Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[JREF2010]

Let's consider this osmotically for a moment.

Machiavelli claims he can diagnose narcissistic personality disorder simply by gazing into the eyes of a stranger across a courtroom.

Surely such a narcissistic person would let out one teeny tiny indication privately with Sollecito, her confederate. Surely a narcissistic person would risk ONE brag about how stupid the cops are, how she mocked them by returning to the scene of the crime with them.

But not once did this narcissist break team. This is Seal Team 6 dedication to the mission.!

Like Soviet/American competition for German rocket scientists after WWII, Italy should not be prosecuting Knox - they should be recruiting her!

Edgardo Giobbi said the same thing on film and he was one of the top ranking officers of the investigation. I could imagine the lunacy-flag is raised if they play the video of Edgardo Giobbi, in front of intelligent people.

Most would laugh at such medieval superstitious approaches to forensic work, but this is the environment this case was born of.

For many it would be hard to dumb-down that far to carry a conversation with him.

 

[Machiavelli]

With this kind of very concrete and biased thinking, we can dismiss anything else that you have written as being voiced through a cloud of prejudice.

It is impossible to judge that someone has narcissistic personality disorder, by noticing that their eyes look a bit evil in photos or some other similar nonsense! Narcissistic personality disorder is very rare and incredibly hard to diagnose - and will usually be diagnosed after a prolonged period and usually by a panel of experts - and will definitely not to be based on some second hand accounts of someone's behaviour in the aftermath of a traumatic event.

Again this is all just mud slinging, slut-shaming nonsense - and says far more about your views on the lives and modern freedoms of young women, than it does about the character of AK

You go on attempting to attach my "views" to "modern women" (a long the rhetoric notorious for being the one pushed by Nina Burleigh), but that's your own false rhetoric; in fact I only attach my judgment to Amanda Knox. My view has nothing to do with "women", neither with genders, nor with " modernity".

 

[Machiavelli]

Edgardo Giobbi said the same thing on film and he was one of the top ranking officers of the investigation. I could imagine the lunacy-flag is raised if they play the video of Edgardo Giobbi, in front of intelligent people.

Most would laugh at such medieval superstitious approaches to forensic work, but this is the environment this case was born of.

For many it would be hard to dumb-down that far to carry a conversation with him.

Actually Giobbi said he could detect the main suspects immediately based on their behaviour. Something all police detectives do. Simply any good detective observes the suspect's behaviour and draws assessments from it.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm guessing it is based on what you can see in her eyes, as no other evidence has been provided to suggest that AK has longstanding narcissistic traits to her personality. (...)

Your guess is incorrect.
I did not draw my assessment from Knox's eyes.
The fact that you call some witness reports "bitchy comments", on the other hand, is actually very telling to me about your own, profound prejudice.

 

[ericparoissien]

Planigale,

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I would hesitate to call dust a poor source. A 2008 study by Toothman et al. showed that there was enough DNA to generate called alleles. I briefly conversed with the senior author of this study in 2010 and found the interaction to helpful to my understanding of the subject.

So, DNA forensic science has managed to saw the branch it was sitting on; DNA analysis is useless now that we know that in the 1930s' dusty trunk in my attic I'll find your DNA, Chris.
In the same way that you guys here have raised the bar of reasonable doubt so high that American prisons will have to close. We live in a world of original innocence, and finally crime was always in the eye of the beholder "honis soit qui mal y pense". (How do you dare bleed you lady?!). I'm the twisted mind who sees guilt in two young persons who never managed to get one story straight.
-Eric, what did you do last night?
-We had a pizza, we went for a walk along the sea, then came back and watched Forever s01e16.
Story checkable, story checked, alibi verified, end of the story.

 

[Kauffer]

Actually Giobbi said he could detect the main suspects immediately based on their behaviour. Something all police detectives do. Simply any good detective observes the suspect's behaviour and draws assessments from it.

I'm delighted you finally agree they were suspects before the interrogations of the 5th/6th November!

Extraordinary news!

Now where were their lawyers?

 

[Diocletus]

Actually Giobbi said he could detect the main suspects immediately based on their behaviour. Something all police detectives do. Simply any good detective observes the suspect's behaviour and draws assessments from it.

That's all well and good, but the actual "good" detectives are the ones that collect objective evidence, apply it, and don't screw up.

