Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

This doesn't make sense, the correct wording is:

After 46 days during which everybody and everything entered that room, how could that clasp not be dirty/dusty(if you wish)?

Contamination is a rare process, one star among billions. The logic above is like saying, "I'm a young beautiful teenage girl, how come for my 18th birthday i haven't received a love letter from a celebrity actor.

Peter Gill lives in a strange world where one leaves a trail of his DNA as one proceed on one's routine, minute by minute.
DNA is left on exceptional moments, they are the exception.
DNA is not deposited on contact, it is torn away from oneself on shock-contacts at few moments of our lives.

Utter nonsense, both of these posts. Where did you get these ideas, PMF? Don't believe anything you read there, especially anything on a subject more technical than the operation of an automatic drip coffee maker, it is the domain of sophists, fools and truly hateful people. There are sometimes entertaining, and even sophists, fools and hatemongers can have positive qualities, but in the long run they will be completely exposed for what they are, in part due to their utter inability to comprehend the science behind the 'evidence' they pontificate about--especially including statements like the ones you made.

 

[Dan O.]

My feeling is:

The boys downstairs "introduced" Rudy to the cottage and the girls.

I think that Rudy knew the boys downstairs were gone.

I think that Rudy felt comfortable enough that he went downstairs and changed into giacomo's pants after the murder

The boys downstairs knew very well that a cat didn't bleed and mess up the downstairs, but let themselves be cowed by the prosecution.

The whole crew was the opposite of honor bound if you ask me.

Then why does Rudy admit getting blood on his pants and leaving the cottage with wet pants covered by the sweatshirt? If he changed pants downstairs, any witness he happened to have run into that night would contradict his claimed appearance and therefore shut down his attempted innocence story.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

William Thompson on the Brian Kelly DNA contamination case

In the essay "The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing (and How That Complicates the Use of DNA Databases for Criminal Identification)" Professor William Thompson wrote, "One cause of false DNA matches is cross-contamination of samples. Accidental transfer of cellular material or DNA from one sample to another is a common problem in laboratories and it can lead to false reports of a DNA match between samples that originated from different people." (highlighting mine)

In his analysis of an older case of contamination Dr. Thompson wrote, "The experts discovered that the laboratory had run Kelly’s reference sample in a lane immediately adjacent to the semen stain on an analytical gel, a dangerous practice given the potential for lane-to-lane DNA contamination, which could have accidentally put Kelly’s DNA in the semen sample." This is an interesting kind of contamination that may be similar to sample carryover in capillary electrophoresis.

 

[platonov]

What year is this!!

Utter nonsense, both of these posts. Where did you get these ideas, PMF? Don't believe anything you read there, especially anything on a subject more technical than the operation of an automatic drip coffee maker, it is the domain of sophists, fools and truly hateful people. There are sometimes entertaining, and even sophists, fools and hatemongers can have positive qualities, but in the long run they will be completely exposed for what they are, in part due to their utter inability to comprehend the science behind the 'evidence' they pontificate about--especially including statements like the ones you made.

Kaosium - good to see you back.

Tell me, is the coffee machine technology more complicated than discriminating between a book published in 2012 and a TV appearance in 2015?
If not – I’d like to hear your explanation for the confusion and a response to my question.

That’s before we get onto RS’s appeal addendum.
Kudos to Bill Williams for posting it.

 

[Machiavelli]

In the UK, it's customary to give the caution statement at the same time as the announce of the arrest: "I am arresting you on suspicion of XYZ. You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in court at a later date. You have the right to a lawyer".

It's very rare - i.e. only in exceptional circumstances - that the caution is not given at the point of arrest. It's also then repeated before each interview. And someone can also be interviewed under caution without being arrested, meaning that if they do say something incriminating it can also be used in court. If the police interview someone not under caution and they incriminate themselves, then such incrimination is almost always unusable in court: what normally would happen is that the person is immediately arrested, cautioned, and asked if they want to repeat the testimony under caution.

And of course that's what makes Knox's treatment all the more unlawful and wrong. After all, even if the police had truly had no suspicions of her at the time she first made the "confession/accusation" (of course we know they certainly DID have suspicions, but let's for a moment pretend they did not), and if Knox truly had "blurted out" her accusations against Lumumba and herself out of a clear blue sky (again, she clearly did not, but let's pretend), then the correct action would have been to stop, arrest Knox, caution her, give her access to a lawyer, and ask her if she wanted to repeat what she'd said to them.

In the civilised world, that's the protection that private individuals have come to expect and deserve from the state. (...)

