Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

Griffinmill, Briars, Coulsdon, Machiavelli … where are they all? We are bereft without them and have to make do with platonov.

 

[Anode]

Griffinmill, Briars, Coulsdon, Machiavelli … where are they all? We are bereft without them and have to make do with platonov.

Or christianahannah. I always respected and enjoyed reading her posts. She (seemed to have) started out neutral and then began to tender some pro guilt arguments. That was really interesting to me. Now that the verdict is out, nothing? I would have liked to read her take on all of this.

 

[christianahannah]

Or christianahannah. I always respected and enjoyed reading her posts. She (seemed to have) started out neutral and then began to tender some pro guilt arguments. That was really interesting to me. Now that the verdict is out, nothing? I would have liked to read her take on all of this.

Hello all. I just logged in, lost my connection and had a time logging in again. Then I see this post from Anode, haha. I have not read here for 3+ weeks and know there is much to catch up on but unfortunately won't be able to do that for a time.

I have, of course, read about the acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele (though I didn't know of it until about a week later). I respect the court's decision, feel it was a wise one and look forward to reading the report when it is published. As with all the decisions (how many were there?) I don't play into conspiracies or corruption unless that is proven (and yes, this also applies to Stefanoni and Mignini). I think there were many different peoples who viewed the evidence and witnesses from their own perspective, the current law, witness reliability, evidence reliability, etc. and applied their decisions using that criteria.

As to what I believe I think that has to be in alliance with the most recent verdict. I ask too many questions always wanting to know more. Some will read into that questioning what they will.

I will ask of all here since I will have limited time to read back posts - What are the 3 main news stories or occurrences concerning the post-acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele (and if you have links that would be wonderful)? Eventually I will have time to reply back but that time isn't in the present.

 

[Grinder]

I think I finally get why Curatolo must be kept and to some extent Koko as well. When the only "evidence" that they weren't vanishes, then their main meme about "all the lies" rests almost entirely on "framing" the black man. They realize that the interrogation doesn't look so clearly a lie as it does at best as a way to end the questioning or at worst a form of police getting a false statement.

I would be pleased to see the ISC mention the timeline in their motivations. Wouldn't it be great if they really got it and tore apart the whole case: witnesses, dna/forensic work, fried computers etc.?

 

[Grinder]

I think I finally get why Curatolo must be kept and to some extent Koko as well. When the only "evidence" that they weren't vanishes, then their main meme about "all the lies" rests almost entirely on "framing" the black man. They realize that the interrogation doesn't look so clearly a lie as it does at best as a way to end the questioning or at worst a form of police getting a false statement.

I would be pleased to see the ISC mention the timeline in their motivations. Wouldn't it be great if they really got it and tore apart the whole case: witnesses, dna/forensic work, fried computers etc.?

 

[anglolawyer]

I think I finally get why Curatolo must be kept and to some extent Koko as well. When the only "evidence" that they weren't vanishes, then their main meme about "all the lies" rests almost entirely on "framing" the black man. They realize that the interrogation doesn't look so clearly a lie as it does at best as a way to end the questioning or at worst a form of police getting a false statement.

I would be pleased to see the ISC mention the timeline in their motivations. Wouldn't it be great if they really got it and tore apart the whole case: witnesses, dna/forensic work, fried computers etc.?

Aside from Kokomani, who is too much even for the most demented observer, it's tough for them to chuck out any of the evidence because with each discard goes a crumb, or a whole haunch, of the prosecutor's competence and integrity. Thus they are forever yoked to the wheel of all the other evidence. Or something.

 

[christianahannah]

I think I finally get why Curatolo must be kept and to some extent Koko as well. When the only "evidence" that they weren't vanishes, then their main meme about "all the lies" rests almost entirely on "framing" the black man. They realize that the interrogation doesn't look so clearly a lie as it does at best as a way to end the questioning or at worst a form of police getting a false statement.

I would be pleased to see the ISC mention the timeline in their motivations. Wouldn't it be great if they really got it and tore apart the whole case: witnesses, dna/forensic work, fried computers etc.?

Oh gosh. Grinder came back. But you must have been back by your post which seems to be a continuum of a prior subject.

Yes, I hope the ISC will be very clear on their reasons for the verdict and give analysis on most, if not all, the points/verdicts given given in prior courts decisions.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

drop-in alleles and the consensus model

delete duplicate

 

[acbytesla]

I think I finally get why Curatolo must be kept and to some extent Koko as well. When the only "evidence" that they weren't vanishes, then their main meme about "all the lies" rests almost entirely on "framing" the black man. They realize that the interrogation doesn't look so clearly a lie as it does at best as a way to end the questioning or at worst a form of police getting a false statement.

