Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

It's better than being a fantasist! Just curious, what ever happened to that passage you said was in Burleigh's book about Knox sobbing for two hours on Halloween night? The one no one else can find?

Just askin'.

Or Meredith's door that he said was removed before the collection of the bra clasp that can be clearly seen in photos and video.

 

[LondonJohn]

..... or the "fact" that Knox walked home alone? Machavelli was "owe" for "two" on those!

Or the "fact" that Kercher's bedroom door had been removed from the frame by the time of the December visit?

Striiiiiiiike threeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[LondonJohn]

Or Meredith's door that he said was removed before the collection of the bra clasp that can be clearly seen in photos and video.

Now you're just seeing what I've written and going back in time to write the same thing in advance

 

[acbytesla]

Now you're just seeing what I've written and going back in time to write the same thing in advance

NINJA'd Can you say Marty McFly?

 

[Machiavelli]

Long time lurker, first time poster (not even sure I posted back when this was JREF).

To touch on an older topic of discussion regarding luminol and whether or not confirmatory testing is needed:

-correct me if i'm wrong, but machiavelli was arguing luminol is better at determining blood because it's more sensitive than confirmatory tests (although much less specific)

-machiavelli was arguing luminol reactions in the knox case were proof of blood in instances where no confirmatory tests were done (or if they were done, results were not revealed). Maybe I misunderstood him but it seemed to me like he was arguing the luminol reaction alone was proof of blood, so again, correct me if I'm wrong.
(...)

I don’t know if you mean confirmatory tests only (antibody based) or if you include other presumptive tests such as TMB in your comment. If you include other presumptive tests, then we should point out that Luminol is not just “less specific” than other tests, it is actually more specific than TMB and “by far more sensitive” as for literature (that doesn’t mean TMB laboratory tests with a smaller sensitiveness gap don’texist, they exist but they are still less sensitive then luminol and even less specific than other TMB tests.) .
And above all, both TMB and confirmative tests are indirect tests (made on a sample, not on the stain).
I do think the luminol reaction “alone” is proof of blood, if by the word “alone” you mean as only finding detected chemical means. If you include all findings and all methods of assessment about the luminol footprints, then luminol is obviously not the only piece of information you have about the stain. It is the only one that is obtained through laboratory methods, the other findings are from other means of observation.

Welcome, Samzilla.

The situation in the Knox-Sollecito trial regarding luminol is basically this:

1. Six weeks after the initial forensic investigation and after they closed the crime scene and left it like this (the photos at left are how it was when the murder was discovered, the ones at right how it looked when they laid the luminol) the police didn't have any real evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and went back to the scene looking for some. They laid luminol in the hallway, Filomena's room and Amanda's room and did TMB tests which were negative.

2. Writing up her forensic report, the RTIGF, Patrizia Stefanoni included the luminol positives but omitted the TMB negatives.

3. When in court and asked about a luminol hit and whether they did any more tests she replied something to the effect of 'we only laid luminol there.'

This is absolutely false. It has been already shown that such narrative about Stefanoni’s statements is a lie, Kaosium only refuses to accept it.
The truth is Stefanoni declared immediately, on her first hearing (Oct. 2008) that “we tried several kinds of tests” on the luminol stains but because of “trials we did in our laboratories” she said "we know that those tests" on "latent stains" “most often yield a false negative”.
It is not true that said “we only laid luminol there” when asked about a trace, but (this was one of the subsequent instances) there was one moment when lawyer Maori (IIRC) using a laser pointer on a picture asked her if on a specific point (below the door) they “laid other chemical substances”.
Besides this, let’s not forget that defence expert prof. Potenza was assisting the testing session in the corridor on Dec. 17.

4. Late in the trial the prosecution was ordered to reveal documents they had not given the defense, in there were the results of the TMB tests on the luminol hits that were negative and they'd omitted from the RTIGF and lied about in court.

Let’s not forget that the prosecution answered “yes” to the defence request and offered to give the documents themselves.
Let’s also not forget that nobody among prosecution or Stefanoni was found having lied in court about such tests. Your statement above "they lied about in court" - one of the many, delusional innocentisti myths - is manifestly unfounded and false.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, I love Machiavelli's new position: if the echr finds a violation, then the Italian courts will get to define the relief (and they will deceitfully screw over Knox to uphold their Bella figura).

(...)

Why "new"?

 

[Machiavelli]

It's better than being a fantasist! Just curious, what ever happened to that passage you said was in Burleigh's book about Knox sobbing for two hours on Halloween night? The one no one else can find?

Just askin'.

You will be updated if and when I have updates. I don't have the book so I can't verify by now. And by now, what matters to the point is not the book passage, but the merits of facts indicating Knox's personality and feelings.

 

[Diocletus]

Why "new"?

Oh, because I sense that you've been reading up on the ECHR lately and now we have an ever so slight shifting in your position. Just the other day you acknowledged that the Art. 3 exclusionary rule could apply even in the absence of an abuse complaint filed by Knox. Now you acknowledge that the ECHR could force Italy to so "something" if there is an HR violation, but you are still being squirrely about what the "something" might be. I'll tell you what it is: it's restitutio integrum. It's not some dastardly trick that the HR-violating Italian Courts might play on her, as you seem to suggest.

 

[Dougm]

You will be updated if and when I have updates. I don't have the book so I can't verify by now. And by now, what matters to the point is not the book passage, but the merits of facts indicating Knox's personality and feelings.

I think you mean the facts as you have made them up to be.