Maybe you were somewhere else over the last few years, but that's exactly what happened.
With only the following additions:
1. Ms. Knox not only "blurted out" things or said things to investigators, she also wrote things on her own initiative. Something which does not depend on anyone else's decision.
2. The Italian Procedure Code provides for the possibility to collect spontaneous statements also from people without the protection of their full defensive rights, for investigation purposes, provided that the declarations will be not usable in a trial (on the facts the investigation is about).
3. The Italian Procedure Code also provides for the possibility to delay access to counsel for some days, or until the interrogation by the Investiating Judge.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium - good to see you back.

Tell me, is the coffee machine technology more complicated than discriminating between a book published in 2012 and a TV appearance in 2015?
If not – I’d like to hear your explanation for the confusion and a response to my question.

That’s before we get onto RS’s appeal addendum.
Kudos to Bill Williams for posting it.

You are suffering from a misapprehension, that Raffaele's appearance on TV invalidates what he said in "Honor Bound" and what he has maintained from the beginning. You know as well as I do that in Raffaele's diary he says something to the effect of 'Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening.'

Incidentally, what did you think of Nencini's error of attributing a DNA trace on the kitchen knife to Raffaele? Do you think that Cassation could possibly confirm a verdict that contained such a gross error on the evidence? If they do what does that say about the reliability of these 'judicial truths' in Italy as that's what it will become if the ISC confirms these verdicts?

 

[kwill]

The Italian Procedure Code provides for the possibility to collect spontaneous statements also from people without the protection of their full defensive rights, for investigation purposes, provided that the declarations will be not usable in a trial (on the facts the investigation is about).

Spontaneous. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Kauffer]

Maybe you were somewhere else over the last few years, but that's exactly what happened.
With only the following additions:
1. Ms. Knox not only "blurted out" things or said things to investigators, she also wrote things on her own initiative. Something which does not depend on anyone else's decision.
2. The Italian Procedure Code provides for the possibility to collect spontaneous statements also from people without the protection of their full defensive rights, for investigation purposes, provided that the declarations will be not usable in a trial (on the facts the investigation is about).
3. The Italian Procedure Code also provides for the possibility to delay access to counsel for some days, or until the interrogation by the Investiating Judge.

1) What she wrote down came later - before that she was given stuff to sign. Why was she not given a lawyer before she was given stuff to sign?
2) The various statements were used against her in two criminal trials - that's illegal.
3) The Italians, like other states, grant their authorities special powers for use only in extraordinary circumstances. Denial of counsel in this case was illegal - Consider post Salduz case law at the ECHR.

The breach of Ms Knox's right to a fair trial was never remedied.

Furthermore, she was slapped - that's inhuman and degrading treatment; then she wasn't given an independent translator but a self styled mediator who interjected herself into the proceedings - another violation. Gosh I'm losing count.

PS You're not also trying to suggest there was a valid waiver, are you?

 

[Strozzi]

I am catching up so apologies if this issue has been raised.

What is interesting is what was Not said in the prosecution case. The prosecution has Knox assessed by a professional psychologist. The prosecution presented no expert testimony by a professional psychologist that Knox had any psychological disorder. if Knox had suffered from a psychological disorder then the prosecution would have provided testimony to that effect. We can therefore conclude that expert psychological opinion by someone who formally assessed Knox concluded she was normal. I suspect this is a more reliable opinion than amateur fantasies by people who have never spoken with Knox and if they had would have no competency to give an opinion in any case.

What professional psychologist did this psychological assessment? Is he a collaborator of Mignini? Did he interview Knox? Who interpreted for them? Donino?

 

[Machiavelli]

The problem is the denominator. If say 200 tests were done then 20 would be contaminated. So we are saying that for just one of those contaminated samples (5%) to be contaminated by Sollecito is beyond any possibility? The more tests you do the more likely you are to find contamination.

