Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

Well I wasn't hopeful I would change your mind with just writing it once but writing it twice I thought there might be a chance.

Having listened to him speak (and I have to do this over and over) my impression is that this was not a joyful task for him to try Amanda et el but a sobering one. Not because he is a pervert scumbag but because there was a young girl he looked upon who had been murdered violently and he wanted to bring to justice those responsible.

Is there a chance Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly prosecuted? There is always that chance but if it is so I don't believe they were willfully wrongly prosecuted.

What.

It’s all very well being reasonable in the face of complete nonsense but you think that there is a chance that the fact of the prosecution itself (actually placing them before the court, forget the verdict) was wrong.
That argument is as nonsensical as the one you are opposing even if it lacks the ‘Britney’ element.
Can you defend it? On what basis? How large is this chance?

 

[NancyS]

Having listened to him speak (and I have to do this over and over) my impression is that this was not a joyful task for him to try Amanda et el but a sobering one. Not because he is a pervert scumbag but because there was a young girl he looked upon who had been murdered violently and he wanted to bring to justice those responsible.

The problem I have is that he didn't bring any credible evidence, but instead invented some sexed-up bizarre story, which had more in common with badly written erotic fiction than it seemed to have with the known facts of the case. It really does make me wonder what kind of man he must be

 

[Diocletus]

Well I wasn't hopeful I would change your mind with just writing it once but writing it twice I thought there might be a chance.

Having listened to him speak (and I have to do this over and over) my impression is that this was not a joyful task for him to try Amanda et el but a sobering one. Not because he is a pervert scumbag but because there was a young girl he looked upon who had been murdered violently and he wanted to bring to justice those responsible.

Is there a chance Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly prosecuted? There is always that chance but if it is so I don't believe they were willfully wrongly prosecuted.

Oh, is that all? Well, I listened to him speak once and I could tell right away that he violated the defendants human rights.

 

[Diocletus]

who declared George W. Bush's victory over Al Gore,

Hey, somebody had to win. Could you imagine if that happened in Italy? The trial would still be going on.

 

[Bill Williams]

By the way, what kind of information would you need exactly to be "convinced"?

Something more than mere assertion.

 

[Numbers]

Well I wasn't hopeful I would change your mind with just writing it once but writing it twice I thought there might be a chance.

Having listened to him speak (and I have to do this over and over) my impression is that this was not a joyful task for him to try Amanda et el but a sobering one. Not because he is a pervert scumbag but because there was a young girl he looked upon who had been murdered violently and he wanted to bring to justice those responsible.

Is there a chance Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly prosecuted? There is always that chance but if it is so I don't believe they were willfully wrongly prosecuted.

Are you aware that the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were conducted without the presence of counsel, and at least in the case of Amanda, resulted in an incriminating statement, placing her at the crime scene during the murder? And that Italian laws, including but not limited to CPP 63 and CPP 64 were not followed in this situation? And that the Chieffi CSC panel directed that these statements be considered by the Nencini court? And that all of these measures and others are contrary to ECHR case-law?

 

[christianahannah]

What.

It’s all very well being reasonable in the face of complete nonsense but you think that there is a chance that the fact of the prosecution itself (actually placing them before the court, forget the verdict) was wrong.
That argument is as nonsensical as the one you are opposing even if it lacks the ‘Britney’ element.
Can you defend it? On what basis? How large is this chance?

Gosh I almost understand this (and then you throw in 'Britney').

From the court documents I have read, in which I place the greatest importance, I would say that chance is small (don't ask me to quantify that - there will be documents written showing I am wrong). However there have been wrongful convictions in the past in which someone was convicted based on the evidential knowledge which was available at that time and thought to be strong but which later proved to not be so (DNA advances, rape victims identifying their rapist then recanting, etc.). Many (maybe most) of these convictions were not done willfully because a prosecutor wanted to win at all costs but because he thought justice was being done.

 

[lonepinealex]

So according to Machiavelli there are only two reasons a woman might have a man's number in her phone - for sex or to buy drugs. What century are we in again?

 

[platonov]

Calendars – how do they work pt 3

Something more than mere assertion.

Does this also apply to my claim that 2012 predates 2015?

 

[Methos]

A drug dealers ring was caught thanks to Knox's phone calls, they phoned each other even after the murder, and she admitted to having sex with one of them. These are facts and nothing of your sentiments will change them.

Could you please identify those calls? Doing this would remove some of the blank spaces in this compilation: http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/download/file.php?id=7035
Btw the The "police report":

only sais that the police got F(rederico)'s number because it was stored on Amanda Knox's mobile phone, not because they were calling each other "before and after" the murder. As I understand it, the police wiretapped F's phone and found out that he was linked to persons dealing cocaine in Perugia and was a dealer himself....

 

[Machiavelli]

Something more than mere assertion.

You have seen at least two Perugian newspaper articles reporting the news, you have the names of the lawyers, you saw a police paper and another later report by Giallo magazine. It's something more.

 

[christianahannah]

Oh, is that all? Well, I listened to him speak once and I could tell right away that he violated the defendants human rights.

Maybe you need to listen to him speak more than once as I have? And there is more such as his career, his promotions, his personal reputation, his intelligence and so on.

 

[platonov]

I tried.

