chair it will still be there in six months time. Not only that, but if someone comes with plastic gloves and touches that area and then touches another area then it is possible that that DNA can be transferred from one surface to another. And this is something that we verified by experiments in a laboratory. So, specifically with the bra clasp, a forensic scientist's test has to consider all the possibilities. So one possibility, the prosecution's possibility, is that it was touched directly by the defendant, but the other possibility is that some transfer has occurred, either by accident by an investigator, or by some laboratory contamination. Now the problem is that DNA profile … if we visualize a DNA profile, it tells you absolutely nothing about how it got there, it tells you nothing about when it got there either. And this is the issue, really. All we have is a DNA profile. These DNA profiles are very very small, they originate from realistically (?) just a handful of cells. So the issue before the court really is to consider all of the possibilities and thence make a decision based on these possibilities.

Q. Doctor Capra, this story of transfer is upsetting, because this puts into doubt, beyond the Sollecito case, all the use made of DNA.

A. Surely. What the colleague said founds me in agreement. We have to consider DNA analisys not as something in itself, but as something connected to all that has happened before. What I mean is that we perform evidence collection with a certain level of precision, then we pretend to use this material with techniques which have a much higher level of precision, we risk to produce results which are incoherent between these two technical activities. It is a bit like to say … DNA testing is sometimes a bit hard to understand for laymen, but let's make an example [taken from] another field that perhaps is also simpler. If I a person used to handle firearms and today, with little carefulness, I touch an exhibit and then I want to see if on this exhibit there are residues of firearm discharge and I find them, how can I exclude that these residues have been transferred by me, who usually deal [with guns]. So this means that those who collect this evidence have to collect it considering the level of precision (sensitivity) applied in the following analyses.

[...other non forensic interventions]

Q. Professor Gill, so when they tell us there is the DNA, must we say “well, wait just a minute”? Because we laymen think “ok, they have found the Queen of Evidence and so the trial is over”. According to you instead this DNA flies all around.

A. Well we call this the “CSI Effect”. I think the problem is the public are indoctrinated by what they see on TV and unfortunately they think that what they see on TV is true and I think this also extends to lawyers and judges as well. Unfortunately life simply isn't like that. The reality is simply different. And really what we have to do is, as forensic scientists, to consider all the possibilities. And in fact I think in this series of trials forensic scientists on both sides have actually given the various points of view. One of the points of view is that … is the theory of contamination. And clearly that's quite crucial in this case. But, at the end of the day, it's up to the courts to decide, but what is notable in this case is that the conviction was overturned because the court said that it was the onus of the prosecution to prove that contamination had not occurred. The latest judgement, Nencini judgement [the Italian translator incorrectly translates Nencini with Cassation, but indeed the argument is valid for both] reversed that ruling by saying that it was the responsibility of the defense to prove that contamination had occurred. And this absolutely crucial in this case. Where does the responsibility lie to show whether or not contamination has occurred? What I must say is that I think normally it would be for the prosecution to prove that contamination has not occurred and it is extremely unusual, I think, to put the responsibility and in effect this is known as reverse burden of proof, which is [incomprehensible word] unusual, I think.​