I would be pleased to see the ISC mention the timeline in their motivations. Wouldn't it be great if they really got it and tore apart the whole case: witnesses, dna/forensic work, fried computers etc.?

I'm not sure we should expect that. Not sure it would be politically wise, but it would be great. How this farce went on for 8 years is a mystery.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

drop-in alleles and the consensus model

The interpretation of DNA evidence (including low-template DNA)
Peter Gill, June Guiness and Simon Iveson

Here are some quotes that I hope clarify the reason why the consensus model was developed and also draw a distinction between drop-in and gross contamination.

"There are several causes of additional alleles.
a) Allele drop-in – a term to describe one or two 'foreign' alleles per DNA profile (Gill et al., 2000).
b) Gross-contamination – where a partial or complete DNA profile is obtained as a result of a laboratory contamination event.
c) Stutters – a small artefact peak in an allelic position."
SNIP
"The drop-in phenomenon is typically associated with low level DNA conditions. The environment is randomly 'contaminated' with fragmented DNA molecules. The drop-in phenomenon occurs when a fragmented DNA molecule contaminates a tube or other consumable that contains a sample extract. This typically results in the appearance of a single (or two) extra alleles that cannot be attributed to the known reference profile (Gill et al., 2000).
Drop-in is distinct from gross-contamination. The drop-in phenomenon is associated with random allelic events (the alleles are 'independent' of each other); whereas gross contamination refers to the transfer of a partial or full profile from a single person (these alleles are 'dependent'). Consequently, drop-in is routinely used to refer to the observation of just one or two extra alleles per profile."
SNIP
"The consensus interpretation method was adopted for the early 'LCN' casework as described by Gill et al. (Gill et al., 2000). Two (or more) replicate amplifications are simultaneously processed per extract. Only those alleles that are replicated, or observed at least twice, are reported with an assignation of evidential strength. Historically, the consensus model was introduced in order to take account of the drop-in phenomenon."

 

[Numbers]

I think I finally get why Curatolo must be kept and to some extent Koko as well. When the only "evidence" that they weren't vanishes, then their main meme about "all the lies" rests almost entirely on "framing" the black man. They realize that the interrogation doesn't look so clearly a lie as it does at best as a way to end the questioning or at worst a form of police getting a false statement.

I would be pleased to see the ISC mention the timeline in their motivations. Wouldn't it be great if they really got it and tore apart the whole case: witnesses, dna/forensic work, fried computers etc.?

I'm not sure we should expect that. Not sure it would be politically wise, but it would be great. How this farce went on for 8 years is a mystery.

I think the CSC in its motivation report will tear apart much of the "evidence" as unreliable or meaningless. Perhaps the CSC final MR will echo that of the Hellmann court. But what I believe will be important, beyond those aspects, is whether or not the CSC will acknowledge and condemn the violations of Italian law, Constitution, European Convention, and ECHR case-law that occurred. I suspect that they will avoid doing that, and certainly they will avoid explicitly criticizing the violations carried out in the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogations. Otherwise, they will be criticizing other judges, courts, and prosecutors in the Italian judicial system.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think the CSC in its motivation report will tear apart much of the "evidence" as unreliable or meaningless. Perhaps the CSC final MR will echo that of the Hellmann court. But what I believe will be important, beyond those aspects, is whether or not the CSC will acknowledge and condemn the violations of Italian law, Constitution, European Convention, and ECHR case-law that occurred. I suspect that they will avoid doing that, and certainly they will avoid explicitly criticizing the violations carried out in the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogations. Otherwise, they will be criticizing other judges, courts, and prosecutors in the Italian judicial system.

If I'm reading the tea-leaves right, Hellmann had to stop short of doing what you're saying the present Section 5 ISC MR needs to do.

How usual is it for a sitting judge, and a judge panel with popular-judges who have to return to their day jobs--how usual is it for them to tear into cops and prosecutors?

In our jurisdiction here, we've just had two cops convicted of perjury for lying to a court about the tasering death of someone at an airport! It's one thing for respected judges to do something like that - but would a Perugian (lay)popular judge REALLY want to piss off the local gendarmes?

 

[Bill Williams]

Aside from Kokomani, who is too much even for the most demented observer, it's tough for them to chuck out any of the evidence because with each discard goes a crumb, or a whole haunch, of the prosecutor's competence and integrity. Thus they are forever yoked to the wheel of all the other evidence. Or something.

"All the Other Evidence" should be capitalized, because of the usage of that term by the (former) guilters.

"All the Other Evidence" is supposed to be there when the main evidence collapses. DNA stuff, eyewitness stuff..... Quintavalle. There was a time when it was just a few dissenters (one of them Sfarzo) when their criticisms could be waved away with the title of that giant tome:

All the Other Evidence.

Except, when one opens the cover of the tome, all the pages are empty. Except for those crumbs squeezed between the pages left by previous readers who've been eating while reading.

 

[acbytesla]

I think the CSC in its motivation report will tear apart much of the "evidence" as unreliable or meaningless. Perhaps the CSC final MR will echo that of the Hellmann court. But what I believe will be important, beyond those aspects, is whether or not the CSC will acknowledge and condemn the violations of Italian law, Constitution, European Convention, and ECHR case-law that occurred. I suspect that they will avoid doing that, and certainly they will avoid explicitly criticizing the violations carried out in the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogations. Otherwise, they will be criticizing other judges, courts, and prosecutors in the Italian judicial system.

I never understood the process when the Supreme Court even before the first trial ruled that the interrogations and statements were not legal and yet the judge still allowed them into the trial by use of the civil suit. If I'm the court, I'm tossing aside both the civil suit and the calumny charge right then because if the interrogation are illegal, there is nothing to support either.

But hey, what do I know?

 

[Bill Williams]

Hello all. I just logged in, lost my connection and had a time logging in again. Then I see this post from Anode, haha. I have not read here for 3+ weeks and know there is much to catch up on but unfortunately won't be able to do that for a time.

I have, of course, read about the acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele (though I didn't know of it until about a week later). I respect the court's decision, feel it was a wise one and look forward to reading the report when it is published. As with all the decisions (how many were there?) I don't play into conspiracies or corruption unless that is proven (and yes, this also applies to Stefanoni and Mignini). I think there were many different peoples who viewed the evidence and witnesses from their own perspective, the current law, witness reliability, evidence reliability, etc. and applied their decisions using that criteria.

As to what I believe I think that has to be in alliance with the most recent verdict. I ask too many questions always wanting to know more. Some will read into that questioning what they will.

I will ask of all here since I will have limited time to read back posts - What are the 3 main news stories or occurrences concerning the post-acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele (and if you have links that would be wonderful)? Eventually I will have time to reply back but that time isn't in the present.

Frank Sfarzo was asked that question about the Italian press, post-exoneration. Sfarzo is saying that everyone now is "Perugia Shock," saying that innocence is obvious and always was.

 

[Bill Williams]

Griffinmill, Briars, Coulsdon, Machiavelli … where are they all? We are bereft without them and have to make do with platonov.

They know Grinder is back.

 

[Grinder]

Aside from Kokomani, who is too much even for the most demented observer, it's tough for them to chuck out any of the evidence because with each discard goes a crumb, or a whole haunch, of the prosecutor's competence and integrity. Thus they are forever yoked to the wheel of all the other evidence. Or something.

Au contraire, go to .net and read of the great Koko. We can't see .org unless a mole will repost. They are going on about him at the .net

Oh gosh. Grinder came back. But you must have been back by your post which seems to be a continuum of a prior subject.

Yes, I hope the ISC will be very clear on their reasons for the verdict and give analysis on most, if not all, the points/verdicts given given in prior courts decisions.

Good to see you too

 

[Magister]

Over on the .nut asylum one inmate has come up with a detailed time line from 1800 hrs to 0400 hrs on 1/2 Nov.
Beggars belief!

 

[acbytesla]

I stopped visit in the nutter sites a long long time ago. I prefer people capable of rational thought. Seriously, most of them are incapable of any logic that might prove that they are wrong about anything.

 

[Grinder]

I think the CSC in its motivation report will tear apart much of the "evidence" as unreliable or meaningless. Perhaps the CSC final MR will echo that of the Hellmann court. But what I believe will be important, beyond those aspects, is whether or not the CSC will acknowledge and condemn the violations of Italian law, Constitution, European Convention, and ECHR case-law that occurred. I suspect that they will avoid doing that, and certainly they will avoid explicitly criticizing the violations carried out in the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogations. Otherwise, they will be criticizing other judges, courts, and prosecutors in the Italian judicial system.

The interrogation was thrown out by the ISC IIRC but was inserted into the trial by the civil suit of Lumumba. Perhaps they could weigh in that. I would hope that they would do something about forensic standards in all aspects: collection, transportation and lab work.

Didn't the ISC criticize Hellmann's thinking?