Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
zotz said:
Are you saying that UK courts feel free to defy ECHR rulings? That's interesting!
Click to expand...

Lawyers being lawyers don't use the word "defy" in their pleadings. Instead, they present arguments suggesting alternatives.

For example, a bankrupt claims being thrown out of her home will disrupt her dyslexic daughter's A level exams. The lawyer for the trustee simply argues, there is no evidence this would be so, [bring in alternative suggestions].
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
So the echr doesn't count, is that what you think?

They have opened the envelope, and you can bet that if Knox's appeal was so easy to dispose of, then it would already have been dismissed along with thousands of other 2013 filings against Italy that have already been thrown out. Instead, it sits in a very small pile of 2013 applications that are still alive, most of which will result in some form of relief in favor of the petitioner.
Click to expand...

No, they haven't opened it or registered it with a case number.

Ergon checked.
 
Diocletus said:
Not sure if we've discussed this yet, but did anyone notice that the New York Supreme Court has just rejected the use, in a criminal trial, of both LCN (high sensitivity) DNA analysis and a program used to statistically analyze DNA mixtures?

The court held that under Frye, LCN testing and the mixture-analysis tool are not generally accepted in the scientific community for use in criminal prosecutions.

It's a very informative opinion if anyone cares to read: http://www.scribd.com/doc/272010270/People-v-Collins. Lots of familiar names involved, but unfortunately for the prosecutor, he forgot to call Patrizia Stefanoni as a witness.

Notably, the court rejected this evidence:
Click to expand...


More on People v. Collins. Check the comments--fascinating:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/07/23/just-say-no-forensics-edition/


Check this one:

Anyone who says adding more PCR cycles is not novel and therefore does not require new validation has little or no PCR experience. Companies call it the “dynamic range” in their products: how much you can dilute your samples (and increase cycle number) before the results start changing. This case hinged on relative abundance of signal and background, and I have seen over 100-fold changes in the final results when the abundance of the target drops enough to need 5 additional cycles.
Click to expand...

Stefanoni was definitely playing games with her amplification cycles, but we don't know the extent because she didn't produce the EDFs. Shame.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
As for me, it looks like it would be quite impossible to convince me they are innocent, given that there is evidence they are guilty.
Click to expand...

You have to invert Italian law to maintain your position. For instance, under Italian law, the prosecution must invite the defence to attend any test or demonstration which cannot be duplicated in court, when the results of that test are presented.

You invert this. Suddenly if the defence chose not to attend the actual demonstration, they (for you) have forfeited their right to even comment or cross-examine. You turn a right accruing to the defence into an obligation, if not taken advantage of forces the defence to concede the point.

It's a method you use over and over again. It is the halllmark of your minority opinion, and in my view will form the basis of why the 2015 ISC overturned the conviction - without the need to refer back to the 2nd grade court again. Your process is flawed, obviously flawed, and perverts protections for the defence. The protections are not obligations on the defence.
 
Kauffer said:
Oh dear. It gets worse. The Human Rights Act, which directly enshrines the jurisprudence of the ECHR within our legal system is supreme evidence that courts are not only not blind to it, but that they have an obligation to rule according to it.

Nobody ever claimed that the HRA or the convention provided an essential human rights defence to forfeiture when someone hasn't paid their debts. Under certain circumstances extenuating human rights considerations will have an influence, but this is a hugely complex area of the law.

Your silly argument seeks to imply that because the convention does not allow people to write off their debts, it has negligible influence on society.

It is not a sane or sensible position to take.
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about writing off debts. We were talking about a humane plea to allow to continue living in the family home.
 
Diocletus said:
Not sure if we've discussed this yet, but did anyone notice that the New York Supreme Court has just rejected the use, in a criminal trial, of both LCN (high sensitivity) DNA analysis and a program used to statistically analyze DNA mixtures?

The court held that under Frye, LCN testing and the mixture-analysis tool are not generally accepted in the scientific community for use in criminal prosecutions.