 

[Machiavelli]

Or c) Amanda was a slightly loud and outgoing American and the insular English girls found her a bit irritating and thus were a bit catty and gossiped about her a little behind her back.

This sort of nonsense goes on in every school, university, workplace - and is evidence of absolutely no pathology

The English girls don't say Knox was "slightly loud and outgoing". They report different things, such as "posing" and "seeking to attract attention". And report severs other things; actually witnesses describe many specific factual circumstances.

You try to dodge the question and camouflage your dismissal of their testimonies. Above you imply they are biased and you believe their testimony is not objective and false, you chose "b" while you refuse to admit it.

In fact many witnesses and reports - even outside the trial - provide precise facts about Knox's character. You decide they are wrong and you try to rationalize them, twist them or deny and ignore them. Based on your (defensive?) prejudice.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm delighted you finally agree they were suspects before the interrogations of the 5th/6th November!

Extraordinary news!

Now where were their lawyers?

You can't be still stuck into so stupid arguments.

 

[Bill Williams]

The English girls don't say Knox was "slightly loud and outgoing". They report different things, such as "posing" and "seeking to attract attention". And report severs other things; actually witnesses describe many specific factual circumstances.

You try to dodge the question and camouflage your dismissal of their testimonies. Above you imply they are biased and you believe their testimony is not objective and false, you chose "b" while you refuse to admit it.

In fact many witnesses and reports - even outside the trial - provide precise facts about Knox's character. You decide they are wrong and you try to rationalize them, twist them or deny and ignore them. Based on your (defensive?) prejudice.

Camouflage the dismissal of their testimonies? For heaven's sake, what they are not doing is providing expert psychological analysis.

Why do you try to maintain they are? There is not a reputatble psychological analyst in the world who would draw the connections you draw.

Once again, all you're trying to do is vindicate a dirty old man, Mignini, for his open-court amateur-psychological ramblings that even Judge Massei rejected out of hand.

 

[Kauffer]

So, DNA forensic science has managed to saw the branch it was sitting on; DNA analysis is useless now that we know that in the 1930s' dusty trunk in my attic I'll find your DNA, Chris.
In the same way that you guys here have raised the bar of reasonable doubt so high that American prisons will have to close. We live in a world of original innocence, and finally crime was always in the eye of the beholder "honis soit qui mal y pense". (How do you dare bleed you lady?!). I'm the twisted mind who sees guilt in two young persons who never managed to get one story straight.
-Eric, what did you do last night?
-We had a pizza, we went for a walk along the sea, then came back and watched Forever s01e16.
Story checkable, story checked, alibi verified, end of the story.

I have some sympathy for you Eric - one of the revered contributors, apparently, at PMF. Then, you come here and within about 15 minutes yesterday, all of your opinions about DNA and how it relates to this case were shown to be wrong. The bar is set a little higher here and it seems you are utterly citation less.

However, I would like to thank you for the translation of the TV show audio in which Maresca asserted that Ms Kercher's DNA was found on the tip of the knife - that was priceless.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually Giobbi said he could detect the main suspects immediately based on their behaviour. Something all police detectives do. Simply any good detective observes the suspect's behaviour and draws assessments from it.

That's all well and good, but the actual "good" detectives are the ones that collect objective evidence, apply it, and don't screw up.

He said more than this, Machiavelli, and you know it. He said he **solved** the case on behavioural clues. And the case he solved involved Lumumba!

 

[Diocletus]

So, DNA forensic science has managed to saw the branch it was sitting on; DNA analysis is useless now that we know that in the 1930s' dusty trunk in my attic I'll find your DNA, Chris.
In the same way that you guys here have raised the bar of reasonable doubt so high that American prisons will have to close. We live in a world of original innocence, and finally crime was always in the eye of the beholder "honis soit qui mal y pense". (How do you dare bleed you lady?!). I'm the twisted mind who sees guilt in two young persons who never managed to get one story straight.
-Eric, what did you do last night?
-We had a pizza, we went for a walk along the sea, then came back and watched Forever s01e16.
Story checkable, story checked, alibi verified, end of the story.

My suggestion is that you take some time to read up on forensic DNA practices and limitations and come back to discuss after you have a basic understanding of the issues.