Well, no. In fact, something like 400 tests were done in the apartment. Seven samples were taken from the corridoor floor on Dec. 17. alone, another dozen were taken from the corridoor floor before that. Several samples were taken in the kitchen and from the floor in other rooms.
That there is no DNA from Sollecito on the floor is manifest.
From all those 400 tests we can infer that no large-size source of Sollecito's DNA was present in the apartment.
And we already know that no other sample from the apartment was contaminated from Sollecito's DNA.
We have a small object (the bra clasp) and no evidence of the existence of a source and of a contamination path, the factual circumstances that would make this alleged contamination from Sollecito's DNA become probable are missing. We have to consider the probability that such source existed and found its path as small odds, and even if there was a double touch with glove fingertip of an alleged source external to the room, first, and the bra clasp after, we would have small odd to obtain this transfer. We should consider the need of a combination of these small probabilities, two or three unlikely circumstances each itself not probable, and we would obtain a (very) improbable event.
If we considered the odds of that improbable event as 1:10 (but we know they are far less) still the evidence would be significant, there would be no denominator problem. Because - pay attention here - as I said we already know that the other samples are not contaminated from Sollecito's DNA. In terms explaining specificity, you need to explain why right that sample was contaminated and not others, why not the other twenty picked from the floor for example; you cannot use the sheer number as a shield in order to say "one can happen, just because they were many", you need to actually explain why that only one happened, and that one specifically. Because you can see how many samples taken that same day would have not as incriminating as that one. The floor in the kitchen may have little meaning. But Sollecito's DNA in Meredith's room? And on her bra? Why did it happen on that one?

What about the other unknown DNA profiles found? Why are these qualitatively different? Why are these other profiles innocent contamination, but Sollecito's exclusively the result of transfer during an assault on MK?

First there are no other profiles found, they are alleles, not profiles. The same difference between finding an old tire rather than a functioning car. You can infer there was a car attached once, of course, but you don't have any. But this is not the problem why they are qualitatively different. They are different because they hae a different logical, as well as statistical value: the known datum is different, those are random, completely generic; while Sollecito's matches a suspect. It's a remarkable coincidence.
If you know the DNA comes from a paramedic or a forensic, which you may even know was there, then you can reasonably infer it was just contamination. But if it matches a suspect, and it is not supposed to be there, and it's there and only there on that incriminating object, it's a specific indication.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Italian Procedure Code provides for the possibility to collect spontaneous statements also from people without the protection of their full defensive rights, for investigation purposes, provided that the declarations will be not usable in a trial (on the facts the investigation is about).

Spontaneous. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

In his interview with Drew Griffin of CNN, Mignini is very clear that it was his initiative to ask Amanda if she wanted to make spontaneous statements.

How can ANY statements made after such an invitation be, "spontaneous". The whole point of having lawyers available for suspects in that sort of situation was to advise them - the suspect can still choose to go ahead, but at least the law is satisfied that it was a genuine informed choice!

There is no way a foreigner caught up in events well above her paygrade could possibly know the implications of cooperating with Mignini's "invitation".

Then I, as I had in some way to, let’s say… this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that… they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”. She then repeated [her story] to the interpreter, who was Mrs. Donnino, I remember there was a police woman officer who wrote the statement down [verbalizzava], I did not ask questions. She basically repeated what she had told the police and she signed the statement. Basically I didn’t ask Amanda questions. Not before, since the police asked them and I was not there, and not after, since she made spontaneous statements. Had I been asking her questions, a defense attorney should have been there. This is the procedure.​

Please note, it was Not Amanda, even in Mignini's account, who said she wished to make statements. It was others.

"(T)hey made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to."

Mignini must be a psychic. He can read minds. He is also a skilled psychological assessor. With NO data other than his dirty-mind, he said at the 2009 trial, "Knox had a psychological profile of a "humiliated/wounded self"." "Amanda was offended by Meredith's (imagined) attitude?" "Knox regarded Meredith as "prissy"." "Knox had an ability to manipulate Guede and/or Sollecito."

Machiavelli in post #4261 said he thought there were independent indicators of this. So far, it is only Mignini's dirty mind.

And even in the non-spontaneous statements that Mignini manipulated at interrogation, there is NO mention of any of this.

 

[Machiavelli]

1) What she wrote down came later - before that she was given stuff to sign. Why was she not given a lawyer before she was given stuff to sign?

The point was that she wrote stuff herself. This was the point and the argument. Everything else - while I do not concede your scenario at all - doesn't change this. There is this thing more and the argument stands.

2) The various statements were used against her in two criminal trials - that's illegal.

Well by now the courts have ruled it was fully legal.
The reported reason why it was legal is that she committed a calunnia, a new crime, for which she was not a suspect at the time.

3) The Italians, like other states, grant their authorities special powers for use only in extraordinary circumstances. Denial of counsel in this case was illegal - Consider post Salduz case law at the ECHR.

It was not, as for the Italian Constitutional court. Exceptional circumstances include investigation needs, something which the ECHR did not dispute until now.