It's a very informative opinion if anyone cares to read: http://www.scribd.com/doc/272010270/People-v-Collins. Lots of familiar names involved, but unfortunately for the prosecutor, he forgot to call Patrizia Stefanoni as a witness.

Notably, the court rejected this evidence:
Click to expand...

"19.6 times more probable it was the defendant's and not the victim's or an unknown male" is a rubbish level of significance.

In Raff's case the probability was >3,000,000,000 / 1 against it not being Raff's, but one of his relatives. Trillions against it being any other person on the planet.
 
Vixen said:
No, they haven't opened it or registered it with a case number.
Ergon checked.
Click to expand...

Lol! You're having a very special day aren't you?

The application HAS been registered and it DOES have a case number.

Ergon, the autism cure hokus pokus merchant is not very reliable at the best of times, but even he knows what the case number is.
 
Vixen said:
No, they haven't opened it or registered it with a case number.

Ergon checked.
Click to expand...

Kauffer said:
Lol! You're having a very special day aren't you?

The application HAS been registered and it DOES have a case number.

Ergon, the autism cure hokus pokus merchant is not very reliable at the best of times, but even he knows what the case number is.
Click to expand...

LOL! Vixen is going for a record for the number of times one can misrepresent things in one day.
 
Vixen said:
We weren't talking about writing off debts. We were talking about a humane plea to allow to continue living in the family home.
Click to expand...

...which means the people concerned would have the benefit of the value of an asset while depriving others of that value. Only in exceptional circumstances.

Human Rights principles do not extend as far into this area as you seem to be trying to argue they should.

But, on the other hand, you've also been arguing that people under interrogation shouldn't get a lawyer!

I'm not entirely sure I'm with you. Free money should be a human right but a legal counsel should not, apparently.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
There is no "can of worms". The idea Stefanoni "fiddled" the DNA results is a fantasy. Does that mean the results for Rudy are also invalid? The sweater was also not collected until 18th December 2007. Rudy's DNA was found on the cuffs.

I guess that was due to corruption, and contamination from dirty gloves and DNA transfer from the door knob, too.
Click to expand...


Rudi's evidence was found before he was known. His palm print and DNA from MK and other places. If the only DNA of his was found in LCN quantity and 47 days later in a house he had been in several times, the DNA would be suspect.
 
Grinder said:
Rudi's evidence was found before he was known. His palm print and DNA from MK and other places. If the only DNA of his was found in LCN quantity and 47 days later in a house he had been in several times, the DNA would be suspect.
Click to expand...

They did find some of his DNA later. Fortunately it was not essential evidence in the case against him.

One of the problems of incompetent collection and testing of evidence is that genuinely guilty people go free when smart defence lawyers exploit failures of procedure.

In a sense, of course, Guede's lawyer was able to exploit the system with regard to the separate fast track trial and the absolute gift the prosecutor gave him by involving Amanda and Raffaele. He probably could not believe his good fortune. He actually did a helluva job for his client. They'd got him bang to rights on the evidence. In any other jurisdiction, he would have faced life in prison - in the UK it would have been a 25 - 30 year minimum. In the States, it would have been even more severe.
 
acbytesla said:
Machiavelli said:
As for me, it looks like it would be quite impossible to convince me they are innocent, given that there is evidence they are guilty.
Click to expand...

Delusional
Click to expand...

Actually he is admitting that no evidence will change his mind. I believe they are innocent but it is provision. Somebody could, at least in theory, change my mind.
 
Vixen said:
"19.6 times more probable it was the defendant's and not the victim's or an unknown male" is a rubbish level of significance.

In Raff's case the probability was >3,000,000,000 / 1 against it not being Raff's, but one of his relatives. Trillions against it being any other person on the planet.
Click to expand...

Well, that's if Raf's profile is as it was said to be. However, it was in a mixture AFAIR. So, the question is how to distinguish a profile that is Raf + 3 unknown guys from a profile that is more accurately described as 4 unknown guys.

This decision in NY says that you can't use some proprietary computer program to make that determination.

You also can't use LCN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom