Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Is THAT what you were on about? You will not engage in any critical thinking beyond THAT!?

I think the pro-innocence side had better throw in the towel.....

ETA - strangely this was Judge Massei's reasoning in 2009 for not allowing an independent review of Stefanoni's DNA evidence. Massei said in his 2010 motivations that the independent analysis would only side with one side or the other, and he'd still have to decide which was right. So, hence, no independent review. (This is the level of judicial thinking which leads to convictions in Italy.)

This reasoning by Massei would be an example of what ECHR has termed "manifestly unreasoned".

 

[acbytesla]

Chris_Halkides

My point as ever is a simple one, namely Dr Gill did not appear as an expert witness in the trial or subsequent appeals and at this stage of the process I fail to see how his opinion can or will have any impact on proceedings next week. Judicially speaking Conti & Vecchiotti have been knocked into the deep rough and I do not recall Dr Budowle expert testimony.

I do find this all rather bizarre, it is almost though some folks believe experts such as Dr Gill and Dr Budowle transcend a judicial process.

WOW!! While you may certainly be right that Dr. Gill may have little effect on the judicial proceedings, but to post that his opinion and work doesn'the transcend the courts is absurd. You should think a little about history before you post. Review the Scopes monkey trial. Scopes was found guilty, yet the world has transcended that mistake.

 

[Samson]

Here is a google translate of part of a Vespa program, Matone being an Italian judge.

Simonetta Matone:

"... Assuming that Amanda, in my humble opinion, will not return because of all an American system that has been set in motion to protect her."


Bruno Vespa:

"So we said before, said Dr. Matone, here, in fact, is the only defendant Raffaele Sollecito because Amanda is gone in the United States, because the United States will never give, if convicted, l 'extradition.
So continue to live happily from its parts. The important thing is that you come back to Italy. "

Simonetta Matone:

"This story, however, teaches us how, rightly or wrongly, the other countries, especially the United States, defending their citizens. What we do not know absolutely.
And sorry to say this because, in any event, I highly doubt that, even in the presence of an extradition treaty, in case of a new sentence, the United States there to deliver. "

Confirmation bias is alive and well on both sides on the subject of extradition.
It is rare to find a guilter suggest that extradition is anything but a formality, probably even more rare for the converse to be argued by her supporters. Yet in theory it should be independant of belief.

In fact, I totaly agree with Matone on this one, but she causes consternation with Clander, Popper and so on.

 

[js202]

WOW!! While you may certainly be right that Dr. Gill may have little effect on the judicial proceedings, but to post that his opinion and work doesn'the transcend the courtsame is absurd. You should think a little about history before you post. Review the Scopes monkey trial. Scopes was found guilty, yet the world has transcended that mistake.

There is a certain breed of, er, opinionator in this case - seemingly often English or Italian - who have become so entrenched in their beliefs that something as paltry as mere evidence is, to the extent it derails their personal sense of satisfaction, a nuisance. It is as if the personal sense of schadenfreude they intend to derive from the ISC throwing the book at Knox and Sollecito trumps a thorough and careful vetting of mere innocence or guilt. They've bought their tickets to the hanging, they've got in mind the clothes they intend to wear and the picnic they'll set up, and it's just simply a nuisance to be distracted from their plans.

 

[acbytesla]

You never know what might happen. We just had a guy busted by HBO.

That truly was the most bizarre thing ever. And while I haven'the seen the video/audio, I'm not sure that should seriously considered incriminating confession. Couldn't his remarks just as likely be considered as sarcasm?

 

[Bill Williams]

The real problem with innocence, is that the innocent think that this is enough.

http://www.amazon.com/When-Innocence-Doesnt-Matter-Sollecito-ebook/dp/B00UTPQSPC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1426612099&sr=8-2&keywords=Ron+Hendry

What happened at Via Della Pergola 7 the night Meredith Kercher was murdered has gained new relevance with the January 30, 2014 retrial verdict finding Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty for the second time. The pair was initially found guilty in 2009, acquitted in 2011, and now a court has inexplicably found them guilty once again. The never ending murder case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is headed back to the Italy Supreme Court a second time on March 25, 2015.​

 

[Numbers]

WOW!! While you may certainly be right that Dr. Gill may have little effect on the judicial proceedings, but to post that his opinion and work doesn'the transcend the courtsame is absurd. You should think a little about history before you post. Review the Scopes monkey trial. Scopes was found guilty, yet the world has transcended that mistake.

There is a certain breed of, er, opinionator in this case - seemingly often English or Italian - who have become so entrenched in their beliefs that something as paltry as mere evidence is, to the extent it derails their personal sense of satisfaction, a nuisance. It is as if the personal sense of schadenfreude they intend to derive from the ISC throwing the book at Knox and Sollecito trumps a thorough and careful vetting of mere innocence or guilt. They've bought their tickets to the hanging, they've got in mind the clothes they intend to wear and the picnic they'll set up, and it's just simply a nuisance to be distracted from their plans.

These posts nicely sum up the apparent opinions of one type of guilter. There is another type who desperately tries to defend the Italian authorities, no matter how incompetent or illegal their actions were. Yet another type attempts to use the case to display attempts at humorous condescension. Others, not necessarily posting here, may be just plain nuts.

 

[acbytesla]

These posts nicely sum up the apparent opinions of one type of guilter. There is another type who desperately tries to defend the Italian authorities, no matter how incompetent or illegal their actions were. Yet another type attempts to use the case to display attempts at humorous condescension. Others, not necessarily posting here, may be just plain nuts.

Coulsdon is no ordinary guilter. He/she is kind of close to the case because of where he is from. He also seems to have an over developed respect for authority. As if court decisions are the end all and be all.

 

[Numbers]

Coulsdon is no ordinary guilter. He/she is kind of close to the case because of where he is from. He also seems to have an over developed respect for authority. As if court decisions are the end all and be all.

I believe that an over-acceptance of the statements and actions of authority - in the sense of officialdom - for the sake of their presumed authority - is at the heart of many of the guilters' views. Indeed, I believe many of them could be called authoritarians; a definition follows. There are two meanings, somewhat different.

Full Definition of AUTHORITARIAN
1
: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian

 

[Desert Fox]

There are a lot of people with incredible respect for authority. . . .Seems like no matter how farcical something is, some people will believe it if it comes from authority.

 

[acbytesla]

There are a lot of people with incredible respect for authority. . . .Seems like no matter how farcical something is, some people will believe it if it comes from authority.

I probably come from the totally opposite type of thinking. Some thing that I constantly must guard myself against. The current line of thinking is probably right, but it is amazing just how often it is wrong. Edison was wrong about AC, Tesla was wrong about Einstein and relativity, Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics and so on. While we should respect the best minds we should remain open to new way of thinking.

 

[MDDVS]

I probably come from the totally opposite type of thinking. Some thing that I constantly must guard myself against. The current line of thinking is probably right, but it is amazing just how often it is wrong. Edison was wrong about AC, Tesla was wrong about Einstein and relativity, Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics and so on. While we should respect the best minds we should not remain open to new way of thinking.

Yes, I agree. The problem in this case is that there is no real argument being offered by pro guilt people.

Peter Gill and all the other experts could be wrong and Stefanoni could be right, but in that case where is the argument? Instead what we have is data supression, just like in other frauds like cold fusion, for example.

 

[Kauffer]

Speaking of Maresca, whatever happened to that dirtbag? Haven't heard much from him recently.

He was last heard from lying about the location of the Kercher DNA Stefanoni says she found on the knife - on TV in Italy.

 

[lonepinealex]

Well like most pinkos I have a bit of an authoritarian streak. Doesn't mean I check my critical thinking at the door though.

 

[Numbers]

I probably come from the totally opposite type of thinking. Some thing that I constantly must guard myself against. The current line of thinking is probably right, but it is amazing just how often it is wrong. Edison was wrong about AC, Tesla was wrong about Einstein and relativity, Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics and so on. While we should respect the best minds we should not remain open to new way of thinking.