Furthermore, she was slapped - that's inhuman and degrading treatment;

The ECHR and other external autorities cannot deal with such claim. She should have filed a complaint to domestic authorities and pursued remedy that way first.

then she wasn't given an independent translator but a self styled mediator who interjected herself into the proceedings

She had an excellent interpretar who did a professional work, in my opinion. Investigator-informant and judge-witness, like all dialogue situations, don't have "translators", they have interpreters. Translators work with texts or with speeches, one way only; those who work with people, that means two people and a communication between them, the job is called interpreter, and an interpreter may be also a facilitator and a mediator.

 

[Diocletus]

Then why does Rudy admit getting blood on his pants and leaving the cottage with wet pants covered by the sweatshirt? If he changed pants downstairs, any witness he happened to have run into that night would contradict his claimed appearance and therefore shut down his attempted innocence story.

Well he knew that no one noticed him . . . Because he had clean pants. He would have had to have been nuts to walk around perugia with bloody pants.

 

[Machiavelli]

Spontaneous. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Spontaneous legally means the person is not forced to make it, and not bound within a questioning.

 

[Diocletus]

The ECHR and other external autorities cannot deal with such claim. She should have filed a complaint to domestic authorities and pursued remedy that way first.

This simply is not true. The article 3 exclusionary rule prohibits the use for any purpose whatsoever of a statement obtained through inhuman/degrading treatment. It is not necessary to affirmatively file a complaint in order to make defensive use of this exclusionary rule.

 

[Diocletus]

Spontaneous legally means the person is not forced to make it, and not bound within a questioning.

Italian concepts of spontaneity are irrelevant. What matters is whether she knowingly waived her right not to incriminate herself, and that couldn't have happened because they didn't give her a lawyer.

 

[Numbers]

Remember, this is still the "trial". In the us, by the time you get to the Supreme Court, you've already had the benefit of at least one appeal as of right to an intermediate appellate court and/or state Supreme Court.

There are no appeals in Italy. Just one gigantic trial. We know that must be the case, otherwise we would have a double jeopardy situation on our hands.

Readers here may not see the contradiction in the Italian system of claiming that multiple trials, brought about by allowing the prosecution to appeal as well as the defense, are "one trial". If the prosecution had not been allowed by Italian law to appeal the Hellmann verdict, the case would have been over. So despite the claim of the Italians, and other civil law jurisdictions, there truly was double jeopardy after the Hellmann acquittal. The ECHR has dealt with this kind of double jeopardy in several cases by judging conviction after acquittal unfair, a violation of Convention Article 6, if there was no new inculpatory evidence introduced or if the key witnesses, including the defendant, not heard again in court.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am catching up so apologies if this issue has been raised.

What is interesting is what was Not said in the prosecution case. The prosecution has Knox assessed by a professional psychologist. The prosecution presented no expert testimony by a professional psychologist that Knox had any psychological disorder. if Knox had suffered from a psychological disorder then the prosecution would have provided testimony to that effect.

No. It's not how it works.
The prosecution - or a party - may order an assessment of the suspect's mental conditions only for some specific purposes. Basically when there is reason to seek whether the person is fully capable. And the result of those assessments usually has a lmited scope, not just any psychological problem is considered, but only those that may affect some capabilities.
The defence and parties may also have their own psychiatric investigation or demand the appointment of an expert by the judge, for the same reasons.
The ourt can also do so on their own initiative. But always for those limited reasons.

It is just not true that if Knox suffered from a psychological disorder the prosecution would have provided expert testimony to that effect. Not only this would be an unnecessary and unusual step by the prosecution, but it would also be very likely against the Procedure Code, because the rule is that psychiatric condition cannot be presented as incriminating evidence. Unless there is a very specific and peculiar condition that may links the subject to some peculiarity of the specific crime, psychological disordrs cannot be presented as evdence of propensity to commit a crime.

We can therefore conclude that expert psychological opinion by someone who formally assessed Knox concluded she was normal.

Absolutely wrong. Actually npobody assessed Knox and nobody presented such evidence at the trial. So you can't. It would be a completely made up inference.

 

[Diocletus]

I saw "Yummi's" dopey post on pmf. He thinks Italy is going to file an "international arrest warrant" right after cassation rules.

Yeah, that doesn't work here.

 

[Machiavelli]

This simply is not true. The article 3 exclusionary rule prohibits the use for any purpose whatsoever of a statement obtained through inhuman/degrading treatment. It is not necessary to affirmatively file a complaint in order to make defensive use of this exclusionary rule.

Technically correct, it's not necessary in order to make a defensive use of it; but tends to be necessary in order to make such defensive use be effective.