 

[Matthew Best]

I have some sympathy for you Eric - one of the revered contributors, apparently, at PMF. Then, you come here and within about 15 minutes yesterday, all of your opinions about DNA and how it relates to this case were shown to be wrong.

That tends to be what happens when you post in a walled garden where groupthink is demanded and any dissent from the party line is punished with banishment. You become more and more convinced that your views are correct because you've never been exposed to any arguments demolishing them. It must be a bit unnerving to come to a place where arguments are actually allowed and people are permitted, or even encouraged, to examine what you say critically.

I don't imagine we'll be seeing much more from eric, I'm afraid.

 

[Numbers]

Vogt says:

"The prosecutor general Wednesday is a veteran magistrate with extensive international experience. Both he and the president of the section of the court handling the case have links to Naples."

There must be a deep meaning in this, but what?

If Cassation upholds the conviction, they will then have to decide if they want to seek extradition. If they do, they will forward a request to the Italian Ministry of Justice, which is a gov't bureau as opposed to a function of the Italian court system. The Ministry of Justice would have to make the extradition request to the US State Dept.

Vogt is saying the right people are in place to make this happen.

The procedure to initiate an extradition to Italy is given in CPP Article 720 Request for extradition, para. 1:

1. The Minister of Justice shall have the competence to request of a foreign State the extradition of an accused or convicted person....the General Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal of the district in which the proceedings ... where the judgment of conviction has been delivered shall request the extradition to the Minister of Justice, forwarding him the necessary documents and documentary evidence.

No indication in CPP Art. 720 that the Prosecutor and Judge need to have links to Naples. And it is the MoJ who is expected to be the contact to foreign countries, not the Prosecutor.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dust and stars

So, DNA forensic science has managed to saw the branch it was sitting on; DNA analysis is useless now that we know that in the 1930s' dusty trunk in my attic I'll find your DNA, Chris.
In the same way that you guys here have raised the bar of reasonable doubt so high that American prisons will have to close. We live in a world of original innocence, and finally crime was always in the eye of the beholder "honis soit qui mal y pense". (How do you dare bleed you lady?!). I'm the twisted mind who sees guilt in two young persons who never managed to get one story straight.
-Eric, what did you do last night?
-We had a pizza, we went for a walk along the sea, then came back and watched Forever s01e16.
Story checkable, story checked, alibi verified, end of the story.

ericparoissien,

One, your comments are a nonsensical extrapolation of what I said. My point is that dust has obvious DNA (the largest peaks in the paper below were around 2500 RFU); instead of ignoring the issue, one should make the analysis conform to the problem at hand. In this case, we have a dusty room; therefore, substrate controls may help to sort things out. Again, read through Toothman et al. to get a better understanding, the abstract for which I provide here:

"Environmental samples from indoor surfaces can be confounded by dust, which is composed largely of human skin cells and has been documented to contain roughly tens of micrograms of total DNA per gram of dust. This study complements previous published work by providing estimates of the quantity of amplifiable human DNA found in environmental samples from a typical indoor environment, categorized by the intensity of human traffic and visible quantity of dust. Dust was collected by surface swabbing standard 576 cm(2) areas in eight locations, and evaluated for total DNA quantity, presence of human DNA (mitochondrial and nuclear loci using conventional PCR), quantity of human nuclear DNA using quantitative PCR, and STR analysis. The total DNA content of 36 dust samples ranged from 9 to 28 ng/cm(2), and contained 0.2-1.1 pg/cm(2) of human DNA. Overall, human DNA was detected in 97% of 36 dust samples and 61% of samples yielded allele distributions of varying degrees of complexity when subjected to STR analysis. The implications of this study are twofold. First, the presence of dust in evidence can be a significant contamination source in forensic investigations because the human DNA component is of sufficient quality and quantity to produce allele calls in STR analysis. This can be effectively managed by implementing stringent protocols for collection and analysis of potential biological samples. A second implication is the use of dust as a source of evidence for identification of inhabitants within a defined location. In the latter case, a number of additional studies would be necessary to identify relevant pretreatments for environmental dust samples and to develop the necessary deconvolution techniques to separate the composite genotypes obtained."