It's important to distinguish different types of "authority" and the basis for the statements of "authority". For example, scientists who speak on the basis of their experience (experiments and theory verified by experiment and not falsified by experiment) are more witnesses and "authorities by experience" when they speak about their work, while judges who invent fictitious scenarios and evidence are "authorities" only in the sense that they hold official positions. In contrast, when Dr. Gill speaks about the problems of contamination and LCN DNA profiling, he is speaking about actual experiences and has expertise in the field that he speaks about. This cannot be said about a judge who discusses, for example, forensics, such as the significance of luminol hits or LCN DNA profiles, as though he or she were an expert with experience in such areas.

 

[carbonjam72]

He was last heard from lying about the location of the Kercher DNA Stefanoni says she found on the knife - on TV in Italy.

I think he had said that that was a conclusion of the judges I nthe case, then got talked over by the other guests.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, I agree. The problem in this case is that there is no real argument being offered by pro guilt people.

Peter Gill and all the other experts could be wrong and Stefanoni could be right, but in that case where is the argument? Instead what we have is data supression, just like in other frauds like cold fusion, for example.

Totally agree. The difference which is totally enlightening is that Dr.Gill makes a reasoned, logical research supported arguments and Massei etc argue that they are right just because. Sad.

 

[acbytesla]

It's important to distinguish different types of "authority" and the basis for the statements of "authority". For example, scientists who speak on the basis of their experience (experiments and theory verified by experiment and not falsified by experiment) are more witnesses and "authorities by experience" when they speak about their work, while judges who invent fictitious scenarios and evidence are "authorities" only in the sense that they hold official positions. In contrast, when Dr. Gill speaks about the problems of contamination and LCN DNA profiling, he is speaking about actual experiences and has expertise in the field that he speaks about. This cannot be said about a judge who discusses, for example, forensics, such as the significance of luminol hits or LCN DNA profiles, as though he or she were an expert with experience in such areas.

The judges seem to argue that they don't really understand the experts therefore they will just accept the state's experts. A basic cop out.

 

[lonepinealex]

That's just platonov demonstrating his inability to understand the conversation. He think Dr. Gill is telling the judge that he doesn't know why he answered the way he did. You can read the excerpt in the link Diocletus was responding to here:

​

Doctor Gill is saying that LCN is not black and white, that there are 'shades of gray'. When the judge presses him for whether the LCN results in the case are informative or not, Dr. Gill's proper response is: "I do not know."

Indeed, Gill's involvement in the Omagh case doesn't demonstrate what platonov thinks it does. In fact, Gill's role as an expert witness in that trial just highlighted how shaky using LCN DNA as evidence is. The prosecution called him in the hope that he would bolster their case, but he was forced to admit that their DNA results were unreliable. In other words, he's saying exactly the same thing about the standard of forensics in the Omagh case as he is about those in the Kercher case.

In addition, the Omagh judge's irritation with the "shades of grey" aspect of LCN DNA shows how uncomfortable the legal profession is with the complexity of this sort of science.

All in all, a useful bit of context - thanks for digging it out platonov.

 

[platonov]

WOW!! While you may certainly be right that Dr. Gill may have little effect on the judicial proceedings, but to post that his opinion and work doesn'the transcend the courts is absurd. You should think a little about history before you post. Review the Scopes monkey trial. Scopes was found guilty, yet the world has transcended that mistake.

These posts nicely sum up the apparent opinions of one type of guilter. There is another type who desperately tries to defend the Italian authorities, no matter how incompetent or illegal their actions were. Yet another type attempts to use the case to display attempts at humorous condescension. Others, not necessarily posting here, may be just plain nuts.

Wow Indeed. This is fantastic stuff.
The Italian courts should cede jurisdiction in this matter to Dr Peter Gill.
Is it just this case or any case he takes an interest in?
Should the German, UK or US courts follow suit. What if Gill hears about a tale about a shoebox and decides a court in NY got it wrong in a murder trial. Would the same logic apply.

Simply fantastic. This thread never stops giving