You won't have updates. At least not accurate ones. The facts are that Amanda Knox, the actual person, is nothing like the fantasy person that you have described. And the evidence you use to try to prove your position is made up.

 

[acbytesla]

You will be updated if and when I have updates. I don't have the book so I can't verify by now. And by now, what matters to the point is not the book passage, but the merits of facts indicating Knox's personality and feelings.

Why? Because you say so? Or Mignini said so? Or Maresca said so? Or some Perugian police officers said so? You do know that making declarations based on your wild fantasies does not constitute proof of anything? RIGHT?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Which argument are they making, no errors or inconsequential errors

Bill_Williams quoted Ed McCall as saying that "Conti and Vecchiotti had two major criticisms of the bra clasp. The first was an abstract argument for unreliability based on a theoretical risk that was extrapolated from lapses in collection protocol that Conti and Vecchiotti had no evidence happened, but would like us to imagine the possibility that they did."

My question is whether ILE is saying that they did nothing wrong while collecting forensic data, or are they claiming that the errors that they made could not have led to, for example, Sollecito's putative profile on the clasp?

 

[Machiavelli]

An article 6 violation changes the trial outcome. Have you finally learned this today?

It's you and your innocentisti friends who apparently still need to learn.
That a violation of article 6 changes the outcome is just false.

That it may trigger a chain of events that ends with a chainging of outcome, is true, but ony in theory, because there is almost no instance of such an event.
Most violations of article 6 - basically all of them until now in Italy - do not trigger a chani of events that changes the outcome of a trail.

The "chain of events" triggered by art. 6 violations by now has usually ended leaving the basic trial findings unaltered.

For exampe Numbers seems engaged within a misinterpretaion of the Dorigo case. That was an important case on a constitutional level, it involved a judicial modification of the procedure code. It is also important because of the application of a directive provisional measure of releasing Paolo Dorigo from prison. Then, it entitled Dorigo to a new trial, because the first was "unfair".

The procedure code was changed by the Constitutional Court in order to do that. Before that, it was possible to order a trial review only in some cases, among them if new evidence (or a change of evidentiary setting) was such to lead to think that the outcome of the trial would be acquittal.
But the ECHR maintained that the principle of restitutio ad integrum suggested that the defendant should be allowed to have a new trial under fair rules, this in any event, independently on the possibilities to obtain an acquittal.

However this didn't change the outcome. Dorigo served al his sentence, was entitled to his trial review based on ECHR indications, and at the end of his new trial he was found guilty again (convicted in Bologna on 27. Jan 2014).

That an ECHR violation leads to an acquittal is an illusion. It sometimes leads to a new trial, which by now always lead to another conviction, this time under more fair rules.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think you mean the facts as you have made them up to be.

You won't have updates. At least not accurate ones. The facts are that Amanda Knox, the actual person, is nothing like the fantasy person that you have described. And the evidence you use to try to prove your position is made up.

No, it is not made up.

I'll tell you something: the passage from Burleigh's book is irrelevant to my conclusion.

If you don't find that passage, never mind. It doesn't change anything. As I said, there is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind.

 

[acbytesla]

Bill_Williams quoted Ed McCall as saying that "Conti and Vecchiotti had two major criticisms of the bra clasp. The first was an abstract argument for unreliability based on a theoretical risk that was extrapolated from lapses in collection protocol that Conti and Vecchiotti had no evidence happened, but would like us to imagine the possibility that they did."

My question is whether ILE is saying that they did nothing wrong while collecting forensic data, or are they claiming that the errors that they made could not have led to, for example, Sollecito's putative profile on the clasp?

I guess McCall never watched the video.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, it is not made up.

I'll tell you something: the passage from Burleigh's book is irrelevant to my conclusion.

If you don't find that passage, never mind. It doesn't change anything. As I said, there is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind.

 

[lonepinealex]

Oh Mach. Have you no pride?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh Mach. Have you no pride?

"The American infidels are not even within 100 miles of Baghdad!!"

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, because I sense that you've been reading up on the ECHR lately and now we have an ever so slight shifting in your position.

Absolutely not. My position is adamant and the same as before.

Just the other day you acknowledged that the Art. 3 exclusionary rule could apply even in the absence of an abuse complaint filed by Knox.

No, I did not argue exactly that. But when talking about the Knox case, I made clear that the ECHR will make no finding of merit about the alleged slapping of Knox nor draw inference from it. I also pointed out that a possible Knox's complaint about being slapping at the ECHR - if exists - wouldn't be effective also because contradicted by her own legal action.

Now you acknowledge that the ECHR could force Italy to so "something" if there is an HR violation, but you are still being squirrely about what the "something" might be.

I' not changing a iota. The problem here is that maybe you are beginning to understand only now a bit more what I think. But you are still very confused as for what things really mean, for example about what the restitutio ad integrum is.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

different fallacies have different refutations

I guess McCall never watched the video.

acbytesla,

Yes, indeed. My point is that one would rebut one argument by showing the video and listing out requirements to change gloves and use disposable tweezers. Rebutting the other argument would be done differently.

 

[Machiavelli]

"The American infidels are not even within 100 miles of Baghdad!!"

There is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind

The alleged meaning of "Burleigh passage" is only a straw man by which you attempt to attack me.


There is a huge number of reports and sources about Knox's personality, reports and sources of every kind. Knox was alone, was a narcissistic, everything is in plain sight.
You don't need to try desperately cherry pick one just in an attempt to pose as if you got something against Machiavelli. I know you are frustrated, but you don't need to always let it out in a so childish fashion.