Two, your ideas about the frequency of contamination (although expressed almost poetically) were shown to be risibly wrong, through the use of multiple citations. Likewise your comment "DNA is left on exceptional moments..." was shown to be completely unfounded and wrongheaded. Given that many of us patiently provided citations to educate you about these issues, how do you respond now that you have read through them?

Three, the clasp should have been collected on 2 November; it should have been collected with disposable tweezers, and it should have been stored in a way that did not promote its degradation. Or do you disagree?

 

[Numbers]

So, DNA forensic science has managed to saw the branch it was sitting on; DNA analysis is useless now that we know that in the 1930s' dusty trunk in my attic I'll find your DNA, Chris.
In the same way that you guys here have raised the bar of reasonable doubt so high that American prisons will have to close. We live in a world of original innocence, and finally crime was always in the eye of the beholder "honis soit qui mal y pense". (How do you dare bleed you lady?!). I'm the twisted mind who sees guilt in two young persons who never managed to get one story straight.
-Eric, what did you do last night?
-We had a pizza, we went for a walk along the sea, then came back and watched Forever s01e16.
Story checkable, story checked, alibi verified, end of the story.

Your statements lack any forensic science citations and merely display your opinions about DNA forensics. These opinions appear to be uninformed by any reference to the scientific literature on DNA forensics. If you are relying on your own expertise in this area based on your personally conducted experimentation, please list your own publications in the area of DNA forensics.

 

[Kauffer]

Actually Giobbi said he could detect the main suspects immediately based on their behaviour. Something all police detectives do. Simply any good detective observes the suspect's behaviour and draws assessments from it.

I'm delighted you finally agree they were suspects before the interrogations of the 5th/6th November!

Extraordinary news!

Now where were their lawyers?

You can't be still stuck into so stupid arguments.

Oh really?

Giobbi confirms in testimony:

"I arrived [in Perugia] in the late afternoon of 2 November"

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...timony_(English)#Edgardo_Giobbi.27s_Testimony

As you say, he "immediately" identified that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were to be considered suspects.

He says later in interview:

"This has been an investigation of a purely psychological nature. We were able to establish guilt by carefully observing the suspects' psychological and behavioural reactions during the interrogations (started on November 2nd). We didn't need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method enabled us to get to the guilty parties in very quick time"
http://youtu.be/sWkZPWRS3N0

Of course, he is wrong isn't he? His intuition didn't let him know about Guede. He had to wait until the real physical evidence emerged before Guede could be identified.

So, why is my argument stupid? You have confirmed from your reading of Giobbi, like everyone else, that they were immediately identified as suspects.

The moment that identification is made is the moment they get a lawyer.

Tell me why that isn't so.

 

[Machiavelli]

Camouflage the dismissal of their testimonies? For heaven's sake, what they are not doing is providing expert psychological analysis.

Why do you try to maintain they are? There is not a reputatble psychological analyst in the world who would draw the connections you draw.

They are witnesses reporting facts and experiences. Do you understand the concept of witness?

Once again, all you're trying to do is vindicate a dirty old man, Mignini, for his open-court amateur-psychological ramblings that even Judge Massei rejected out of hand.

You can‘t help making up what Massei never said. And it appears you don't even understand that my psychological interpretation does not exactly coincide with Mignini‘s. Who anywyay has the right to make his own amateurish considerations.

 

[ericparoissien]

I don't imagine we'll be seeing much more from eric, I'm afraid.

It's because of your habit, guys, here to pack and unison your opinions.
In fact two strategies i have noticed here on months of reading:
1-Packing, one single voice, one single opinion, and months reading you all, you all look one same person to me. (using a voice changer for multiple pranks).
Look at the last 3 pages all posts starts with "Machiavelli", you are ALL ONE person answering to Machivelli, one beast with many mouths (must be a chore to feed).
2-Sniping strategy, you hide behind false names and go hunt for personal intel on people you disagree to get at them in a personal way, under the belt from a hidden rooftop.
…
lol, thinking of it, maybe they are your real names, real funny names, i didn't take the time to check.
In the meantime i have one blob with many vociferating mouths, coming at me or going on Platonov or Machiavelli, and my feeling is, if i ever become disrespectful with you or engage the personal run-in you seem to be seeking, I'll have some of it all over me.
So "ye'all" will always see me polite and civil here.
So yes Matthew (y'all), I'm here.
((LOVE)) (and hugs --metaphorically)