Gosh I almost understand this (and then you throw in 'Britney').

From the court documents I have read, in which I place the greatest importance, I would say that chance is small (don't ask me to quantify that - there will be documents written showing I am wrong). However there have been wrongful convictions in the past in which someone was convicted based on the evidential knowledge which was available at that time and thought to be strong but which later proved to not be so (DNA advances, rape victims identifying their rapist then recanting, etc.). Many (maybe most) of these convictions were not done willfully because a prosecutor wanted to win at all costs but because he thought justice was being done.

The term 'Britney' must be very confusing because I asked (clearly I thought) about the prosecution not the conviction which takes up most of your reply.

I withdraw the Q.

 

[Machiavelli]

Could you please identify those calls? Doing this would remove some of the blank spaces in this compilation: http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/download/file.php?id=7035
Btw the The "police report":
[qimg]http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/binary/46.$plit/C_4_foto_1181198_image.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/binary/36.$plit/C_4_foto_1181199_image.jpg[/qimg]
only sais that the police got F(rederico)'s number because it was stored on Amanda Knox's mobile phone, not because they were calling each other "before and after" the murder. As I understand it, the police wiretapped F's phone and found out that he was linked to persons dealing cocaine in Perugia and was a dealer himself....

No, the police paper doesn't say "because it was stored", it only says that they found certain proof ("si appurava" = we found to be certain) that Federico had met with Amanda Knox. And because of this they started to investigate Federico.
Phone contacts between Knox and drug dealers are not the topic of this police paper. But they are a topic of newspaper articles reporting of Luciano, Lorenzo and Federico's trials.

 

[Dougm]

Gosh I almost understand this (and then you throw in 'Britney').

From the court documents I have read, in which I place the greatest importance, I would say that chance is small (don't ask me to quantify that - there will be documents written showing I am wrong). However there have been wrongful convictions in the past in which someone was convicted based on the evidential knowledge which was available at that time and thought to be strong but which later proved to not be so (DNA advances, rape victims identifying their rapist then recanting, etc.). Many (maybe most) of these convictions were not done willfully because a prosecutor wanted to win at all costs but because he thought justice was being done.

I appreciate your reasonable tone, although I am having trouble understanding your reasoning on the case.

Would you mind telling me what part of the current case you find to be rational proof that Knox and Sollecito committed a crime? I understand your idea that some future evidence or new science could come along, but what about the current evidence, as presented in court, convinces you that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

I'd honestly love to understand this. I don't see any reliable evidence or believable narrative at all.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gill and Kirkham on laboratory contamination

I found this passage on p. 37 in Peter Gill's book to be helpful. He is summarizing some work he and Kirkham did in 2004 on the subject of contamination in casework, especially #2.
"1. No process is free of contamination.
2. There is no test for a contaminant profile (cannot be distinguished from any other profile).
3. Contaminants tend to be quantitatively low level.
4. Contamination rates can be characterized by reference to negative controls."

One point I would like to make is that if contamination never occurred within the lab, there would be no need for staff elimination profiles. Yet good laboratories keep them.

 

[NancyS]

Gosh I almost understand this (and then you throw in 'Britney').

From the court documents I have read, in which I place the greatest importance, I would say that chance is small (don't ask me to quantify that - there will be documents written showing I am wrong). However there have been wrongful convictions in the past in which someone was convicted based on the evidential knowledge which was available at that time and thought to be strong but which later proved to not be so (DNA advances, rape victims identifying their rapist then recanting, etc.). Many (maybe most) of these convictions were not done willfully because a prosecutor wanted to win at all costs but because he thought justice was being done.

Does he think justice is being done by minimising the involvement of Guede and referring to him as "poor Rudy"? - Guede's DNA was found in MK's vagina and his involvement has been minimised to 'also there'

I think his initial suspicions of AK were based on prejudice and a very confused idea of the relationship between modern women and evil - but he has subsequently allowed the use of incredibly shoddy and shameful standards of police investigation, to gain a conviction at any cost. Regardless of whether you believe AK/RS are innocent or guilty, it is hard to think of any case that relied on such poor use of science and such little regard for the most basic standards of evidence collection

 

[christianahannah]

The term 'Britney' must be very confusing because I asked (clearly I thought) about the prosecution not the conviction which takes up most of your reply.

I withdraw the Q.

Maybe that's it (Britney is confusing). I have trouble understanding what you ask sometimes. Whose fault that is I dont know but I try to answer your questions even if they don't produce the answer you want (or understand).

 

[carbonjam72]

A drug dealers ring was caught thanks to Knox's phone calls, they phoned each other even after the murder, and she admitted to having sex with one of them. These are facts and nothing of your sentiments will change them.

Admitted "having sex" or simply kissing and stopping short of "having sex"? Where was this ever shown?

 

[Machiavelli]

So according to Machiavelli there are only two reasons a woman might have a man's number in her phone - for sex or to buy drugs. What century are we in again?

No, not "a man" and "a woman", and not just having his number. It's one specific woman in a specific context, Amanda Knox, who exchanges phone calls with with Italian drug dealers, btw specialized at selling cocaine to students in the Perugia area, a woman who was found to have certainly dated Federico and admits it and exchanged phone calls with Lorenzo even after the murder.